The difference of stealing yourself vs being stolen from
The difference of stealing yourself vs being stolen from
You're viewing a single thread.
I'll never understand why people put Steve Jobs on a pedestal. He might have been a very astute businessman , but by all accounts he was a horrible human being and a colossal prick.
He used to eat only fruit and smelled like shit, he's my hero for that one
Say what you want about Steve Jobs, he's the guy who killed Steve Jobs
Oh that's so hilariously dark.
I think I've heard that as a Hitler joke. Say what you want about Hitler, at least he killed Hitler.
That’s more fitting. It’s a miss on Steve Jobs though. For one he didn’t kill himself, cancer did. And for another, just because he could be a prick doesn’t make him a bad person worth killing.
He had a very treatable cancer that was found in the early stages and was given an excellent prognosis, but in his infinite megalomaniac manner he decided he knew better than the doctors and opted to treat his cancer at home with homeopathic remedies. His home made new age "cures" clearly didn't work and by the time he finally decided to get proper treatment his cancer had metastasized and he was beyond help... sounds to me like he played a large hand in his own demise so the joke plays.
He thought his fruitarian diet would help him against pancreatic cancer. He tried to fight P.C. with apples.
Oranges, actually. Ironic
Oranges actually have a fairly low iron content.
Fairies would have been just as effective to treat pancreatic cancer.
Underrated comment right here lol
Yeah I get what you’re saying. It’s still something entirely different to bomb yourself to death vs. to not do enough to stop a disease. And even with all the haters in here, I don’t think any reasonable person would want Steve Jobs dead, it’s not like he murdered people.
Billionaires murder people by existing
Sure, if you say so. On a different note, I recently watched Paradise on Netflix, where you can basically live forever if you’re rich enough. In the background someone says on tv at one point something like "the climate crisis has been solved by the top 5 richest people", which made me laugh quite a bit.
He did nothing to stop the disease and actively rejected treatment and advice from medical professionals because he thought he knew better. So while this isn't the same as actively killing oneself, he is still more than likely responsible for his own death due to his own actions (or inaction).
Getting a treatable cancer and then choosing to do nothing about it other than eat fruit and refuse proper medical care is tantamount to killing yourself IMO.
Cancer did. And just because he could be a prick doesn’t mean he deserved to die so soon.
Iono, the kind of prick he was (narcissist who traumatized his own daughter and headed a company which needed suicide nets for the workers who made their product), paired with the fact that he signed his own death from his own deliberate delusions makes me conclude he did deserve to die, in more than one sense of the word 'deserve'.
He went down the homeopathic route cause science bad
He helped.
Never said he deserved to die. Interesting what words you're choosing to put in my mouth.
He had a very treatable cancer and chose to eat oranges about it instead. He killed himself with his own hubris.
He also washed his feet in toilets. I'm not joking.
I mean that is pretty weird but it does actually make sense.
They were public toilets.
People liked Bill Gates so ... IDK.
what is personally wrong with gates?
- He's a billionaire.
- Cheated on his wife.
- Travelled to Epstein's Island.
- Got removed from Microsoft for propositioning female employees for sex
- Used Microsoft's market position to kill off any competition. Remember Netscape?
- His foundation pushed hard to make the COVID vaccines intellectual property of drug manufacturers so they would get richer, leaving the world dependent on them for doses instead of allowing everyone to produce it.
Don't forget the incessant lobbying for charter schools even though nobody wants them and there's no research to suggest they are better than the public system.
He's really awful too, or at the very least he used to be.
He's done a lot of rebranding himself as being a great guy as of late, and put his money towards some great causes.
But when he was in charge of Microsoft he'd openly treat people like shit, openly steal things, openly do anticompetitive and illegal business practices, deliberately put small companies out of business, and openly bribe politicians to look the other way as he built his illegally-gained business empire.
The technology landscape today is vastly more closed and monopolised because of his/MS's actions.
All the recent stuff is him trying to whitewash his image so he isn't remembered as the bastard he is. Unfortunately, it's working.
At least he some good causes are getting something out of it
put his money towards some great causes
Don't forget how much MS lobbied countries all over the world to spend public money on MS products. Plus the anticompetitive shenanigans, it's more of an our money.
If you accept his research money (which people don't seem to do anymore) there are so many strings attached that if you find something you'll probably be liable even if you give it all up for free.
I'm still waiting for something good coming out of his pocket money spendings for good causes.
I'm still waiting for something good coming out of his pocket money spendings for good causes.
The eradication of polio isn't good enough for you?
He's a giant asshole too (I mean when you look at Microsoft it's not very positive) but he's worked a lot on his image in the last decades
He have really taken an adolf nobel turn.
He should have copied Jobs and just died sooner!
Bill Gates does some genuinely great things for humanity.
With money he got from a monopoly, meaning the money he took plus the deadweight loss are even worse for humanity. Computers would be even better today if it wasn't for him, and we would've produced better things than we have today.
Monopolists "giving back" is insidious because it's much easier to see what they gave us than what they took away.
I agree with you but he's not on the same page as Steve Jobs, not in my book. Billionaires can't exist in a fair system so they're existence isn't justified but comparatively speaking he is better than Jobs
We may have better computers but Malaria may be more of an issue, whereas without Jobs nothing of note would be missing other too many biopics.
It might as well be that if Jobs were still alive, he'd be running some PR washing campaign to also be all good ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Malaria is still around though, spending pocket change for a cause doesn't mean it's helping (especially with all the strings attached if you actually get a grant).
Malaria will be beaten with classic research. I mean it's still all around...
The standardization of operating systems was an important step though. If there were hundreds of different OS’s on the market, then the PC generation would have stalled. The fact that there were basically only three dominant platforms meant that we could have market stability.
Where have you heard that a monopoly can be more beneficial than harmful because of standardization? Has that happened with any other monopolies?
It’s common sense. If you have hundreds of operating systems, then it becomes a pain to get the right software. First, developers are discouraged because they don’t know what platform will be best to develop on and users will be discouraged because they might need to install twenty different OS partitions in order to run the software they want to run.
No offense but no it is not common sense. The economics of monopolies have been studied for centuries, including any benefit from standardization (like with Standard Oil). It creates a costly deadweight loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_and_efficiency
For what it's worth I was there, and the handful of OSes in the 1980s (not 20) weren't as problematic as the monopoly later. It seems like common sense to me that today's multiple browsers are better than IE standardization was.
From what I’ve read he definitely had a strong personality and I don’t think anyone sees him as flawless. But that made for some very funny moments. And he definitely was the person that Apple needed at that time.
Strong is one way to wash over his narcissism, delusions, and the abuse he doled out. And you're wrong, there's plenty of people who take the washing-over to a degree where they think he was a genius above reproach. Yeah, let's focus on the funny moments and brush all that abuse and whatnot under the rug, that's better. I'm so glad a company got to profit from a sociopath's leadership in the end, gives me the fuzzies. Could you imagine giving up iphones and iOS for some alternative imaginary version of those products? Oh my.
I had a former boss who idolized him. Which was... concerning as his employee.