Of course it made a billion dollars, it's a decent Star Wars movie. They could have made a great Star Wars movie if they didn't just remake A New Hope. Of course that would also risk a bomb that would kill ticket sales for the further installments.
Better to shoot for mediocrity and guarantee billions than to shoot for greatness and risk the cash cow. Hopefully the next non-Abrams director will be willing to make a new movie.
A project can only be considered "open source" if anyone can push changes to its code repo without any oversight at all.
The moment that there's oversight of any kind, then the project is no longer open.
The correct term in that case is "source-available", not "open source".
Most of what are typically called "open source" software projects aren't open at all.
There is typically a small group of maintainers who control all changes, even if anyone can see the source and submit patches.
The presence of these maintainers and the limited access to the source repo makes these projects "source-available" projects, rather than "open source" projects.
I, and most others, can't commit directly to the Thunderbird source repo.
So Thunderbird is not an "open source" project. It's a "source-available" project.
If I can't commit directly to a project's source repo, then I refuse to contribute to it.
I agree that not all open source projects are equally open. Some are very strictly controlled by a single company or organization and aren't very open to outside contributors or direction.
But the idea of letting any random party make commits to the source tree is ridiculous. Can you point to any examples of a popular project that fits your definition of open source?
I'll tell you what the real spoiler is: Seeing the movie.... it gives away EVERYTHING!
I guess I understand why people don't want spoilers.. intellectually, anyway.
But seriously, do spoilers *really* ruin a movie?
Yes. Not always a lot, but yes.
Are you not entertained because someone told you about a piece of the story?
No, because I wanted to see that piece of the story in the film for which it was made.
I mean, you know that there is going to be wookies and droids and the force... you know what you are getting into.
And those aren't spoilers. They're facts we already know about the universe. Parts of the movie that would legitimately surprise me, or major events that will now distract me since I know they're coming but don't know when, those are spoilers that can ruin a movie.
What about movies that do that whole backwards in time style that show the ending first?.... that is technically a spoiler, right?
No, because the story is still being told in order, it's just the chronology that's reversed.
Yet it doesn't detract from the movie because it is out of context.
I mean, people still watch shows about WW II and we all know how that turned out... but it doesn't seem to make it any less of a good story...
We know how the war ended up which is why movies aren't about who wins the war. They're about characters whose outcomes we don't know.
Dark City was a great movie, it would have been an awesome movie if the studio didn't wreck it with the opening voice-over. I'm still annoyed I never got to watch it with that mystery.
Fight Club without spoilers is a completely different movie than Fight Club with spoilers, by giving spoilers you'd deny people from seeing that first film.
Even a spoiler that said "star wars is pretty much by the numbers" would be a spoiler since I wouldn't have the suspense of wondering if they're going to keep going by the numbers.
But another obstacle is a political heavyweight with a famous name, a local Cape Cod address and hardline opposition to the project.
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy's primary residence is in Hyannisport, Mass., on the Kennedy family compound. It's one of the closest landfalls -- about 6 miles -- from the proposed site of the 440-feet turbines, which would be visible from his house as well as other surrounding coastlines.
In all fairness, Kennedy's aides were probably afraid he'd try to drive over to the windmills out at sea.
So you're saying that Ed Kennedy was even more of a winner than Trump?
We should praise the ones who don't want to stay late. They hurt themselves, and they hurt the rest of us by normalising it to the point where it's expected if you want to get ahead.
I worked at a place that discouraged it, and always made people who worked late for exceptional reasons take the time off later. As such people would set realistic deadlines and not pressure others to work late to make them look good.
Subordinates having too much overtime was taken as a sign of poor management.
I agree though our place is really good about that.
Previously we were hourly so to the extent people did OT they were generally driving it themselves. Now we're on salary but management is very good about encouraging a 40hr week. If you work 42 your manager starts asking why you aren't going home earlier.
It's still a pain if it happens since you do plan your life around a regular workday and weekends off, but it's not a terribly common occurrence.
When we are successful it is because of our hard work and perseverance. Something I have yet to see any women display. All they do is bitch and moan about how misogyny is keeping them down.
Simultaneously denying the effects of misogyny while claiming to have never seen a woman display "hard work and perseverance".
> The fact that when you have a mixed group people just automatically assume one of the guys in the leader.
That's not really much of an advantage.
It isn't? How do you think people end up in management? How do you think they get the idea that they have leadership skills?
> That there's a lot more successful guys to mentor younger guys than there are successful women to mentor young women.
There's zero reason, other than bigotry, to assume that people need a same-gender mentor. Do you think it's okay for people to say they're not comfortable around women? If yes, then how is that different from being "uncomfortable" around black people?
Mixed gender is fine, but same gender gives them the ability to effectively council them about gender-specific issues. It also reduces worries that an older man mentoring a younger woman will be perceived to have ulterior motives.
That's two non-bigotry reasons.
> Or all the legitimate misogynists who have a real problem with the prospect of a female superior.
And every legitimate problem someone has with a female superior will get blamed on mysogyny.
Only if they express their concerns in misogynist terms.
> Or how uncomfortable it can be working in an industry that can be really hostile to women.
So you don't think that saying "you have a penis, you're not welcome at demo day" is hostile?
No because there's lots of different high quality demo days for guys to attend.
> Or the very powerful fact when you're a guy you're surrounded by examples of male leaders and entrepreneurs to serve as examples and validation, while a woman is in much more uncertain territory.
Entrepreneurs don't need someone to show them the way, they MAKE the way that other people follow. If you need someone to tell you what to do, you are simply not cut out to be an entrepreneur. You're still welcome to try, but you're going to have to come to terms that there there's a 90% chance your business will die horribly due to mistakes you made, even if you work your ass off. So you can easily waste 10 years and come out behind.
Very inspirational. And irrelevant.
You can become a world champion sprinter without a coach or training group. You could easily get all the expertise you need online, you could probably get a hold of a world class coach and have them train you over the internet.
Yet somehow all these world champion sprinters have coaches and training groups.
> A supportive environment that pushes you towards a course of action is incredibly important, and that's something guys have and Google is trying to re-create for women.
A supportive environment is great. But I don't see how man-free is "supportive" of anything, because they won't get any helpful advice from the many men who would be more than happy to help or advise someone no matter what gender they happen to be.
This is a single event, not a new Silicon Valley with a "no boys allowed" sign up front. It's not even female-only, the only requirement is they're founded by women. There are still men in attendance in every other role, including members of the start ups.
Do you really think most men like being excluded?
Why would a guy give a crap about being excluded from this event? It's one event. It's not like they took their premiere demo event and made it female-only. This is a special edition made for women and put there so people who want to support woman founded companies have that opportunity.
Of course, I'm sure this entire post will get labeled as mysogyny by some, even though you don't actually know which gender I am, and even though I, unlike many here, have mentored women on electronics and programming.
I don't care what gender you are except to the extent that your gender provides you with some specific insight (and if you have some you didn't reference it).
Women are just as capable of being wrong as men (though less likely to err on the side of MRAs).
The general consensus on Slashdot is that: 1. Men have no advantage over women; quite the opposite, a significant set of disadvantages; 2. Women are under-represented in higher-earning professions because "they just don't feel like it" 3. Anything aimed at women only is end-of-the-word discrimination.
I'm trying to shift that consensus.
Mostly when I read a thread on/. I see similar opinions to those I see in the industry as a whole.
But whenever an article about feminism comes up the comment threads become absolutely toxic. I normally brag to people about the high quality of comments on/., but I don't want any association with the views I see expressed in threads like these.
These threads aren't going to get any better until those those of us who disagree with this consensus speak up and make our case.
"Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages"
Like the men only demo days, men only networking events, men only scholarships, men only mentor setup programs, men only coding programs and so on. I think what you mean to write was: "Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages that women get".
The fact that when you have a mixed group people just automatically assume one of the guys in the leader.
That there's a lot more successful guys to mentor younger guys than there are successful women to mentor young women.
Or all the legitimate misogynists who have a real problem with the prospect of a female superior.
Or how uncomfortable it can be working in an industry that can be really hostile to women.
Or the very powerful fact when you're a guy you're surrounded by examples of male leaders and entrepreneurs to serve as examples and validation, while a woman is in much more uncertain territory.
If you don't think these things matter then question why prospective entrepreneurs move to Silicon Valley instead of Ohio. A supportive environment that pushes you towards a course of action is incredibly important, and that's something guys have and Google is trying to re-create for women.
perhaps males have a ridiculous number of advantages because at some point in the past, women had all the advantages and males were treated as charity cases and given preferential treatment which they exploited to revolt.
sexism is sexism. put lipstick on the pig all you want... you're an ignorant hypocrite.
I can't tell if you're trolling or an explorer from an alternate dimension.
Go tell a women she has to pull a few all-nighter because the product need to be shipped Sunday evening...
I know several female devs.
They've been just as likely to stay late or come in on weekends as anyone else.
Now they didn't have kids so maybe that would change if they get children, but for the childless twenty-somethings, they're just as dedicated as the guys.
That's because they have smaller brains and are not as smart and need a special edge, just like here where they need their own special Female Entrepreneurs events, since they can't compete with men evenly. At least that is the message that Google seems to be sending.
The fact you're receiving that message has more to do with you than Google.
Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages that men get when it comes to entrepreneurship in the technology industry and see events such as this as attempts to even a heavily tilted playing field.
I just want to know when the special "male only" event will be?
No?
Males have a ridiculous number of advantages when it comes to becoming entrepreneurs, having the occasional female-specific event to try and correct some of the imbalance does not count as discrimination.
I do. BTC is gaining a lot of traction as the defacto digital currency standard, and we have no idea who's behind it. Bitcoin is a solid design and has survived a lot of scrutiny so far, but imagine what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.
That would be irrelevant. Who created the Bitcoin system, be it a Satoshi or an NSA, is at best a historical piece of information. Bitcoin is an open design and its code open source, free to be analyzed by anyone who has an interest. It is not controlled by its creator.
It matters for reputation, and when you're talking about a currency reputation is everything.
If the founder is an entrepreneur bitcoin becomes viewed as a startup, possibly a mechanism for speculation or even a ponzi scheme.
If the founder is has a checkered past people will focus on the cyber criminals using bitcoin for ransomware, arms deals, and other disreputable purposes.
If the founder is an idealist they'll think of bitcoin as a mechanism for international development, working around broken 3rd world central banks and allowing new kinds of social and economic interaction to emerge.
I'm not saying the founder is the only thing that matters, but it's far from irrelevant.
is that this is all very likely a smokescreen for his political and lobbying activities. That's why he doesn't just run it as a real charity. Real charities aren't allowed to do the kinds of things Zuckerberg (probably) wants to do. He's going to use this as a very big stick to get things he wants. He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.
The only times I can think of when a Baron genuinely turned to charity are at the end of their lives when a few of them got the fear of God (and more importantly hell) in 'em.
I find the idea he's doing this primarily for tax purposes to be dumb, you don't give away $45 billion out of greed.
As for the claim "He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart" that's also completely unsubstantiated, and is contradicted by the pledge of giving away $45 billion.
Far more likely he is doing this out of genuine altruism. But he doesn't want to do a charity because charities, in exchange for tax exemptions, are subject to intense oversight. But with $45 billion Zuckerberg is more concerned about the freedom to act than avoiding taxes.
Perhaps there's some policy areas where wants change, well so do I. Do you think everyone donating to a political party or organization is doing so for nefarious reasons? Perhaps he wants to donate to one of the for-profit companies who considers a traditional charitable goal to be their primary purpose.
I'm sure there are ways where Zuckerberg could use this organization to do something bad, but to claim that because there's a way to do bad then that's the thing he's actually going to do is the stuff of conspiracy theories.
There will still be accidents, including fatal ones and I would think a worse, more catastrophic breed of accident will appear once they start having cars drive in very close formation.
I'd assume catastrophic accidents would be less likely as car AIs could detect the rare conditions that could lead to one (as opposed to human drivers who might lack the knowledge) and react to stop it from propogating.
Safety standards will slip, there will be more of a drive to improve fuel efficiency and more risks taken. Redundant systems will eventually be scrapped to save costs and we'll be back to (or worse) than we are now.
There's certainly going to be some back and forth between safety, speed, and cost. But long term it should be safer since driverless cars make safety cheaper.
Above all the fact remains that we live in an imperfect world where sh1t doesn't always go according to plan. Moose will still jump infront of robo cars and get killed, as will children - you just can't stop a lump of metal traveling at 100kph in 0 time using software alone (and even if you could, doing so would kill the occupants)
No but you can vastly improve upon the reaction time and quick decisions of a human. You could get something like for every two children saved by an inhumanly responsive driverless car you have one additional child killed because they're overconfident in the abilities of a driverless car to avoid them.
Slashdot Mirror
Mild spoiler warning.
Of course it made a billion dollars, it's a decent Star Wars movie. They could have made a great Star Wars movie if they didn't just remake A New Hope. Of course that would also risk a bomb that would kill ticket sales for the further installments.
Better to shoot for mediocrity and guarantee billions than to shoot for greatness and risk the cash cow. Hopefully the next non-Abrams director will be willing to make a new movie.
A project can only be considered "open source" if anyone can push changes to its code repo without any oversight at all.
The moment that there's oversight of any kind, then the project is no longer open.
The correct term in that case is "source-available", not "open source".
Most of what are typically called "open source" software projects aren't open at all.
There is typically a small group of maintainers who control all changes, even if anyone can see the source and submit patches.
The presence of these maintainers and the limited access to the source repo makes these projects "source-available" projects, rather than "open source" projects.
I, and most others, can't commit directly to the Thunderbird source repo.
So Thunderbird is not an "open source" project. It's a "source-available" project.
If I can't commit directly to a project's source repo, then I refuse to contribute to it.
I agree that not all open source projects are equally open. Some are very strictly controlled by a single company or organization and aren't very open to outside contributors or direction.
But the idea of letting any random party make commits to the source tree is ridiculous. Can you point to any examples of a popular project that fits your definition of open source?
I'll tell you what the real spoiler is: Seeing the movie.... it gives away EVERYTHING!
I guess I understand why people don't want spoilers.. intellectually, anyway.
But seriously, do spoilers *really* ruin a movie?
Yes. Not always a lot, but yes.
Are you not entertained because someone told you about a piece of the story?
No, because I wanted to see that piece of the story in the film for which it was made.
I mean, you know that there is going to be wookies and droids and the force... you know what you are getting into.
And those aren't spoilers. They're facts we already know about the universe. Parts of the movie that would legitimately surprise me, or major events that will now distract me since I know they're coming but don't know when, those are spoilers that can ruin a movie.
What about movies that do that whole backwards in time style that show the ending first?.... that is technically a spoiler, right?
No, because the story is still being told in order, it's just the chronology that's reversed.
Yet it doesn't detract from the movie because it is out of context.
I mean, people still watch shows about WW II and we all know how that turned out... but it doesn't seem to make it any less of a good story...
We know how the war ended up which is why movies aren't about who wins the war. They're about characters whose outcomes we don't know.
Dark City was a great movie, it would have been an awesome movie if the studio didn't wreck it with the opening voice-over. I'm still annoyed I never got to watch it with that mystery.
Fight Club without spoilers is a completely different movie than Fight Club with spoilers, by giving spoilers you'd deny people from seeing that first film.
Even a spoiler that said "star wars is pretty much by the numbers" would be a spoiler since I wouldn't have the suspense of wondering if they're going to keep going by the numbers.
What we need to help fix this planet are people that run off of logic, not emotions.
But then what will we talk about on slashdot?
Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch
But another obstacle is a political heavyweight with a famous name, a local Cape Cod address and hardline opposition to the project.
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy's primary residence is in Hyannisport, Mass., on the Kennedy family compound. It's one of the closest landfalls -- about 6 miles -- from the proposed site of the 440-feet turbines, which would be visible from his house as well as other surrounding coastlines.
In all fairness, Kennedy's aides were probably afraid he'd try to drive over to the windmills out at sea.
So you're saying that Ed Kennedy was even more of a winner than Trump?
We should praise the ones who don't want to stay late. They hurt themselves, and they hurt the rest of us by normalising it to the point where it's expected if you want to get ahead.
I worked at a place that discouraged it, and always made people who worked late for exceptional reasons take the time off later. As such people would set realistic deadlines and not pressure others to work late to make them look good.
Subordinates having too much overtime was taken as a sign of poor management.
I agree though our place is really good about that.
Previously we were hourly so to the extent people did OT they were generally driving it themselves. Now we're on salary but management is very good about encouraging a 40hr week. If you work 42 your manager starts asking why you aren't going home earlier.
It's still a pain if it happens since you do plan your life around a regular workday and weekends off, but it's not a terribly common occurrence.
When we are successful it is because of our hard work and perseverance. Something I have yet to see any women display. All they do is bitch and moan about how misogyny is keeping them down.
Simultaneously denying the effects of misogyny while claiming to have never seen a woman display "hard work and perseverance".
Do I file that under oblivious or ironic?
> The fact that when you have a mixed group people just automatically assume one of the guys in the leader.
That's not really much of an advantage.
It isn't? How do you think people end up in management? How do you think they get the idea that they have leadership skills?
> That there's a lot more successful guys to mentor younger guys than there are successful women to mentor young women.
There's zero reason, other than bigotry, to assume that people need a same-gender mentor. Do you think it's okay for people to say they're not comfortable around women? If yes, then how is that different from being "uncomfortable" around black people?
Mixed gender is fine, but same gender gives them the ability to effectively council them about gender-specific issues. It also reduces worries that an older man mentoring a younger woman will be perceived to have ulterior motives.
That's two non-bigotry reasons.
> Or all the legitimate misogynists who have a real problem with the prospect of a female superior.
And every legitimate problem someone has with a female superior will get blamed on mysogyny.
Only if they express their concerns in misogynist terms.
> Or how uncomfortable it can be working in an industry that can be really hostile to women.
So you don't think that saying "you have a penis, you're not welcome at demo day" is hostile?
No because there's lots of different high quality demo days for guys to attend.
> Or the very powerful fact when you're a guy you're surrounded by examples of male leaders and entrepreneurs to serve as examples and validation, while a woman is in much more uncertain territory.
Entrepreneurs don't need someone to show them the way, they MAKE the way that other people follow. If you need someone to tell you what to do, you are simply not cut out to be an entrepreneur. You're still welcome to try, but you're going to have to come to terms that there there's a 90% chance your business will die horribly due to mistakes you made, even if you work your ass off. So you can easily waste 10 years and come out behind.
Very inspirational. And irrelevant.
You can become a world champion sprinter without a coach or training group. You could easily get all the expertise you need online, you could probably get a hold of a world class coach and have them train you over the internet.
Yet somehow all these world champion sprinters have coaches and training groups.
> A supportive environment that pushes you towards a course of action is incredibly important, and that's something guys have and Google is trying to re-create for women.
A supportive environment is great. But I don't see how man-free is "supportive" of anything, because they won't get any helpful advice from the many men who would be more than happy to help or advise someone no matter what gender they happen to be.
This is a single event, not a new Silicon Valley with a "no boys allowed" sign up front. It's not even female-only, the only requirement is they're founded by women. There are still men in attendance in every other role, including members of the start ups.
Do you really think most men like being excluded?
Why would a guy give a crap about being excluded from this event? It's one event. It's not like they took their premiere demo event and made it female-only. This is a special edition made for women and put there so people who want to support woman founded companies have that opportunity.
Of course, I'm sure this entire post will get labeled as mysogyny by some, even though you don't actually know which gender I am, and even though I, unlike many here, have mentored women on electronics and programming.
I don't care what gender you are except to the extent that your gender provides you with some specific insight (and if you have some you didn't reference it).
Women are just as capable of being wrong as men (though less likely to err on the side of MRAs).
Exceptions that prove the rule.
If everyone I know is an exception then it's not a very useful rule.
How long have you been here?
The general consensus on Slashdot is that:
1. Men have no advantage over women; quite the opposite, a significant set of disadvantages;
2. Women are under-represented in higher-earning professions because "they just don't feel like it"
3. Anything aimed at women only is end-of-the-word discrimination.
I'm trying to shift that consensus.
Mostly when I read a thread on /. I see similar opinions to those I see in the industry as a whole.
But whenever an article about feminism comes up the comment threads become absolutely toxic. I normally brag to people about the high quality of comments on /., but I don't want any association with the views I see expressed in threads like these.
These threads aren't going to get any better until those those of us who disagree with this consensus speak up and make our case.
"Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages"
Like the men only demo days, men only networking events, men only scholarships, men only mentor setup programs, men only coding programs and so on. I think what you mean to write was: "Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages that women get".
The fact that when you have a mixed group people just automatically assume one of the guys in the leader.
That there's a lot more successful guys to mentor younger guys than there are successful women to mentor young women.
Or all the legitimate misogynists who have a real problem with the prospect of a female superior.
Or how uncomfortable it can be working in an industry that can be really hostile to women.
Or the very powerful fact when you're a guy you're surrounded by examples of male leaders and entrepreneurs to serve as examples and validation, while a woman is in much more uncertain territory.
If you don't think these things matter then question why prospective entrepreneurs move to Silicon Valley instead of Ohio. A supportive environment that pushes you towards a course of action is incredibly important, and that's something guys have and Google is trying to re-create for women.
perhaps males have a ridiculous number of advantages because at some point in the past, women had all the advantages and males were treated as charity cases and given preferential treatment which they exploited to revolt.
sexism is sexism. put lipstick on the pig all you want... you're an ignorant hypocrite.
I can't tell if you're trolling or an explorer from an alternate dimension.
Go tell a women she has to pull a few all-nighter because the product need to be shipped Sunday evening...
I know several female devs.
They've been just as likely to stay late or come in on weekends as anyone else.
Now they didn't have kids so maybe that would change if they get children, but for the childless twenty-somethings, they're just as dedicated as the guys.
That's because they have smaller brains and are not as smart and need a special edge, just like here where they need their own special Female Entrepreneurs events, since they can't compete with men evenly. At least that is the message that Google seems to be sending.
The fact you're receiving that message has more to do with you than Google.
Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages that men get when it comes to entrepreneurship in the technology industry and see events such as this as attempts to even a heavily tilted playing field.
I just want to know when the special "male only" event will be?
No?
Males have a ridiculous number of advantages when it comes to becoming entrepreneurs, having the occasional female-specific event to try and correct some of the imbalance does not count as discrimination.
..the old libertarian geezers of Slashdot who whine about conspiracy theories on every climate-related post here.
Whatever happened to global warming?
It got re-branded in response to the nit-picking skeptics who claimed it was falsified every time there was a cold spell.
I do. BTC is gaining a lot of traction as the defacto digital currency standard, and we have no idea who's behind it. Bitcoin is a solid design and has survived a lot of scrutiny so far, but imagine what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.
That would be irrelevant. Who created the Bitcoin system, be it a Satoshi or an NSA, is at best a historical piece of information. Bitcoin is an open design and its code open source, free to be analyzed by anyone who has an interest. It is not controlled by its creator.
It matters for reputation, and when you're talking about a currency reputation is everything.
If the founder is an entrepreneur bitcoin becomes viewed as a startup, possibly a mechanism for speculation or even a ponzi scheme.
If the founder is has a checkered past people will focus on the cyber criminals using bitcoin for ransomware, arms deals, and other disreputable purposes.
If the founder is an idealist they'll think of bitcoin as a mechanism for international development, working around broken 3rd world central banks and allowing new kinds of social and economic interaction to emerge.
I'm not saying the founder is the only thing that matters, but it's far from irrelevant.
Most people divest stock to use the money for their direct benefit, he plans to give it away. I think that's a pretty important difference.
He plans on swinging the money around in ways that get him what he wants politically.
And if you look into things like the H1B controversy, it isn't things that a lot of us want, politically.
So your theory is he's giving away 99% of his stock so the remaining 1% has a slight increase in value?
Not exactly a "diabolical genius" calibre plan if you ask me.
At least she's not hypocritical in using strong encryption for her own servers!
Remember, this is a cash in on stock, it's not real money yet. He's not losing anything by getting rid of it. Just numbers in a database.
Numbers worth billions of dollars.
It allows him to divest of the stock without bringing the price down too quickly.
Most people divest stock to use the money for their direct benefit, he plans to give it away. I think that's a pretty important difference.
Put on your imagination cap for about 5 seconds and you can probably come up with the answer.
I hate when people go into a conversation and feign lack of insight and intuition.
Ok, lets play and look at potential motives.
He's gonna pull the money out at some point or otherwise use it for his own personal gain?
Well no, that would just be a stupid idea since he'd look absolutely terrible backtracking on his donation idea.
He's trying to set up some easy job for his daughter in running the foundation?
Surely there's easier ways to set his daughter up with an easy job.
He's trying to fund projects or politics for his own personal gain?
There's no gain he could expect that will outweigh $45 billion.
It's some tactic to improve his personal image?
So what, that's why people do everything.
So maybe you have a better imagination than I do because I can't come up with a good nefarious motive.
is that this is all very likely a smokescreen for his political and lobbying activities. That's why he doesn't just run it as a real charity. Real charities aren't allowed to do the kinds of things Zuckerberg (probably) wants to do. He's going to use this as a very big stick to get things he wants. He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.
The only times I can think of when a Baron genuinely turned to charity are at the end of their lives when a few of them got the fear of God (and more importantly hell) in 'em.
I find the idea he's doing this primarily for tax purposes to be dumb, you don't give away $45 billion out of greed.
As for the claim "He's not doing this out of the kindness of his heart" that's also completely unsubstantiated, and is contradicted by the pledge of giving away $45 billion.
Far more likely he is doing this out of genuine altruism. But he doesn't want to do a charity because charities, in exchange for tax exemptions, are subject to intense oversight. But with $45 billion Zuckerberg is more concerned about the freedom to act than avoiding taxes.
Perhaps there's some policy areas where wants change, well so do I. Do you think everyone donating to a political party or organization is doing so for nefarious reasons? Perhaps he wants to donate to one of the for-profit companies who considers a traditional charitable goal to be their primary purpose.
I'm sure there are ways where Zuckerberg could use this organization to do something bad, but to claim that because there's a way to do bad then that's the thing he's actually going to do is the stuff of conspiracy theories.
He can do what he wants. No argument there. The problem is, he's being dishonest about what he's doing and why he's doing it.
And what do you think his true motives are?
Why are so many trying to compete with a company that is barely profitable, especially since oil has dropped?
Because in 5-10 years oil is back up, the tech is more advanced, consumers are more environmentally conscious, and there's a big market.
The company who knows how to make the electric car that people want to buy will make a lot of money, Porsche wants to be that company.
There will still be accidents, including fatal ones and I would think a worse, more catastrophic breed of accident will appear once they start having cars drive in very close formation.
I'd assume catastrophic accidents would be less likely as car AIs could detect the rare conditions that could lead to one (as opposed to human drivers who might lack the knowledge) and react to stop it from propogating.
Safety standards will slip, there will be more of a drive to improve fuel efficiency and more risks taken. Redundant systems will eventually be scrapped to save costs and we'll be back to (or worse) than we are now.
There's certainly going to be some back and forth between safety, speed, and cost. But long term it should be safer since driverless cars make safety cheaper.
Above all the fact remains that we live in an imperfect world where sh1t doesn't always go according to plan. Moose will still jump infront of robo cars and get killed, as will children - you just can't stop a lump of metal traveling at 100kph in 0 time using software alone (and even if you could, doing so would kill the occupants)
No but you can vastly improve upon the reaction time and quick decisions of a human. You could get something like for every two children saved by an inhumanly responsive driverless car you have one additional child killed because they're overconfident in the abilities of a driverless car to avoid them.