
Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune - jakarta
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703493504576007982500939482.html?mod=djemalertTECH
======
lionhearted
Fantastic.

I wonder if all these very public proclamations are going to shift people's
attitude towards taxes? Most people think of the government as wasteful,
inefficient, incompetent, and corrupt to more or less degrees, and I know I'd
prefer to see money allocated by smart people like Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg
than by politicians who need to keep constituents happy and win votes.

I committed a while back to giving 10% of my income to charity henceforth,
probably for my whole life. I know I've felt much better when I raised money
for St. Jude's or Grand Ormond Street children's hospitals than when I wrote a
check to the IRS to fund the latest special interest-fueled debacle.

There's a "the evil rich are against us" narrative in movies and stories a
lot, but I wonder if the perception will start to change when all the good
from these endeavors is realized. I think it's quite likely that smart people
allocating resources intelligently will do 10x, 20x, 50x more good with the
money than a politician possibly could.

~~~
DevX101
I don't like estate taxes. Governments are typically terrible financial
stewards and bad examples of financial responsibility. Give the government one
billion and it will find a way to spend two.

But I also don't like the idea of a permanent aristocratic class where
generation after generation are born into opulence because your great
grandfather created a great company.

The movement towards philanthropy is a great alternative as long there are
clearly defined and applied metrics of success. Gates Foundation does a good
job at this. If you claim you're going to change the world, but you can't
prove it, you won't get funding again.

~~~
sshumaker
I'd argue one of the points of estate taxes (which are heavily favored by
Buffet, Gates, et. al) is to encourage you to will your fortunes to
philanthropy - so it doesn't end up in the hands of the government.

~~~
ramanujan
The biggest lobbies for increased estate taxes are life insurance companies:

[http://blogs.forbes.com/hanisarji/2010/12/01/life-
insurance-...](http://blogs.forbes.com/hanisarji/2010/12/01/life-insurance-
industry-is-spending-millions-lobbying-for-the-estate-tax-afbfs-latest-issue-
brief/)

“The estate tax is a cash cow for the life insurance industry – and the
industry’s lobbyists guard it zealously...[o]nly three industries –
pharmaceuticals, electric utilities, and oil and gas – spent more over the
same period.”

~~~
waterlesscloud
Of which Buffet owns several. Which may or may not play a role in his support.

~~~
jakarta
I don't think it does. The life insurance contribution to Berkshire Hathaway
results is quite small. The bulk of the income is from reinsurance and P/C
activities.

------
DevX101
After someone asked Warren Buffet why he wanted to give away all of his
fortune, he replied:

"I want to leave enough money to my children that they can do anything, but no
so much that they will do nothing".

~~~
spatulon
The British entrepreneur and investor Peter Jones also worried about that
problem and decided to double any money his children earned for themselves.

~~~
hugh3
I don't like that as an incentive. For a start, it keeps your children in your
financial orbit for the rest of your life. Secondly, it communicates to your
children that you _don't_ expect them ever to make as much money as you did.

Whenever I wish I were super-wealthy, I try to remember that super wealth
probably just creates all sorts of problems when raising children. If I ever
_do_ get super wealthy I'll plan to spend all but a few million dollars,
secretly and out of sight of the children, before they reach the age of
twelve, so that I don't have to worry about them growing up with the typical
rich-kid problems.

------
petenixey
I happen to have just watched a brilliant TED talk on the value of angel
investment (not aid) in Africa. The talk underlined how it is capitalism
rather than charity that creates wealth.

It would be wonderful to see some of SV's glitterati create more for-profit
investment networks (bigger than Kiva, smaller than VC (...YC?)) in other
hungry markets.

Kudos to Mark for committing to this. If he applies his product-brilliance to
how he goes about it I'm sure he will do wonderful things.

(Alexis this has your name written all over it BTW ;)

~~~
jacoblyles
I will bet anyone that 20 years from now we will see that China's "greedy"
investment in Africa has done more good than all the decades and $billions of
"selfless" western aid, both public and private.

And I also will bet that privatized school systems will perform better than
public school bureaucracies that receive hundred million dollar gifts.

The invisible hand is puckish like that.

~~~
bertil
I'll happily take that bet — but please check the local situation first.

You remember the Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and its impact on local
business? There has been the same disaster, continuously for decades, thanks
to oil extractions by “greedy” Shell. Somali pirates? They were fighting
illegal radioactive dumps that contaminated their food, that were more “lean
and efficient” to leave there rather then properly process. When locals are up
in arms, the local economy rarely benefit.

According to friends who worked for the UN or US Aid, there is far worst to
come, thanks to Chinese company.

------
narrator
I think if Mark wanted to give back to the world he should do what Elon Musk
is doing and start high risk businesses that can create widespread beneficial
change in the world.

~~~
stretchwithme
by consuming government money making sports cars? Please, no, Mark.

~~~
tlrobinson
Starting with sports cars seems like a good plan to me. Let the people who can
afford to pay a premium help fund development of the technology which can then
be used in cheaper cars for the masses.

A lot of automobile technology is developed in race cars like Formula 1 many
years before making it's way into mainstream cars.

I can't comment on the government subsidies though.

~~~
stretchwithme
of course not. it doesn't matter if government takes over venture funding. its
not like they're bad at stuff

------
burgerbrain
I'd rather see more people following the lead of Elon Musk than Bill Gates.
Instead of throwing money at problems that will always exist and producing no
real value, Musk is creating high-tech jobs and advancing the state of
humanity.

~~~
mquander
It's certainly a testament to the power of perspective that you've dismissed a
quarter of the planet living sick, hungry, and in poverty as "problems that
will always exist", and decided that doing something about it produces no
"real value."

~~~
lionhearted
> It's certainly a testament to the power of perspective that you've dismissed
> a quarter of the planet living sick, hungry, and in poverty as "problems
> that will always exist", and decided that doing something about it produces
> no "real value."

Can we spare the moral condemnations? Today's advances in the cutting edge of
sciences become the life-saving and enhancing cheap commodities of the future,
and being skeptical that poverty can ever be truly defeated isn't exactly a
radical position.

That said, I agree with you more than the original poster, and I think
philanthropy is fantastic. But let's spare the moral condemnations and shaming
of someone who has an alternative point of view.

~~~
mquander
I find it a really shameful comment. It seems like unbelievably wishful
thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing
everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from
tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per (e.g.
<http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities>). I'd like to hear why that
is not real value. No doubt most First World businesses produce technology and
efficiency advancements that are genuinely useful, but I doubt that very many
are _that_ useful.

I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated unless
you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some
_convincing_ math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world.
I condemn it without reservation.

~~~
lionhearted
> I find it a really shameful comment.

You can still debate the merits civilly - and that makes it more likely to
actually change someone's opinion than just expressing outrage.

> It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups
> are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate
> for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars
> per

There's no conflict here. New technology saves lives, often by use in
unexpected ways. Eradicating disease saves lives. They're both good.

> I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated
> unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some
> convincing math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world.
> I condemn it without reservation.

You don't see how electric cars could save lives? Coupled with better
batteries and advanced nuclear power, it goes a long way towards obsoleting
fossil fuels and driving down the costs of transportation. That's _huge_ \-
lower pollution and lower costs on _everything_ \- medicine, food, housing -
lower transport costs makes _everything_ more affordable.

As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view
without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion.
By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a
bit more nuanced than you make it out to be.

~~~
mquander
_As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view
without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion.
By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a
bit more nuanced than you make it out to be._

Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the
opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them.

Having electric cars that are more efficient and cleaner than existing cars
would be great, and it would save a lot of energy and labor, but the amount of
money and effort spent on attaining that goal is far greater than what (e.g.)
Tesla is spending individually; it's the net total of many years of research
and many years yet to come of implementation and manufacturing. (That is, it's
not like Elon Musk is singlehandedly bringing us to an era of ubiquitous
electric vehicles.) It strains my credibility to imagine that the same money
and man-hours, if they were allocated with equal passion toward education,
disease, or the elimination of poverty, would not turn a much greater ROI over
a few decades than more efficient cars.

Our current situation is such that thanks to culture, incentives, and human
nature, ninety-nine percent of educated, able people with the ability and
drive to work very hard, decide to work at some personally profitable business
or industry. I am not inclined to take the remaining one percent and criticize
them for plucking what seems like extremely low-hanging fruit from the other
tree.

The choir is my favorite place for preaching so I'm glad you agree!

~~~
burgerbrain
> _Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the
> opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them._

Only in your own mind.

------
grandalf
I think of this as sort of a cop out (on the part of all the people who do
it). If you're good at business, then you can have a far bigger impact by
creating businesses than by simply giving your money to some charity.

It's ultimately a socially lauded thing to do that divorces the donor from any
ultimate responsibility for the amount of "greater good" done with the funds.
I think they do it out of fear that they were a lucky, one-hit wonder... and
out of low self-esteem or fear of the angry mob.

YC is a great example of a way to use wealth to make a real difference. PG
uses his acumen to help a lot more people level up. This multiplies wealth.
Spending it on charities simply redistributes it.

It makes me very pessimistic to see that the world's wealthiest people feel
the need simply to pledge the money away, and no need to risk total failure by
going out on a limb to do something bigger than whatever got them there.

What if Bill Gates tried some long shot idea and it flopped? What if
Zuckerberg or Case did? That would take real courage. This pledge nonsense
reminds me of the self-satisfied smirks people emit when publicly putting
money into the collection basket in a church. Why isn't one of these rich guys
going to bat for Wikileaks? (Probably because it feels a lot better to be
praised all the time for being such a great person by all the sycophants
trying to get you to write a check!)

~~~
EJE
It may seem that they are just giving it away to charity. But many of the
donations that Bill Gates provides are making new waves in terms of research,
development techniques and expanding microfinance.

They are not just pledging money away. These are serious investments that are
evaluated in the same way a VC/Angel pick a startup. A colleague of mine tried
to apply/pitch to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the event (many
people pitched) lasted six hours with two reviews and rigorous questioning. He
was not successful, but he said it was a very thorough examination.^1

Bottom line: A portion of these pledges are more than putting money into
collection baskets, it is putting it into the baskets of third world women who
need an extra sewing machine to make ten more shirts so their kids can go to
school and have food.

1 - I am sure not every donation is made this way

~~~
grandalf
I realize Gates does this and I think it's great.

I just wonder if Gates might have the ability to do far more if he just
invested in himself.

~~~
mquander
No, not a fair question. What does this even mean? If you really think you
know anything at all about how Bill Gates should spend his time and money,
feel free to go ahead and actually say what you think he should be spending it
on, instead of mouthing platitudes about "bigger ideas" and "investing in
himself."

~~~
grandalf
I don't know how he should spend his time, nor do I claim to.

Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile
phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all
the way around the world.

I also worry about the overall risklessness of what he's doing. He's pledged
all of his money, so who can criticize it? For most people it's beyond
reproach just because of the stated goals.

When Gates dropped out of Harvard he was doing something that a lot of people
thought was stupid. That's how big ideas are. I'd like to see him doing
something that might actually result in people mocking him for having lost his
fortune on a bad idea.

~~~
lemming
_Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile
phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all
the way around the world._

Instead of, say, eradicating malaria? You're kidding, right?

~~~
hugh3
grandalf has a fair (if self-interested) point. He's not gonna contract
malaria and neither am I. But I'd kinda like a phone battery that lasts a
month.

~~~
grandalf
Not just self-interested. I think such a battery would result in greater
malaria eradication than direct efforts.

~~~
hugh3
_I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than
direct efforts._

I might accept "greater good". There's no way I'll accept "greater malaria
eradication".

The Gates Foundation is working on malaria eradication because it's one of
those things where you really _do_ get great returns by just attacking the
problem head on. Batteries have nothing to do with malaria.

The other thing about super-batteries is that there's no shortage of sensible
profit-chasing money pouring into it. If Sony, Samsung, Ford, Toyota, General
Electric and Rolls Royce are all already pouring billions of dollars into it,
there's not much point in Bill Gates throwing a couple of billion onto the
pile. But apart from the Gates Foundation hardly anyone with deep pockets is
targeting malaria.

~~~
grandalf
The cotton gin eradicated lots of diseases. If you think that the battery I
describe wouldn't have a similar impact on developing economies, you're
experiencing a bit of an imagination failure.

I just used batteries as an example. The money being poured into batteries is
commensurate with the overall value to society of creating them. This is not a
market failure. The reason money isn't flowing to malaria prevention is
because the structural problems that lead to the disease prevent the resulting
human capital from having much of any economic value.

------
quizbiz
How much liquid wealth does Mark actually have? Isn't the vast majority of it
purely theoretical based on Facebook equity purchases?

~~~
patrickk
Important paragraph in the article:

 _"Mr. Zuckerberg, who founded Facebook in his Harvard University dorm before
dropping out of college and working on the business full time in California,
is one of the world's youngest billionaires, worth an estimated $6.9 billion,
according to Forbes. Yet since his wealth is from his ownership stake a
company that has yet to list on the stock market, much of that wealth is
theoretical at this point."_

~~~
quizbiz
Right. So is there anyway to estimate his actual liquid wealth?

------
j4pe
There is no reason for Facebook to go public anytime in the near future. It
will be more and more revenue positive as it refines its advertising model.
Zuckerberg's contribution is therefore worth very little at the moment,
outside of the tremendous commitment it implies for Mark. At some point, he
will probably control huge amounts of wealth and it's bold of him to sign away
most of the cash before he ever has control over it.

But wouldn't it be amusing if Facebook were to go the way of preceding social
networks, and leave the "world's youngest billionaire" looking a little silly
for pledging a fortune that never materialized?

~~~
afterburner
They'll probably let him off the hook if he doesn't end up a billionaire...

------
keiferski
It's certainly commendable to give away a vast fortune, and I don't want to
take away from this honorable act in any way.

But I wonder why more ridiculously wealthy entrepreneurs don't, ya know,
preneur? Especially in the nonprofit "make a difference space".

A billion dollars to charity is cool. You know what's really cool? A billion
dollars towards a celebrity billionaire-spearheaded do-good project. (Or 1
million dollars each towards 1000 projects, etc.)

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm certainly no billionaire, so I probably
am. But if I were a billionaire, I'd be more interested in angel investing (in
promising, impactful projects) and my bringing my own ideas to life.

But I digress. Bravo to the billionaires. Really, this is awesome.

------
nhangen
This is from the PDF on the giving pledge website:

"The pledge does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of
causes or organizations. The pledge asks only that the individual give the
majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes or charitable organizations
either before or after their death."

Interesting way to do this. I still don't really understand the need for a
pledge of this magnitude, but at least they aren't pooling the money or
soliciting for specific causes.

That being said, I still think Zuck is far too young to make such a strong
commitment.

~~~
rorymarinich
> That being said, I still think Zuck is far too young to make such a strong
> commitment.

Do you really think so? Mark is a few years older than me, and I've already
arrived at the decision that I'd do much the same as him if I ever had the
same cash. He's bright, quite savvy regarding the public, and he's got a great
inner stamina. I doubt he worries if he's capable of making money — maybe
he'll never equal Facebook's success, in fact probably he won't, but I doubt
if he started all over again today he'd fail to make himself a comfortable,
cozy living.

It's not like he's being asked to live an ascetic lifestyle, though all
stories I've read say that he's fairly minimal. He's just being asked to give
away most of his money to help other people. In his case, "most of his wealth"
still leaves him more than I've got at present.

~~~
nhangen
I'm just saying that when you're young, and you've had your head buried in
work, hearing sage advice from mentors, advisors, and board members, it's
possible that now isn't the best time to make that sort of decision. I'm not
condemning it, and if it's what he wants to do, who am I to stop him, but
something just doesn't feel right about it. That's just my .02

------
markbao
This is really great to hear. We need more of this.

I'd pledge if I had any hugely significant sum like the others in the pledge,
but alas.

~~~
jessriedel
> I'd pledge if I had any hugely significant sum like the others in the pledge

Lives in the developing world can be saved for less than $1000/life (that is,
something like $20 per disability-adjusted-life-year). You personally could
save dozens--perhaps hundred--of human lives, which I consider to be hugely
significant.

~~~
nhangen
but for how long?

~~~
jessriedel
I quoted $20 per disability-adjusted-life-year
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year>). That means for
$1000 you could allow one child who otherwise would have died an infant to
live into old age, extend the lives of 10 people by 5 years, etc.

------
webXL
You can give it away while you're alive, or split it between your loved ones
and the state when you die. I think it would be more fun giving it away to
those most in need rather than enriching those who've already had a pretty
good life... and your loved ones, too.

~~~
nhangen
perhaps, but if you teach and educate your children how they can duplicate
your success, and give them a headstart with the fortune you've built, then
you can do just as much, if not more, than the charity down the street.

Look, I'm not advocating against giving, but I don't think jumping into
pledges is the smartest way to begin.

------
yason
If I had billions I would certainly pay great attention to where I would put
that money to work in order to create most goodness and wealth out of it. I
would be wary of many charities as groups can get as confused from big money
as individuals do.

------
Jun8
AFAIK, Jobs has still not committed.

~~~
ladon86
From his Playboy interview, aged 29:

Playboy: What does the money actually mean to you?

Jobs: I still don't understand it. It's a large responsibility to have more
than you can spend in your lifetime--and I feel I have to spend it. If you
die, you certainly don't want to leave a large amount to your children. It
will just ruin their lives. And if you die without kids, it will all go to the
Government. Almost everyone would think that he could invest the money back
into humanity in a much more astute way than the Government could. The
challenges are to figure out how to live with it and to reinvest it back into
the world, which means either giving it away or using it to express your
concerns or values.

Playboy: So what do you do?

Jobs: That's a part of my life that I like to keep private. When I have some
time, I'm going to start a public foundation. I do some things privately now.

Playboy: You could spend all of your time disbursing your money.

Jobs: Oh, you have to. I'm convinced that to give away a dollar effectively is
harder than to make a dollar.

Playboy: Could that be an excuse to put off doing something?

Jobs: No. There are some simple reasons for that. One is that in order to
learn how to do something well, you have to fail sometimes. In order to fail,
there has to be a measurement system. And that's the problem with most
philanthropy--there's no measurement system. You give somebody some money to
do something and most of the time you can really never measure whether you
failed or succeeded in your judgment of that person or his ideas or their
implementation. So if you can't succeed or fail, it's really hard to get
better. Also, most of the time, the people who come to you with ideas don't
provide the best ideas. You go seek the best ideas out, and that takes a lot
of time.

Playboy: If you plan to use your visibility to create a model for people, why
is this one of the areas you choose not to discuss?

Jobs: Because I haven't done anything much yet. In that area, actions should
speak the loudest.

<http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=1920287>

~~~
mortenjorck
Fascinating. Knowing Jobs' penchant for secrecy, the Steven P. Jobs Foundation
could well exist today, only as a collection of charitable organizations under
various names.

------
code_duck
I find it odd how people such as Gates and Zuckerberg obsessively stomp down
their competition through any means possible, and then turn around and
grandiosely pledge to give away their gains.

~~~
glhaynes
Many consider it to be the job of the businessperson to do everything they can
to help their business' success within the legal framework it exists in. As
long as that legal framework is democratically constructed, I don't see any
reason to think of that as immoral, so I don't really see any contradiction
there.

------
meric
This is great; Rather than having government's and or NGO employees who pulls
normal salary and aren't experienced in efficiently managing the spending of
billions of dollars of development aid and end up harming the recipients, we
are now getting the billionaires - people who excel at efficiently investing
billions of dollars to reap billions more - to allocate these resources.

------
paulitex
Hey Sergey, Larry, and Steve, heads up.

These guys all have around the same net worth as Zuck, but much more
liquidity. Sergey "don't be evil" Brin's absence from the list is a
particularly curious... Anyone know what his philanthropic track record is
like? Is it mostly through Google.org?

~~~
pclark
is not donating to charity evil now? man, thats escalated.

------
reneighbor
I like that it's about thinking how to give responsibly and effectively,
pledging early in life so they can put their creativity to good use, as the
article says. People who sign are trading ideas and logistical advice, it's
like a book club for philanthropy.

------
scorpion032
I wonder if you can buy real groceries using facebook stock, yet.

~~~
hugh3
Well I'd be willing to give you a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs for, say,
0.1% of the company. So yes.

~~~
jacques_chester
BREAKING NEWS

Facebook valued at 12 billion gallons of milk in private exchanges

------
chopsueyar
_Yet since his wealth is from his ownership stake a company that has yet to
list on the stock market, much of that wealth is theoretical at this point._

------
beeeph
Someone once said, "No man is rich enough to buy back his past." If you ask
me, this just might do it for Zuck. Congrats Man! I hope you find yourself
surprised by how many other young entrepreneurs follow suit. But seriously, do
yourself a favor, quit renting your little college house and buy yourself a
little home while interest rates are still low.

------
ramanujan
There is at least one billionare who is thinking different:

<http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_16792615>

That's a story about the eight philanthropies Thiel is funding, which are much
more oriented along the lines of "give a man the plans for a new fishing
machine" than traditional philanthropy.

------
jiganti
It's commendable for anyone to give away their money, but especially so when
it's a guy in his mid-twenties.

~~~
RtodaAV
He doesn't have a billion dollars until the IPO. Good Luck Zuck.

------
iterationx
Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said,
“If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health
services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Another billionaire signs up for Gate's depopulation agenda.

------
tomjen3
Well, this will properly be nice for those who receive those founds, but I
have to wonder why he did it. Why get a fortune just to give it away?

~~~
chrisaycock
> Why get a fortune just to give it away?

Why climb Mount Everest just to come back down?

~~~
manvsmachine
Because if you don't, you'll be dead within the next day:
[http://godheadv.blogspot.com/2010/04/abandoned-on-
everest.ht...](http://godheadv.blogspot.com/2010/04/abandoned-on-everest.html)

Your point still stands though.

------
SoftwareMaven
The big question will be does Zuck's fortune liquify at anywhere near the
level that it is now. :)

~~~
salemh
Buffet's, Gate's and most of the other "big-dog's" hodling can't be liquidated
for their Net Worth $ anyway. This story reminds me of Zuck turning down the
near Billion $ acquisition offer from Yahoo! To him, its not about the wealth
and I like that. Even if he never leaves a multi-billion $ fortune (which I
think he will).

------
minow12
Would be better spent donating that money to research. Technology helps way
more people than food stamps do.

------
stretchwithme
After much cajoling, I have agreed to accept it.

------
toephu
zuckerberg doesn't even have $10mil cash, let alone billions. it's all on
paper.

~~~
frisco
This is false.

~~~
RtodaAV
Prove it.

------
RtodaAV
I wouldn't.

------
jrockway
This makes it okay that he sells my list of friends to advertisers!

------
nhangen
With great wealth, comes great power, and with great power, comes the ability
to change the world.

Though I loathe the way he's built Facebook, I trust someone like Zuck with
several billion more than I trust someone without the ability to earn it. Who
is going to be managing this money, and where is it going? Is this just a
pledge, with no strings attached?

The article isn't very forthcoming, and neither is the website:
givingpledge.org

I don't understand what's happened with Gates, and though I admire his
sentiment, I think putting pressure on young entrepreneurs, who already have
thousands of voices in their heads, is a wrong move.

Call me callous, but this whole thing seems insane. Mark can do more good with
his money by building new technologies than this fund could do manage multiple
billions of dollars. It's rare that money on that scale is managed well.

