Elon Musk's epic bacon adventures

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,339
My immediate thought it wasn't fair to lump spacex in with the other apparently more vanity driven projects, because it's a proper business with a real purpose. But then I thought, so potentially is Bransons although the purpose is more boutique travel than space-industrial... It's not really the same game, it is very limited really. Bezos is the one I don't get. His rockets don't do anything useful yet, but he's funded it all lavishly. He's no less driven or smart than Musk. So whats he doing? Unless his leaving Amazon and this sub orbital trip is a precursor to him getting serious, spacex style.
Bezos is trying to build a business which would take on SpaceX eventually. It actually started research before they did, but is now running a long way behind and have the disadvantage of not having the experience of reusing rockets and actually sending to space. They appear to have gone straight from small to huge rockets and that's causing them to get delay after delay as they iron out problems.

Stating the obvious, space is hard and just because someone else is doing something doesn't mean you can just do it as well without the experience that took them there.

Blue Origin’s massive New Glenn rocket is delayed for years. What went wrong? | Ars Technica
 
Last edited:

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
Bezos is trying to build a business which would take on SpaceX eventually. It actually started research before they did, but is now running a long way behind and have the disadvantage of not having the experience of reusing rockets and actually sending to space. They appear to have gone straight from small to huge rockets and that's causing them to get delay after delay as they iron out problems.

Stating the obvious, space is hard and just because someone else is doing something doesn't mean you can just do it as well without the experience that took them there.

Blue Origin’s massive New Glenn rocket is delayed for years. What went wrong? | Ars Technica
Interesting article. Just brings home again, how SpaceX's agile development process is so much a part of their secret sauce. I imagine Bezos wanted to try catchup/leapfrog SpaceX... good luck to them trying to do that. Word is we'll see a Super Heavy + Starship test launch this summer if we're lucky (what an event that's going to be... historic if they can pull it off), while Bezos does sub orbital PR stunts in his toy rockets.
 

maniak

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
10,076
Location
Lisboa
Supports
Arsenal
Maybe. I can understand that although I think people would be upset with billionaires whatever they did.
If Bezos used a small fraction of his money to pay decent wages to his workers and improved their working conditions, I don't think people would be upset.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
If Bezos used a small fraction of his money to pay decent wages to his workers and improved their working conditions, I don't think people would be upset.
yeah they would. Bill Gates got accused of being Satan and trying to inject 5G chips into people, despite all his Foundation’s great work.
 

maniak

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
10,076
Location
Lisboa
Supports
Arsenal
yeah they would. Bill Gates got accused of being Satan and trying to inject 5G chips into people, despite all his Foundation’s great work.
Yeah but that's a conspiracy. If Bezos did what I said, he'd be praised for it, just like Gates is praised for the work he does in Africa for example.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,324
Location
Blitztown
yeah they would. Bill Gates got accused of being Satan and trying to inject 5G chips into people, despite all his Foundation’s great work.
If Bezos used his wealth to pay and treat his staff like humans instead of property, people would cease calling him a cnut. 100%.

Your example doesn’t work as only loonies are sharing Bill Gates conspiracy theories. Close to all intelligent people accept that Bezos is a garbage human being.
 

horsechoker

The Caf's Roy Keane.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
52,481
Location
The stable
If Bezos used his wealth to pay and treat his staff like humans instead of property, people would cease calling him a cnut. 100%.

Your example doesn’t work as only loonies are sharing Bill Gates conspiracy theories. Close to all intelligent people accept that Bezos is a garbage human being.
I'd still call him a cnut.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,552
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
If Bezos used his wealth to pay and treat his staff like humans instead of property, people would cease calling him a cnut. 100%.

Your example doesn’t work as only loonies are sharing Bill Gates conspiracy theories. Close to all intelligent people accept that Bezos is a garbage human being.
Gates is definitely not trying to inject microchips into people through vaccines and 5G, but he's not a very good person. He's seemingly trying to make up for his sins now, but even then he's doing things like opposing making vaccines free and patentless. I recommend the Behind the Bastards episode on him.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,324
Location
Blitztown
Gates is definitely not trying to inject microchips into people through vaccines and 5G, but he's not a very good person. He's seemingly trying to make up for his sins now, but even then he's doing things like opposing making vaccines free and patentless. I recommend the Behind the Bastards episode on him.
Your post is unrelated to mine. I wasn’t advocating for Gates.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
Gates is definitely not trying to inject microchips into people through vaccines and 5G, but he's not a very good person. He's seemingly trying to make up for his sins now, but even then he's doing things like opposing making vaccines free and patentless. I recommend the Behind the Bastards episode on him.
That's not completely true - Gates supported a temporary suspension back in May. But there are rational arguments for not wanting to make vaccines patentless, if you want vaccines to be made in the future, especially as the Foundation is paying for a lot of this stuff anyway, so I'm sure they'd be happy to save themselves some money if they thought making them free was a solution.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,730
That's not completely true - Gates supported a temporary suspension back in May. But there are rational arguments for not wanting to make vaccines patentless, if you want vaccines to be made in the future, especially as the Foundation is paying for a lot of this stuff anyway, so I'm sure they'd be happy to save themselves some money if they thought making them free was a solution.
The foundation owns shares in many pharma companies, all of whose profits are dependent on restrictive intellectual property. The foundation was after all the product of money made by Microsoft, which is itself based on proprietary knowledge. The founder of both organisations still personally owns a few tens of billions of dollars worth of Microsoft shares. The foundation also pushes such proprietary solutions throughout the world, including in education.

A retreat from a maximalist position on intellectual property would be dangerous to all of the stakeholders who matter. It gives a plausible explanation as to why the Foundation directly intervened to make sure the Oxford vaccine - including all technical details for its manufacture - were not public domain, as had been previously promised by the university.


Few have observed Bill Gates’s devotion to monopoly medicine more closely than James Love, founder and director of Knowledge Ecology International, a Washington, D.C.–based group that studies the broad nexus of federal policy, the pharmaceutical industry, and intellectual property. Love entered the world of global public health policy around the same time Gates did, and for two decades has watched him scale its heights while reinforcing the system responsible for the very problems he claims to be trying to solve. The through-line for Gates has been his unwavering commitment to drug companies’ right to exclusive control over medical science and the markets for its products.

“Things could have gone either way,” says Love, “but Gates wanted exclusive rights maintained. He acted fast to stop the push for sharing the knowledge needed to make the products—the know-how, the data, the cell lines, the tech transfer, the transparency that is critically important in a dozen ways. The pooling approach represented by C-TAP included all of that. Instead of backing those early discussions, he raced ahead and signaled support for business-as-usual on intellectual property by announcing the ACT-Accelerator in March.”
One year later, the ACT-Accelerator has failed to meet its goal of providing discounted vaccines to the “priority fifth” of low-income populations. The drug companies and rich nations that had so much praise for the initiative a year ago have retreated into bilateral deals that leave little for anybody else.

...

Technically housed within the WHO, the ACT-Accelerator is a Gates operation, top to bottom. It is designed, managed, and staffed largely by Gates organization employees. It embodies Gates’s philanthropic approach to widely anticipated problems posed by intellectual property–hoarding companies able to constrain global production by prioritizing rich countries and inhibiting licensing. Companies partnering with COVAX are allowed to set their own tiered prices. They are subject to almost no transparency requirements and to toothless contractual nods to “equitable access” that have never been enforced. Crucially, the companies retain exclusive rights to their intellectual property. If they stray from the Gates Foundation line on exclusive rights, they are quickly brought to heel. When the director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute had funny ideas about placing the rights to its COVAX-supported vaccine candidate in the public domain, Gates intervened. As reported by Kaiser Health News, “A few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course [and] signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded-global-access-covid-vaccines
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
The foundation owns shares in many pharma companies, all of whose profits are dependent on restrictive intellectual property. The foundation was after all the product of money made by Microsoft, which is itself based on proprietary knowledge. The founder of both organisations still personally owns a few tens of billions of dollars worth of Microsoft shares. The foundation also pushes such proprietary solutions throughout the world, including in education.

A retreat from a maximalist position on intellectual property would be dangerous to all of the stakeholders who matter. It gives a plausible explanation as to why the Foundation directly intervened to make sure the Oxford vaccine - including all technical details for its manufacture - were not public domain, as had been previously promised by the university.
I get all that but I still don’t see why you are beating Bill Gates with this stick. “Leading capitalist believes in concept of ownership” isn’t really a slam dunk, especially if said capitalist is also happy to write massive cheques to ensure ownership isn’t a core blocker when it comes to widening access.

I mean did anyone think Carnegie was wrong for not requiring all the books in his libraries were copyright free before carrying them?
 

Raven

Full Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
6,742
Location
Ireland
I get all that but I still don’t see why you are beating Bill Gates with this stick. “Leading capitalist believes in concept of ownership” isn’t really a slam dunk, especially if said capitalist is also happy to write massive cheques to ensure ownership isn’t a core blocker when it comes to widening access.

I mean did anyone think Carnegie was wrong for not requiring all the books in his libraries were copyright free before carrying them?
Believing in the concept of ownership is fine, denying (or at least postponing) access to life saving medicine is not.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,730
I get all that but I still don’t see why you are beating Bill Gates with this stick. “Leading capitalist believes in concept of ownership” isn’t really a slam dunk, especially if said capitalist is also happy to write massive cheques to ensure ownership isn’t a core blocker when it comes to widening access.

I mean did anyone think Carnegie was wrong for not requiring all the books in his libraries were copyright free before carrying them?
Belief has no meaning here. He, using his name which he has laundered through his foundation, intervened to change a promised policy in a way that benefits himself, his company, and his class in the long-term, and costs un-persons in the short term.

About his massive cheques - the foundation website announced a total spend of 1.75bn, including non-vaccine spends (which seem to be larger than vaccine spends), through the pandemic. Gates' net worth is 131.6bn, so this is <2%, not exactly some massive sacrifice, or even something that will register after a few months or a year. I'd like to note that vaccination rates in low-income countries are around 1%, so it's not like these massive cheques have created a supply glut.

That library analogy would make sense if the author wanted to make it copyright free and Carnegie made sure they couldn't be. and if instead of setting up a library he made people buy books, while playing them and others to subsidise them.

The curious thing about modern "philanthropists" and their generous giving is that their net worth never shows it.
The gates foundation was launched in 2000 when gates was worth $63 bn. After 20 years of charity he is worth more than double. When Carnegie started spending, he was left with less than 10% of what he started with. Funny how that works!
 

Raven

Full Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
6,742
Location
Ireland
Belief has no meaning here. He, using his name which he has laundered through his foundation, intervened to change a promised policy in a way that benefits himself, his company, and his class in the long-term, and costs un-persons in the short term.

About his massive cheques - the foundation website announced a total spend of 1.75bn, including non-vaccine spends (which seem to be larger than vaccine spends), through the pandemic. Gates' net worth is 131.6bn, so this is <2%, not exactly some massive sacrifice, or even something that will register after a few months or a year. I'd like to note that vaccination rates in low-income countries are around 1%, so it's not like these massive cheques have created a supply glut.

That library analogy would make sense if the author wanted to make it copyright free and Carnegie made sure they couldn't be. and if instead of setting up a library he made people buy books, while playing them and others to subsidise them.

The curious thing about modern "philanthropists" and their generous giving is that their net worth never shows it.
The gates foundation was launched in 2000 when gates was worth $63 bn. After 20 years of charity he is worth more than double. When Carnegie started spending, he was left with less than 10% of what he started with. Funny how that works!
This is a fantastic post.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
Belief has no meaning here. He, using his name which he has laundered through his foundation, intervened to change a promised policy in a way that benefits himself, his company, and his class in the long-term, and costs un-persons in the short term.

About his massive cheques - the foundation website announced a total spend of 1.75bn, including non-vaccine spends (which seem to be larger than vaccine spends), through the pandemic. Gates' net worth is 131.6bn, so this is <2%, not exactly some massive sacrifice, or even something that will register after a few months or a year. I'd like to note that vaccination rates in low-income countries are around 1%, so it's not like these massive cheques have created a supply glut.

That library analogy would make sense if the author wanted to make it copyright free and Carnegie made sure they couldn't be. and if instead of setting up a library he made people buy books, while playing them and others to subsidise them.

The curious thing about modern "philanthropists" and their generous giving is that their net worth never shows it.
The gates foundation was launched in 2000 when gates was worth $63 bn. After 20 years of charity he is worth more than double. When Carnegie started spending, he was left with less than 10% of what he started with. Funny how that works!
What is Gate's liquid wealth? I'm guessing that the vast majority of his wealth is tied up in assets.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
Believing in the concept of ownership is fine, denying (or at least postponing) access to life saving medicine is not.
It's not Gates who is responsible for the way rich countries have prioritised vaccines and stockpiled for their own populations. I don't see the IP issues as the key ones here at all.
 

Raven

Full Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
6,742
Location
Ireland
It's not Gates who is responsible for the way rich countries have prioritised vaccines and stockpiled for their own populations. I don't see the IP issues as the key ones here at all.
So you're saying that if India (for example) was permitted to manufacture their own vaccines, they wouldn't have more access to the vaccine? Have I misunderstood you?
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
Belief has no meaning here. He, using his name which he has laundered through his foundation, intervened to change a promised policy in a way that benefits himself, his company, and his class in the long-term, and costs un-persons in the short term.
Well, your use of the word laundered isn't loaded at all. As I've said in another post, patent protection, which pretty much underpins the Pharma business, isn't the cause of supply issues around Covid. Much bigger issues have been vaccine nationalism, materials, manufacturing capacity & capability etc.

About his massive cheques - the foundation website announced a total spend of 1.75bn, including non-vaccine spends (which seem to be larger than vaccine spends), through the pandemic. Gates' net worth is 131.6bn, so this is <2%, not exactly some massive sacrifice, or even something that will register after a few months or a year. I'd like to note that vaccination rates in low-income countries are around 1%, so it's not like these massive cheques have created a supply glut.
That $1.75bn was for Covid relief. Given it distributes something like $3-4bn a year, that's a big chunk.

The curious thing about modern "philanthropists" and their generous giving is that their net worth never shows it.
The gates foundation was launched in 2000 when gates was worth $63 bn. After 20 years of charity he is worth more than double. When Carnegie started spending, he was left with less than 10% of what he started with. Funny how that works!
Yes, very funny, there's the 14 million lives saved through Gavi (which the Foundation helped found and funds), and the 822million kids vaccinated. That's a result.

And it ignores the fact Gates has given something like $50b to the Foundation since 2000. He's not tried to topple countries, or create a political dynasty, or build things with his name on them, or try to colonise Mars, or build palaces... all the kinds of things people with that kind of money have the power to do.

I think it's a valid question to ask whether a larger portion of Gate's wealth should be given to the Foundation given that was his promise, although it may simply be that's it's hard to spend it fast enough it on the kinds of things Gates wants to see a return on.
 
Last edited:

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
10,225
Location
Your Left Ventricle
Belief has no meaning here. He, using his name which he has laundered through his foundation, intervened to change a promised policy in a way that benefits himself, his company, and his class in the long-term, and costs un-persons in the short term.

About his massive cheques - the foundation website announced a total spend of 1.75bn, including non-vaccine spends (which seem to be larger than vaccine spends), through the pandemic. Gates' net worth is 131.6bn, so this is <2%, not exactly some massive sacrifice, or even something that will register after a few months or a year. I'd like to note that vaccination rates in low-income countries are around 1%, so it's not like these massive cheques have created a supply glut.

That library analogy would make sense if the author wanted to make it copyright free and Carnegie made sure they couldn't be. and if instead of setting up a library he made people buy books, while playing them and others to subsidise them.

The curious thing about modern "philanthropists" and their generous giving is that their net worth never shows it.
The gates foundation was launched in 2000 when gates was worth $63 bn. After 20 years of charity he is worth more than double. When Carnegie started spending, he was left with less than 10% of what he started with. Funny how that works!
Legend(?) has it that one town (heck, probably a lot more than just one) tried to get around the "no-using-Carnegie-library-money-for-anything-but-the-library" rule by connecting their new City Hall ("It's just coincidental timing, we swear!") to the library, and one of Carnegie's hired auditors/inspectors made them tear down not just the library but the entire municipal complex as well.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
So you're saying that if India (for example) was permitted to manufacture their own vaccines, they wouldn't have more access to the vaccine? Have I misunderstood you?
I'm not sure what you mean. India manufactures Covishield, licensed from AstraZeneca, Covaxin, developed in India and Novavax. It doesn't sound to me like patent protection is the issue - more an issue of manufacturing capacity and legal indemnity: "But supplies of foreign-made vaccines are facing legal hurdles over the manufacturers' desire for indemnity protection against claims arising out of using the vaccines - something no vaccine maker in India has at the moment." Source
 

Raven

Full Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
6,742
Location
Ireland
I'm not sure what you mean. India manufactures Covishield, licensed from AstraZeneca, Covaxin, developed in India and Novavax. "But supplies of foreign-made vaccines are facing legal hurdles over the manufacturers' desire for indemnity protection against claims arising out of using the vaccines - something no vaccine maker in India has at the moment." Source,
So if India already produces so many vaccines, why can't they produce their own without the go ahead of shady pharma companies?

You'll also notice that I said "for example".
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
So if India already produces so many vaccines, why can't they produce their own without the go ahead of shady pharma companies?

You'll also notice that I said "for example".
The basic issue here is your example wasn't a very good one.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,552
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Well, your use of the word laundered isn't loaded at all.
Sorry, are you saying he hasn't laundered his name through his foundation? I don't know how old you are, but you registered on the Caf in 2001, so you should be well aware of the terrible reputation Bill Gates had before he started his charitable work, and the good reasons for that terrible reputation. Unless you think he did it because he just cares so much, in which case we return to the fact that Gates is worth a lot more than when he started the foundation.
 

Kinsella

Copy & Paste Merchant
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
2,767
What is Gate's liquid wealth? I'm guessing that the vast majority of his wealth is tied up in assets.
It is.

The increase in wealth that people often refer to with these multi-billionaires, has largely come about because the value of their stocks and shares have gone up. It's not because of increases in income.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,552
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
It is.

The increase in wealth that people often refer to with these multi-billionaires, has largely come about because the value of their stocks and shares have gone up. It's not because of increases in income.
Nobody thinks that he's sitting on an Uncle Scrooge-esque pile of money. Saying "multi-billionaires are only multi-billionaires because they own stuff worth billions" is not a clever revelation. Property has always been the main factor of wealth, and owning part of a company is definitely property.
 

Kinsella

Copy & Paste Merchant
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
2,767
Nobody thinks that he's sitting on an Uncle Scrooge-esque pile of money. Saying "multi-billionaires are only multi-billionaires because they own stuff worth billions" is not a clever revelation. Property has always been the main factor of wealth, and owning part of a company is definitely property.
And stating that property ownership is a factor, or main factor, in a person's wealth is hardly a revelation either. What point are you trying to make?