this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
767 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
71885 readers
4619 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Gates retired? And I have no idea if Torvalds is still active.
But historical photo aside, isn't this meeting a bunch of nothing?
Torvalds is still very active on the Linux kernel. As far as I know, he's in charge of it and makes major decisions about its direction.
Bill Gates retired from Microsoft in 2008.
Gates is still very active in his charity organization
"charity"
Making money/influence. It's such a scam his "Bill and Melinda Charity" (no taxes on charities).
Name one bad historical person that didn't do at least some good.
Your moral compass is broken.
The charity did more than some good though.
Also, name one good historical person that didn't do at least some bad.
It is almost like things aren't black and white but more like Yin and Yang.
That's not how it works, it's not like "I do some good, now I can do some bad". It does not even out.
Bad people doesn't become good because "some good things came out of it".
If you do bad, then you are bad.
I answered Honytawk 🤷🏼♀️?
You seems to be up in arms defending a shitty billionaire and his shitty charity, repeating over and over again that they did "some good", what kind of argument even is that? Dictators do "some good" too you know.
Their pr firm seems to function very well at least.
Guess you're going to whitewash bezos, musk and zuckerberg next?
Edit: lot of free work done for the magnificent mr Gates and his tax avoiding fundation. Do you think you'll get some crumbles from the rich mans table?
It capitalized Wash because spell checker is the leaf on the wind.
Every dictator did "some good work", are you thinking they are good people?
IMO your moral compass need maintenance.
I don't think you realise the bad things he did (and still does, like patenting everything he 'funds' in research) versus the "some good" things coming out of it, that's about it I think. That's why your comments make me feel like you excuse an execrable people "just because 'some good' came out of it.
BTW I had to scroll throug the whole original post, Connect (the lemmy soft) lost your answers, so if you answer to this I might not be able to respond.
the ends don't justify the means.
Hitler experimented on hundreds of thousands of Jews and the medical world benefited from it greatly.
does that mean you're going to nuance the Nazi regime because they "did some good"?
no amount of good is worth the ounce of evil used to make it.
edit: if the ends justify the means, where do you draw the line? how many lives must suffer in order for the goal to be achieved? 1 life? 10? 1 million?
and to those of you claiming Godwin's law, I used it as an example. I don't think Bill Gates is Hitler, I never even said anything like that. we could easily use the Tuskegee Airmen and the US Department of Health. How many of those families had to suffer to make the ends justified in your opinion.
IMO none. there is no amount of loss of life that is acceptance for any means. life is precious and unique and deserves to be protected.
edit 2: I didn't realize humanity sold out their morals and ethics for the "greater good". my mistake thinking we were better than that. sorry.
I hate billionaires as much as the next gal, but I think comparing Bill Gates to Hitler is a bit extreme
Welcome to Lemmy, heh.
I didn't compare them, but in your mind you understood it that way.
I used Hitler as an example, an extreme one, but still an example of "the ends justify the means".
could have use any number of examples, but I went with one I thought everyone could relate to. clearly I miscalculated the selfishness of modern day philosophies.
seems like a justification to me dude. you're literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads "has done some good work".
I don't know if you're actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being "nuanced" is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the "ends justify the means".
it's a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.
the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.
so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?
I don't understand why you don't see the obvious correlation between the two so I'll over simplify it.
bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.
you sit and justify his actions by arguing he's doing good things. I question if he's doing good things just to do them or if they're a byproduct of him "cleansing" his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?
You're being obtuse. The nuance here is that Bill Gates being.a bad person and his charity org having done some good in the world are facts that are not necessarily dependent or correlated with each other. That's all. The fact that Gates might be using his org to prop his image is also a consequence of his character, and doesn't take away from the good the charity has done. Or would you rather the charity didn't exist at all just so your thirst for consistency would be appeased, all the while people would be dying?
Forget it, they're out there thinking they'll be the next one to "benefit" some million dollars from the billionaire table
Lol no. Of all the sleazy and greasy millionaires, Gates is one of the few whose actions speaks for themselves. Dude has been doing noble causes for most of my life.
I'm all for talking shit about the rich, but it better be true.
His pr firm really works well.
Check out when elon ditched his pr firm. He went frm that loved lil crazy fun type to what he really is.
Sure, and where is your proof that Bill needs one, let alone uses one?
And don't come with a list of actions the majority of people don't care about.
Let me google that for you.
It's like asking for proof there is sand in the desert
What type of taxes are you talking about?
Search the web for “polio”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Polio_Eradication_Initiative
Google en passant.
It's still giving money away though? Why would you want there to be taxes on charity?
It's more nuanced though. Here's how rich people use charities to gain wealth:
Rich person has tons of money that would be taxed if bill Y passes. Rich person creates a charity and donated 20% of what they would had to pay to the IRS to the charity, with that money the charity uses half for good causes and half is given to X lobby company, which then lobbies politicians to avoid passing that bill.
In the end, the rich person saved 80% of what they would had to pay.
Yeah, 10% went to good causes but imagine what the society could afford if 100% went through instead of 0.
This is a very rough outline of how they do it, but the summary is that they use charities to donate to lobbies while skipping taxes on the donation itself.
It's the US, so more weapons I presume.
That's the sentiment that allows these rich fucks to avoid paying taxes without big backlash. First focus on collecting, then on spending...
The point here is that in many jurisdictions doing charity exempts you from certain taxes, and it is possible to shuffle money around under the disguise of philanthropy while still getting all the financial benefits like an actual charity
Well that's disgusting, ain't it. 🫤
Amen
Because they are tax avoidance mechanism first and charity seconds.
Money is a brokering system of power, charitues being tax free makes these entities unaccountable to democratic institurions.
That's how we ended up with this infection of corrupt megachurches.
The "prosperity gospel" is billionaire-serving propaganda. It empowers their formation, growth and necessary abuses that come from such widespread exploitation.
Gotcha. That sounds very bad indeed.
Giving away money? You sweet summer child.
Research don't want "his" (the foundations) money, it comes with so many strings attached all your lives work now belongs to the B&M foundation.
Alright dude, I don't know much about the foundation, sorry. 🤷♂️