this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
757 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14191 readers
3461 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
757
Malaria (fedia.io)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

One of the few good billionaires (lol maybe he is the only one ).

Edit : By comparison of course like good he done : evil he done ration . Not saying he is a saint.

[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  1. There's no good billionaires
  2. Bill Gates is not any kind of exception
  3. Even in comparison to other living billionaires
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Lives have been saved through his funding . Can you see elon or zuck doing that ? Ever ? So in comparison i do consider him good but i could be wrong.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The reason is that there just isn't an ethical way to accrue a billion dollars. Stealing from workers labour is an inherent part of becoming a billionaire. Plus, usually some other exploitation too, like fucking others over with patents.

Doing charity with a small fraction of your obscene wealth after this isn't any kind of moral absolution.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one said it was absolution. As was obviously stated, it means he's better than others.

But sure binary thinking is the best. either he is good or bad, either his charity is meaningless or completely erases any bad he ever did.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hardly anyone is all good or all bad. But with any billionaire ever, the bad will always outweigh the good because of what monumental injustice was necessary to collect a billion dollars.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don't really agree but even if so, there still are degrees of wrong doing. Gates has helped to eradicate disease but to many in this thread that means literally nothing because of their binary thinking

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

The reason is that there just isn't an ethical way to accrue a billion dollars. Stealing from workers labour is an inherent part of becoming a billionaire. Plus, usually some other exploitation too, like fucking others over with patents.

I would agree that there is no ethical way to become a billionaire, but I think that lacks context and scale.

Most billionaires make their fortunes from exploiting the labour and material wealth of the global south. Gates made his fortune by bullying the rest of silicon valley in the 90s, leading to the monopolistic tech market we know and hate today.

This is unethical in that scope, but when compared to global exploitation of other billionaires in the same tax bracket.... it's the best we could realistically hope for. Gates has essentially been unethical in the realm of wealthy 1rst world nations, all while directing a significant part of his wealth to improve material conditions in the places most billionaires extract wealth from.

Doing charity with a small fraction of your obscene wealth after this isn't any kind of moral absolution.

I mean 50 billion dollars is not just a small fraction of his wealth, and he's literally cured diseases that have killed millions of people over time.

Moral absolution isnt something that can be weighed and measured, it's subject to ethical belief systems that are not uniform across people or cultures.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's so funny that the socialist rethoric doesn't even crumble here when talking about big tech. Who are Microsoft's poor exploited workers exactly? Last I checked, developers in big tech make bank. It's the customers that get fucked.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

I don't know when the last time you checked is, but I don't think it's funny that as early as 1996 Microsoft was successfully sued for nearly 100m for abusing workers as "permatemps". That isn't counting their practices of forcing their staff to work extreme hours, avoiding to pay benefits, and just doing just about anything they could to avoid giving their employees a way of "making bank".

"In 1996, a class action lawsuit was brought against Microsoft representing thousands of current and former employees that had been classified as temporary and freelance. The monetary value of the suit was determined by how much the misclassified employees could have made if they had been correctly classified and been able to participate in Microsoft's employee stock purchase plan. The case was decided on the basis that the temporary employees had had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms (years, in many cases)."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

You can't be that naive.

https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-slammed-over-child-labor-accusations-2010-4

Also, it's very funny, you talking about "socialist rhetoric", because I don't think you even know what socialism means by "exploited worker".

Have a look.

https://socialistworker.org/2011/09/28/what-do-we-mean-exploitation

THE TERM "exploitation" often conjures up images of workers laboring in sweatshops for 12 hours or more per day, for pennies an hour, driven by a merciless overseer. This is contrasted to the ideal of a "fair wage day's wage for a fair day's work"--the supposedly "normal" situation under capitalism in which workers receive a decent wage, enough for a "middle class" standard of living, health insurance and security in their retirement.

Sweatshops are horrific examples of exploitation that persist to this day. But Karl Marx had a broader and more scientific definition of exploitation: the forced appropriation of the unpaid labor of workers. Under this definition, all working-class people are exploited.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Aside from anticompetitive actions, I don't see much harm having been done by selling an operating system.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Did he code it all by himself? Or give the profits to the programmers in direct proportion to how much they worked on it?

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aside from anticompetitive actions

"Aside from 95% of the shit he did, I don't see much harm from the other 5%."

Bill Gates' anticompetitive behavior probably set the entire computing industry back a decade or more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Maybe, but that's clearly not his intention as he has showed many times.

Take for example case covid

In April 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates was criticized for suggesting that pharmaceutical companies should hold onto patents for COVID-19 vaccines. The criticism came due to the possibility of this preventing poorer nations from obtaining adequate vaccines. Tara Van Ho of the University of Essex stated, "Gates speaks as if all the lives being lost in India are inevitable but eventually the West will help when in reality the US & UK are holding their feet on the neck of developing states by refusing to break [intellectual property rights] protections. It's disgusting."

Gates is opposed to the TRIPS waiver. Bloomberg News reported him as saying he argued that Oxford University should not give away the rights to its COVID-19 information, as it had announced, but instead sell it to a single industry partner, as it did. His views on the value of legal monopolies in medicine have been linked to his views on legal monopolies in software

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm you do make a compelling argument

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's easier to just assume all billionaires are evil. The chances of it being wrong is about the same as for any good person to become a billionaire

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That is true maybe there were some exploits done by them here and there but everything is gray there are no black and white.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Who gives a fuck whether some other rich sociopath would've done better?

What you should be asking is why important shit like this should be left to the whims of a single private citizen with too much power instead of handled by government. The notion that Bill fucking Gates is some kind of savior übermensch who somehow knows better than the entire voting public how to spend the money is fucking ludicrous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're not wrong. Compared to his peers, he's a saint.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We can say Bill Gates is the best billionaire without accepting that there are any good billionaires.

He doesn't realise best of shit is still shit. Like talking about "the best rapist", haiyaaaaa

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He's not even better than Taylor Swift IMO

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

He’s not even better than his ex-wife

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think we can say that.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He helped championed one of the Covid vaccines, but also forced the private ownership and profit of it. Something the scientists working on it didn't want to do. This in an stark contrast to the polio vaccine, which was free and who's lead scientist referred the idea as "trying to own sunlight".

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

More specifically it was Jonas Salk, and what he said was “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” and then laughed at the thought.

Video of him saying it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erHXKP386Nk

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is true. It was said by Jonas Salk, who was attributed with the creation of the injectable vaccine in the 1950s that was greenlit for widespread use.

The injectable vaccine is a non-sterilizing vaccine (meaning you still get the disease, but your body can fight it off effectively - which is most vaccines). The injection vaccine was replaced by a sterilizing vaccine (where your bodily systems can kill the virus before you become contagious, and in many cases, before symptoms). The sterilizing vaccine, used to this day, is basically a magic potion that you drink. It kills the polio virus in your gut, which is the ingress method for polio.

From what I've seen, Salk didn't live to see the success of his vaccine; but he's a hero in my mind.

My late father was a polio survivor. He was permanently disabled as a result of the disease. He lost something like 70% of the use of his right (?) leg (could have been his left). He was still ambulatory, and could walk, but often needed to use his stronger leg when climbing stairs because his disabled leg was too weak to lift him up the stairs. He walked with a limp... And he was lucky. Post-polio survivors frequently had much more severe disabilities. I saw him struggle with the effects of it my entire life, and given he only had a relatively mild disability, I consider anyone who developed a poliovirus vaccine to be a hero of humanity, and anyone who refuses that vaccine to be an ignorant fool.

Salk's comments are just icing on that hero status for me.

Don't be a fool, get vaccinated.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are unfortunately mistaken. Maybe in comparison better than others but that does not mean good.

I don't have any links ready to prove that though, so I understand if you disregard that.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Of course i meant by comparison and no need for links i have heard some shit

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even with issues like polio where he's supposedly doing good, he does lots of harm from my understanding. Probably not though malice, but being a know-it-all who uses their money to shape policy, the end result is still the same. Having a tech billionaire in charge of medical policy has caused many more people to suffer from polio as a result than would have without his meddling. And that's the problem with billionaire: even if they try to be good, they're no dieties and giving that much power to unaccountable individuals means they can accidentally cause lots of harm. And often the have perverse incentives (see Bill Gates and all he's done to hurt education in the US, for example).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The best source now i have to believe it the power of the brohood compells me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

only a forcibly expropriated billionaire is a good billionaire

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Gonna take a few downvotes and agree with you. Dude donates so much to the world health organization he beats all other COUNTRIES except for the US. If all billionaires were like him, the world would be a much better place.

load more comments (5 replies)