which ones do you think I missed?

image transcription:

big collage of people captioned, “the only people I wouldn’t have minded being billionaires”
names(and a bit of info, which is not included in the collage) of people in collage(from top left, row-wise):

  • Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub. perhaps the single-most important person in the scientific community regarding access to research papers.
  • Linus Torvalds, creator of linux kernel and git, courtesy of which we have GNU/Linux.
  • David Revoy, french artist famous for his pepper&carrot, a libre webcomic. inspiration for artists who are into free software movement
  • Richard Stallman, arch-hacker who started it all. founded the GNU project, free software movement, Emacs, GCC, GPL, concept of copyleft, among many other things. champions for free software to this day(is undergoing treatment for cancer at the moment).
  • Jean-Baptiste Kempf, president of VLC media player for 2 decades now
  • Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.
  • Alexis Kauffmann, creator of framasoft, a French nonprofit organisation that champions free software. known for providing alternatives to centralised services, notable one being framapad and peertube.
  • Aaron Swartz, a brilliant programmer who created RSS, markdown, creative commons, and is known for his involvement in creation of reddit. he also died too soon.
  • Bram Moolenaar, creator of vim, a charityware.

on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”

Omega_Jimes,

I have a standing theory that once a person is no longer concerned about their welfare or the welfare of their descendants, they go crazy.

Like, once you reach a point where survival is no longer a problem, that part of your brain goes nuts. It’s not a flawless theory, since philanthropy is a thing and people like Dean Kamen exist, but it’s a thing that seems to happen an awful lot.

EmergMemeHologram, (edited )

I think it’s more that billionaires have very few people to surround themselves with except for sycophants and other billionaires.

Nobody says no to them, everything they’ve ever done was the right thing according to everyone around them, so why should the next thing they do or say be wrong?

Covid really really accelerated the craziness among them.

Sagifurius,

Survival no longer is a problem to literally everyone in north america. yeah people die, but, when was the last time you have heard of anyone who is not anorexic starving to death? People still talk like survival is an issue, but that’s because they actually mean not being comfortable.

planetaryprotection,

This is simply not true. Starvation isn’t the only thing that kills people - they die of easily treatable medical issues all the time because of lack of health insurance. Unhoused people die of exposure every summer and winter.

Sagifurius,

I mean i tried to make it painfully obvious I wasn’t talking about medical conditions, car accidents, or crackheads being stupid, but i guess i had to come back and spell it out.

SpongyAneurism,

You’re missing the point. The risk might not be very high on average, but if you don’t want to end up on the streets, regular people still have to kind of function inside the system somehow and continuously work for regular income. The will to survive is part of what drives them to do so.

Billionaires on the other hand, wouldn’t even have to lift a finger to be able to live comfortably for the rest of their lives. On the contrary, they’d have to try really hard to get rid of all that wealth. Major fuck-ps and intentional money burning excluded, the chance that they end up having trouble getting their basic needs fulfilled is miniscule. THAT is the difference.

Sagifurius, (edited )

and there it is. I feel so sorry for you.

semnosao,

you are the stupidiest person I’ve met in this site. Congratulations.

TacoNissan,

You know, you’re a real piece of work.

outcide,
@outcide@lemmy.world avatar

I’ve worked for several very, very rich men. The pattern I notice is that they always get surrounded by people who make sure that they never, ever hear “no”.

Imagine living in a world where every inane thing that comes out of your mouth, somebody immediately makes it their mission to try and make it happen. You no longer get any kind of useful feedback from the world and your opportunities to learn from feedback are greatly reduced.

I agree, I think in the end, it does make them crazy.

Cralder,

It’s nice to appreciate people who do good things, but keep in mind that the only way people become billionaires is by exploiting people. So I would not want any of these people to be billionaires because it would mean they got that wealth not by doing good things, but by owning ridiculous amounts of capital and exploiting people.

Rant over, sorry.

ricecake,

I could see someone making something useful and selling it to billions of people at a fair price not being exploitative and also being a billionaire.

I think it’s rare to the point of maybe happening once ever, but I’m not super upset about the behavior of the guy currently bankrolling the signal foundation.

Cethin,

The problem is if you aren’t exploitative then you aren’t being as “efficient” (in a capitalist sense) so you’ll be out-competed. The system is designed to incentivize exploitation. It’s mis-aligned to do anything else.

ricecake,

Oh, the system is totally pushing everyone to try to be the worst person possible.
However, they might not actually be out competed if they’re not being as exploitative as possible. If they’re not charging as much as the market will tolerate they’re being inefficient but in the way costs profit but attracts consumers.
I literally only have one billionaire who might not be a problem, but that’s what they did. $1 for a year of access sold to a few billion people, with something like 50 employees.

It’s why the billionaires who shaft consumers and their workers are so gross. Reducing profit margins doesn’t impact efficiency, it only impacts money in their already overstuffed pockets.

maryjayjay, (edited )

Paul McCartney is a billionaire. What people did he exploit?

I think Taylor Swift is now worth a billion dollars, despite being the exploited

folkrav, (edited )

Let’s reformulate. No single individual gets to a billion dollars of net worth without someone getting fucked over in the process. The very concept of any one individual having a net worth of hundreds of times the one of the next 99.9% is fucking absurd, regardless of what they did. Nobody “deserves” multiple lifetimes worth of wealth while half of the world’s population is living with dollars a day. It would take collectively for this world’s billlionaires, the equivalent of us foregoing buying a gaming PC (in relative terms) to get rid of world hunger, yet they choose not to. So, yes, they are actively fucking people over by having so much wealth in the first place.

maryjayjay,

How much money should someone be allowed to have?

RegalPotoo,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

Simply by having a billion dollars means they have decided to hoard that wealth. They could give away 90% of it, leaving them with $100 million, it wouldn’t impact their quality of life in any way, and still leave them with more wealth than 99.9% of the planet. Imagine the good that $900 million could do if it was put to good use rather than sitting in a bank account as a status symbol - having the capability to do that good with no impact on yourself or your family and choosing not to makes you an immoral person.

Billionaires shouldn’t exist. At all.

lauha,

While I agree with your sentiment, the truth is, none of those billionaires have their billions sitting on their bank account, like I have my couple hundred dollars.

hersh,

I doubt any billionaires have that much money “sitting in a bank”.

Most wealth is non-liquid. For example, if you found a company that becomes massive, and you maintain a controlling share, then you could be a billionaire on paper while having no real money to spend – the only way to turn that into “real” money would be to sell shares in the company, and thus lose control of it. If the company is doing good work, it could be better to retain control and act through the company, by ensuring that it pays employees good wages to do good work for the benefit of society. This is not completely incompatible with profit in theory, though in practice…yeah. I’m not sure if there are any such billionaires in the world today.

The real problem is more fundamental to the economy, in that it fairly consistently rewards bad behavior.

Larry Page basically became a billionaire overnight when Google went public. I don’t recall Page or Google doing anything especially evil or exploitative before that, though their success was certainly built in an unsustainable economic bubble.

If Amazon didn’t treat its employees like shit and poison the entire economy, then Bezos could probably still be a billionaire and I wouldn’t necessarily hold that against him.

Steve,

“Have” vs “control”

maryjayjay,

How much money should a person be allowed to have?

lolcatnip,

A lot less than a billion. The exact amount is negotiable.

RegalPotoo,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t know, but there probably should be a line somewhere. More wealth than 99.9% of the rest of the planet sounds like a good place to start

HauntedCupcake,

10 Million. Rising in pace with minimum wage

SpongyAneurism,

McCartney and Swift ‘exploit’ tons of people as well. They might flagship their music artist operation themselves and kind of ‘be’ the product (or rather the brand), but there are lots and lots of people involved to make tours and shows possible, recording, production and especially distribution of music and merch involves labour as well.

In addition to that: I don’t think they store all that money on a nice little heap in their backyard. It usually gets invested into some sorts of corporations, be it through the stock market, where it will accrue revenue, that comes as the result of more exploitation.

That being said: the term ‘exploitation’ carries a much more negative connotation than would be beneficial for the conversation. It’s concept of marxist economics, and the term ‘Ausbeutung’ = exploitation was used by Marx himself to describe how capitalists benefit from the surplus that workers produce. I like the term ‘reaping the surplus’ better because it doesn’t carry as much of a negative connotation. The criticism of capitalism shouldn’t barely rely on the fact that surplus is being taken away from the workers, but from the consequences to society and the political system that inevitably follow when that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a minority.

Sagifurius,

Ok, so who did Taylor Swift exploit? She literally is just a singer and the whole thing is odd, but it’s more she’s a billionaire because the currency is worthless.

dominiquec,
@dominiquec@lemmy.world avatar

Her ex-boyfriends.

Sagifurius,

oh no. they had to fuck taylor swift. boo fucking hoo

demonsword,
@demonsword@lemmy.world avatar

her little private jet already put out more CO^2 this year alone than everyone on lemmy combined

billionaires are shitty people, period.

s0phia,
@s0phia@lemmy.world avatar

She didn’t (maybe). Record labels did.

Zangoose,
@Zangoose@lemmy.world avatar

I choose to see this question as “If you could magically just make someone a billionaire, who deserves it,” or more specifically “who would actually do good things with the money if they had a billion dollars.”

As you said, the reason these people aren’t billionaires already is because they haven’t been exploiting others. That being said, there are likely a few people that would use the money to better support a lot of great causes, like the Free Software Foundation, medical research, or climate change action

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

it’s alright mate. your rant helped me see things in a different light. so thank you.

yesman,

Well said. Thinking billionaires are assholes because they’re naturally shitty is like thinking they got rich by being naturally hard working.

Take landlords for example. You can be the nicest person in the world. The kind of person who makes friends with the tenant. What do you think happens to you after you’ve evicted a few of your friends?

Systems are a bitch.

Nacktmull,
@Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

Nope, there should not be any! Fuck capitalism!

Potatos_are_not_friends,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7bcc4f82-2519-4bf6-9e9d-1414de79092e.jpeg

4lan, (edited )

right, Swartz totally cared about no one else…

go suck on Musk’s toes or something

Potatos_are_not_friends,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d7bd0bc7-7e6c-438e-baa9-0edb191abb5c.jpeg

4lan,

You’ve completely changed my mind

blackn1ght,

None of them. I don’t care who they are, nobody should be a billionaire.

chumbalumber,

The point is, I think, if they were to become billionaires (say Bll Gtes leaves it to them in his will), then they wouldn’t be billionaires for long – their moral compasses (given they’ve spent their lives on non-profit causes) dictate that they’d likely put the money into other non-profit ventures.

d00phy,

Thats a fair point, but money changes people. That kind of money is obscene because it effectively puts you above most laws. I, too, would like to believe that the folks on this list would do only good with the money; but the longer the list, the more likely you witness the “Bad Change!” At the end of the day, most folks have families and other concerns outside of their public pursuits. That kind of money, while bringing its own problems, can get rid of just about any “normal people” worries (obviously not something like inoperable cancer)!

Altofaltception,

I would use [it] from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine

  • Gandalf, to Frodo, saying why he should not be given the one ring.
nitefox,

I thought the same exact thing lol

kadu,
@kadu@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    nixcamic,

    IMO RMS already has the attitude of a billionaire. He’s a thoroughly weird man who says stuff he really shouldn’t then stands by it. He’s right about a lot of things when it comes to software, licensing, and open source in general but outside of that track he’s more than a little loopy.

    I think it might be because he’s had to fight society so long for things he knew he was right about that now he doesn’t know how to have people tell him “no Richard, that’s ducked up”.

    Anyhow, I don’t think him being a billionaire would be a good idea, him having enough funds to branch off into doing wherever strikes his fancy could be very bad.

    And Linus, I love Linus but look at how he’s grown as a person and listened and changed how he interacts with other kernel developers. Would he still have been as receptive if he was a billionaire? Something tells me no.

    rodolfo,

    wha?

    lemmesay, (edited )
    @lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    you can read everything in great detail and with citations here if you have the bandwidth.

    but I’m not sure if the commenter is mixing two unrelated accusations towards him.

    stallman is known for his fixation on certain choice of words, which is the reason most people get him wrong. that’s why I shared the link to read his exact words and make up your mind by yourself.

    rodolfo,

    the man sure doesn’t know how the read the room… and when to shut up.

    lolcatnip,

    He did not. Go find his exact words if you don’t believe me.

    WldFyre,

    Why don’t you link his exact words, then?

    TheGrandNagus, (edited )

    Since the other person hasn’t (surprise), here’s Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    WldFyre,

    Yeah I’m not surprised either haha

    Thanks for the quotes, what an appalling man smh

    TheGrandNagus,

    Yeah. He had/has some great ideas when it comes to free software, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t a POS in other parts of his life.

    I’m tired of the Linux world literally worshipping him. It’s weird. Hilariously it’s no doubt the same people who would cringe at the cultish following of Steve Jobs. Another person with some good ideas but was an awful person.

    TheGrandNagus,

    Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    lemmesay,
    @lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I understand your point, but those weren’t the words he said. though I don’t think that’s going to make a difference.

    I like RMS for what he did(and is doing) for the free software community. I can also talk about some uncanny things about Gandhi, but that doesn’t make his contribution to the independence movement and his views on nonviolence any less relevant.

    to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.

    natecox,
    @natecox@programming.dev avatar

    People should indeed be seen in their entirety, the failure of this is why so many people get upset about Stallman.

    The guy is routinely portrayed as a bastion of righteous good will, championing the little guy against the evil corporations. The hero worship is real.

    Some of us see Stallman as a misogynistic asshole who routinely belittles people on mailing lists when they don’t agree with him and publicly defends people who sexually abuse children.

    For some of us, it feels like we need to go out of our way to point this out because we don’t want a guy like that as the public face of something we care about.

    rodolfo, (edited )

    what did it he say about women that makes him a misogynist?

    Edit ok found this

    www.arp242.net/rms.html

    a pretty much reasonable, reasoned and merciless account on the figure of rms. I very largely agree with it - spoiler he isn’t a misogynist, just a super massive weirdo

    ReCursing,
    @ReCursing@kbin.social avatar

    just a super massive weirdo

    I once heard him described as "The smartest man to ever throw a tantrum like a 4 year old"

    rodolfo,

    this thread is terrible… people reporting "I heard of"s as proofs. eh once I read, eeeh once someone told… once sjws bite, there’s no chance they let go. and the most important thing is that 99.999999% of the people bad mouthing rms have at best fifth hand reports about him.

    to all the superior etichs white knights: I’m not defending rms.

    I’m very worried about the lynching, with proof based on I once read, i heard of, and also straight out of jealousy and envy.

    rms, like suggested in the article I posted, could very well be a neuro divergent person. I wonder how many of all of these rabid dogs biting at him preach themselves as super supportive, super inclusive, 360° hexa-dimensional full rainbow, but then aren’t able to understand the person they have in front of them. let’s start by ruining someone. there’s always time to say “I was wrong, I’d like to apologize. At the time I didn’t know. I vow to be a better person.”

    ReCursing,
    @ReCursing@kbin.social avatar

    Wrong person to post this in response to, dude

    rodolfo,

    why, i thought you’d agree

    ReCursing,
    @ReCursing@kbin.social avatar

    Your comment came across as attacking me, and also as a little bit crazed. That said I completely agree with your last sentence, being able to admit you are wrong is a very important skill and one many people could do with learning (I try, I don;t always succeed but I try)

    lemmesay,
    @lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I agree with your point in spirit, but again, he didn’t say any such thing. I haven’t talked to him in person, so, I can only rely on internet to validate/refute those claims.

    he is the public face of free software because others have their own terminologies(e.g.: open source championed by bruce perens and eric raymond), with which the GNU project disagrees.

    natecox,
    @natecox@programming.dev avatar

    Here you go, someone has done me the service of clearly laying out the case against Stallman here so that I don’t need to l: drewdevault.com/…/2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.html

    kadu,
    @kadu@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    lolcatnip,

    Which he did not do.

    TheGrandNagus,

    Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    Mubelotix,
    @Mubelotix@jlai.lu avatar

    Honestly I cannot see any way one could interpret his words like that

    TheGrandNagus, (edited )

    Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    TheBat,
    @TheBat@lemmy.world avatar

    Aaron Schwartz too

    web.archive.org/web/…/bits.are.notabug.com/

    I fight laws that restrict what bits I can put on my website.

    Unlike humans, computers see everything as bits (numbers). They can’t tell the difference between the random movement of a lava lamp and a copyrighted song. I believe that our technology should similarly make no distinction and that I have the right to transmit arbitrary bits.

    Here’s a list of laws that restrict this right, in order from least controvertial (i.e. most people agree this freedom shouldn’t be restricted) to most.

    …

    …

    …

    In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.

    This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.

    whostosay,

    Is it pronounced git or jit?

    ExfilBravo,

    I think it’s git as in “Go on now! Git!”

    whostosay,

    Lol I always say something similar in my head. What do I need to do to obtain this program? I jus’ need’a go’on n’ git it.

    dojan,
    @dojan@lemmy.world avatar

    You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.

    Rozauhtuno,
    @Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire

    And to STAY a billionaire. If you have immense power to do good, and every single morning you wake and choose not to, you are an evil ghoul driven by greed, period.

    AllonzeeLV, (edited )

    I love how so many of them demand love and acclaim for claiming they will give their money away… when they die.

    You want me to sing your praises because you won’t use the money you made exploiting countless laborers and lobbying government to benefit yourself above society to anoint a handful of nepo babies to wield that power after you as some part of a new nepo dynasty? Gee thanks?

    Its like a serial killer promising not to train his children in the family business. Its not doing good, just doing slightly less bad. Except billionaires cause damage on a far greater scale.

    woelkchen,
    @woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

    You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.

    Jeffrey Epstein supporter and pedophile Richard Stallman would qualify then?

    dojan,
    @dojan@lemmy.world avatar

    If he’s willing to trample all over people, exploit them, and have them die for his sake, then absolutely.

    Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human. To them workers are robots, a statistical means to an end. Who cares if someone dies in some factory/warehouse somewhere? There’ll be another to replace them before the end of the day.

    A billionaire gladly takes the effort of others and claims it as their own. They go out of their way to do it.

    That’s not to say that every evil person acting like this will automatically become a billionaire, but you need to be OK with doing these things in order to get there. A billion USD is such an insane sum you cannot legitimately accumulate that without hurting people in the process. Like there’s no logical way of actually earning that amount of money. That’s money you take.

    woelkchen,
    @woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

    Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human.

    Whereas peophiles and forces sex labor apologists are super empathetic.

    dojan,
    @dojan@lemmy.world avatar

    Guillotine for the lot, I say.

    TheGrandNagus,

    Hoooo boy people here get angry when you remind them of Stallman being outspokenly pro-paedophilia.

    woelkchen, (edited )
    @woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

    Probably the same people who claim that Threads is going to be toxic for the fediverse…

    s_s,

    All libertarians start and end at the same place.

    At least Stallman championed other liberties, too.

    BestBouclettes, (edited )

    Or divorcing Jeff Bezos.

    Joke aside, apparently she has a hard time spending enough money to lower her net worth (currently at $40B). Which is an absolutely bonkers amount of money, no one ever should have that much.

    HerbalGamer,
    @HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

    As if a good person would’ve married him in the first place.

    BestBouclettes,

    She married him in 1993 way before Amazon happened, maybe he wasn’t a gigantic ass back then. I don’t know much about her, but she seems decent from what I can see, she has donated massive amounts of money to charitable causes.

    krondo,

    Me. I use arch btw.

    PeterPoopshit,

    I fucking love arch.

    cerement,
    @cerement@slrpnk.net avatar

    pfft … you just haven’t discovered our lord and saviour, NixOS

    ILikeBoobies,

    aur.archlinux.org/packages/nix-git

    tygerprints,

    And even if it's contrary to popular opinion, I don't mind Bill Gates being a billionaire. I mean, I'd love to have invented the sole operating system for Windows and get all that money. My feeling is, if you make something that worthy you deserve to get paid over and over again.

    cerement,
    @cerement@slrpnk.net avatar

    there’s still stories going around that Gates copied chunks of CP/M …

    tygerprints,

    I'm sure he didn't really invent the system out of whole cloth, most great inventions were copied from ideas of others.

    owenfromcanada,
    @owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

    The problem with that thinking is that his wealth wouldn’t be possible without a ton of other people’s work. His work relied on hardware and other software, and was built on the work of his predecessors, like all software is. He certainly came up with a good product and did well with it, but it wasn’t done in a vacuum. There’s no such thing as a “self-made” billionaire.

    I can’t believe that anything that one person produces is worthy enough for a billion dollars. It’s like saying it’s worth more than a year’s worth of work from 65,000 people (based on min wage in the US). Nothing can be worth that much, in my opinion.

    tygerprints,

    Oh I don't dispute that, I couldn't list all the names that I'm sure were involved in making Windows a viable system. I think a lot of them did make tons of money, at least I hope so. I don't mean to suggest one man invented the whole thing by himself.

    My question is if no one man is worth a billion dollars - why are athletes worth several million. Unions aside, I know these people would be playing their sport even if nobody paid them at all. And I'm not saying they don't work hard. I just don't see how anything one person does in sports is worth several millions of dollars a year.

    owenfromcanada,
    @owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m with you in that I think some athletes are overpaid. That being said, there’s so much difference between several million and a billion.

    For reference, one million seconds is 11 days. One billion seconds is 31 years. The numbers don’t seem that different when they’re written down, because our brains can’t really grasp those numbers, but the difference is enormous.

    I agree with bringing into question earnings like some athletes get, but the billionaire problem is much bigger and more urgent.

    tygerprints,

    That's also true, though at some point I think having hundreds of millions might just as well be the same as having billions. Not saying I would turn it down either - if someone offered me that kind of salary to do what I love. But I do have two relatives who are considered (on paper) to be billionaires, a cousin and my older brother. My brother bought a 19 million dollar mansion in Florida and now wants me and me mum to come live with him there - it's very tempting. I mean to him, money isn't an object because, it's not something he has to worry about.

    In a way it's nice, in a sort of Great Gatsby way - being around the rich makes you feel rich, and you get to benefit from the blessings. I don't think it's necessarily an evil thing to be that rich. A lot depends on what you do with that money and also, whether you made it on the backs of slave labor or exploitation (and in many cases it's almost impossible not to have done so).

    pHr34kY,

    He stepped back from running his company and got into philanthropy. That’s what all billionaires should do.

    Once you’ve taken enough, you’ve gotta work on how to give it all back.

    tygerprints,

    Well I agree, that's actually why I mentioned Bill Gates. He does a give a lot back in philanthropic enterprises and also just to give to charities. And I agree that is something you should do if you have more money than God and King Midas combined.

    riodoro1,

    Richard Stallman

    Are you sure about that one?

    archonet,

    yeah, that would arguably be even more awful than Elon, Stallman has been a known asshole for many years

    lolcatnip,

    If you’re talking about what he’s accused of saying, he did not say that. People kept repeating a badly garbled version of what he said that makes him sound awful, even though his actual words are easy to find and completely disprove the accusations.

    topinambour_rex,
    @topinambour_rex@lemmy.world avatar

    So what he been accused of saying that he didn’t said ?

    misophist,

    Some examples are mentioned in this article

    topinambour_rex,
    @topinambour_rex@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah I read this article, or his comment about how it’s only natural for adult to be attracted to adolescents. I was more interested by @lolcatnip answer. But as a billionaire, he could buy tons of feet cheese.

    TheGrandNagus,

    Sure. Here are some of his words:

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    kilgore_trout,

    Yes.

    puppy,

    I think they aren’t billionaires precisely because they worked for the good of the internet/knowledge.

    If they indeed became billionaires that would imply that how they conduct themselves had completely been altered along with their core beliefs.

    jeremyparker,

    You literally can’t be a billionaire without exploiting people. If you’re not sharing profits equitably, you’re exploiting your work force; if you ARE sharing profits, then there’s no way you’ll become a billionaire.

    Daefsdeda,

    I heard of a shorter way of saying that: There is no ethical billion dollars.

    vox, (edited )
    @vox@sopuli.xyz avatar
    • me. i wouldn’t mind being a billionaire. now give me money /s
    force,

    real

    curiousaur,

    RIP Aaron Swartz.

    4lan,

    the US government has blood on their hands for this one…

    beSyl,

    Aaron Swartz created markdown?!! I did not know that!

    BiggestBulb,
    @BiggestBulb@kbin.social avatar

    I also had no idea he made RSS

    YoorWeb,

    Watch “The Internet’s Own Boy”, it’s a great documentary about Aaron.

    squirmy_wormy,

    No he didn’t. He made atx and worked closely with the guy who make markdown. He also was part of the group that made RSS and contributed to the early CC.

    EmergMemeHologram,

    Can we throw Steve Irwin in here. I bet that dude could have saved the Great Barrier Reef and a whole lot of wildlife if he had more means.

    camelbeard,

    This is exactly why those people never become billionaires. You can’t make billions without screwing over people and the environment.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • linuxmemes@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 20480 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/var-dumper/Cloner/VarCloner.php on line 210

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 32768 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/error-handler/Resources/assets/css/exception.css on line 1