What if the cop wants to ruin the lives of a large group of people? How about if it's a group people living in the next town over, can he get away with it? If he does manage to ruin the lives of people, will he get voted out or dismissed?
Bill Gates improved the lives of countless people around the world. He could as easily made the lives of countless worse if he wanted to or as an unintended consequence of his projects.
> He could as easily made the lives of countless worse if he wanted to or as an unintended consequence of his projects.
As an unintended consequence, sure, but that's more true of scientific/technological progress specifically than what Bill Gates did, which was closer to business and tech popularization. If a scientist invents a super-virus that kills everyone, then yes, obviously, they've made the world worse, but that's not really tied to money.
As for "as easily" making countless lives worse in other ways - I kind of disagree there. He made countless lives better because people voluntarily bought his products. He didn't coerce people, they chose to do it. There's no analagously easy way to spend money to ruin people's lives, and especially not if you consider the kind of scrutiny and backlash he'd receive.
Yes, of course. I made a pretty books statement with no support.
My friends who work in public health research despise the foundation because they are absolute gatekeepers on what can and cannot be funded. If you are trying to do research that is not part of the foundations priorities, good luck, they say.
The Foundation is essentially only accountable to themselves and can have global impacts on health research distribution. A recent example is that their whims affected the speed and distribution of COVID vaccines.
There was (or still is?) the abortion bounty-hunter law which would allow any private citizen in Texas to sue him if he did what you are proposing. There were also some counties that made it illegal to use their roads to transport someone for the purpose of getting an abortion.
In Texas, there is a clear push to criminalize the act of going out of state to get an abortion.
Seems like laws against crossing state lines for a medical procedure wouldn't withstand a legal challenge because it involves out-of-state commerce. I'm not a lawyer, but that intervention seems to be aggressive and exactly the place courts/congress would step in. Also, in a scenario where it would does hold up, then CA/NY would start doing the same w/gun stuff. And then FL/TX would respond with something else against CA/NY. So... MAD should prevent states from being too aggressive in this area.
Again, my concern is trying to figure out the statistically best way to navigate the various political landscapes and future political possibilities. It just seems too focused on one particular area of risk. I wouldn't categorically close out a good company / good career just because of this risk. This seems like the right place to recommend a hedge.
Having to participate in an ugly, media-circus-y court fight while also going through a medical procedure/emergency does not sound like a fun time. Unless you have a big appetite for drama and hardship, living in a red state is a really bad idea if you have a chance of becoming pregnant, intentionally or unintentionally.
I thought “rubber” included silicon as well. Yea, silicon is great for nonstick, although it can absorb aromas and oils from food easier than plastic (even food grade silicon).
There is a cost to maintaining and keeping it functional as macOS gets updated. Apple doesn't care about legacy support or backward compatibility, so they will eventually drop it as they had dropped 32-bit support. I am sure Apple wants developers to view Rosetta 2 as already deprecated and to update their new releases to Universal 2 binaries.
Maybe the reason that the most IP-paranoid hedge fund makes the largest charitable donations in California is to proactively secure favorable publicity in case they become embroiled in a scandal that could impact their financial standing.
Moreover, it raises the question of who truly benefits from these charitable contributions. For example, Ikea is owned by a charity for tax optimization purposes. The mission of the charity is to promote interior design and architecture. Essentially, strategic investments that will ultimately benefit Ikea itself in the long run.
Interestingly, it's the opposite. They made the donations anonymously and were outed by a charity reporter. Likewise, the charities were things like the Sierra Club, various disease research foundations, and the ACLU.
