I guess I'm considered a millennial, but messages like this sound like misconceived pandering. Firstly, I don't think any generation necessarily "owes" anything to future generations. But, even if we accept the premise, I am the beneficiary of absolutely mind-boggling amounts of technological advancement, culture, progress, infrastructure, science, and on and on and on even just over the course of my own lifetime (approaching 30 years). "Boo hoo, things aren't absolutely perfect in every way." That doesn't mean that any generation has "failed" another. Sure, there might be some setbacks and difficult problems to solve or adjust to in the future, but come on. As Steven Pinker has I think convincingly pointed out, things have been reliably getting better for a long time, and even when we think "the world is going to hell", it simply doesn't.
Not to mention, there is something extraordinarily presumptuous about the CEO of one tech company thinking he has the standing to either criticize or speak on behalf of literally billions of people.
I think there are numerous ways in which Tim Cook's generation has failed the next generation (at least in the US).
* Wages are flat,
* Housing costs are up (in large part due to NIMBYism),
* College is more expensive (in large part due to Cook's generation cutting subsidies that they got),
* Environment is shot- that whole global warming thing isn't going away anytime soon.
Generally speaking the baby boomers, as a whole, have focused more on enriching themselves than any other previous generation. This is the first time in generations that, in the US, the newer generation is seen as worse off than the one before it.
Every generation owes the next generation a world that is in as good of condition as when they received it. Anything else is taking out a loan in the next generation’s name.
> Firstly, I don't think any generation necessarily "owes" anything to future generations
Surely - at a bare minimum - it's everyone's responsibility to leave a habitable planet for future generations. Greed now is going to result in a very, very crappy place to live in the future.
> there is something extraordinarily presumptuous about the CEO of one tech company thinking he has the standing to either criticize or speak on behalf of literally billions of people.
I think he's only presuming to speak on behalf of US residents, which caps at 400 million, and even then only for his generation, which limits the number even more.
In any case, I think one can make observations about a group of people of which one is a member without representing every single member of that group. His generation either did or did not fail current graduates, whether everybody agrees with that or not.
I have mixed feelings on discussing problems with "generations"; its so broad and imprecise that it feels meaningless. However, I can accept that it has some value when discussing broad social effects.
I agree with Jobs; Gen X and further back generations, as groups, raped the planet for short-term economic growth. They aren't the first or last group to do so, but they did do it. My generation, I.e. gen Z, is looking at an abnormally bleak future. Yes, the past generations had the Cold War and possible Nuclear Armageddon. And while the Cold War is dead, possible Nuclear Armageddon is still very much alive. We also face, for the first time in US history, the likelihood that we will die poorer than our parents. We also face the fact that our middle age will come with practically certain catastrophic climate change. Any one of these problems is significant on a global scale, but their collective force is even more crippling.
All these problems exist because of the collective decisions of past generations; thats what every present is. WW1 was a product of dumb alliances and treaties made decades before. And it wasn't the generation that decided on the treaties that were butchered on the Somme, it was their children. And as a group, I believe that they are soaked in the blood of their children. However, I will agree that blaming generations is at best unproductive and at worst needlessly divisive. Yes, the actions of past generations create the wars and disasters of today, but that is a simple fact of societies. Blaming a generation hides the specific culprits behind specific problems. We should blame the Tobacco lobby for the death of millions, we should blame oil companies for crippling greener alternatives for decades, we should blame the Military-Industrial complex for chaining America to eternal wars just to make an easy buck.
This was more rambly than I intended, so I hope it still has some value.
Yes, you got technological advancement, but resources are pretty much down to zero. You are saddled with debt up to your eyeballs. Most of you will never be able to afford a house, if you somehow manage to buy one, you will be paying it off till your last breath. You will have no social blanket, boomers would have plowed through that.
Your culture was completely robbed from you before you were born. What stories do you love? What music fills your head? What great deeds of the past inspire you? Are you allowed to share ANY of that freely?
I'm doing better than my father but I had to get buttfucked twice as hard to do it. Fuck the boomers.
I can't believe you'd keep licking that boot even as they're still robbing you of retirement benefits.
>> Not to mention, there is something extraordinarily presumptuous about the CEO of one tech company thinking he has the standing to either criticize or speak on behalf of literally billions of people.
Yep, more than anything else it is simply patronising. Reading Hans Gosling and Steven Pinker clarifies a lot in terms of this planet's development over the last 30 years - and it's pretty much all for the better for your average human being.
Context is important. The qualifier at the beginning of the sentence is important:
> In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being too cautious]. We spent too much time debating. We've been too focused on the fight and not focused enough on progress. And you don't need to look far to find an example of that failure. Here today, in this very place, in an arena where thousands once found desperate shelter from a 100-year disaster, the kind that seem to be happening more and more frequently, I don't think we can talk about who we are as people and what we owe to one another without talking about climate change.
I get the feeling that Cook, like so many other public figures who bring up climate change post-2016, is really talking about removing the president from office.
Consider the last sentence here:
> When we talk about climate change or any issue with human costs, and there are many, I challenge you to look for those who have the most to lose and find the real, true empathy that comes from something shared. That is really what we owe one another. When you do that, the political noise dies down, and you can feel your feet firmly planted on solid ground. After all, we don't build monuments to trolls, and we're not going to start now.
Anyone who believes that climate change is caused mostly by human activity should be concerned about this trend. The deeply political nature of the conversation has turned what should be a deliberate discussion about science and policy into a shouting match.
On the other hand an entire class of political participants refuses to acknowledge the science. It's a bit hard to have a discussion with them when they deny there's anything to discuss.
Ironic, seeing as how Google is one of the biggest advertising platforms in the world, using their state of the art AI/ML algorithms to manipulate the minds of the masses into endless conspicuous consumption --which is one of the biggest drivers of ecological self destruction.
> Anyone who believes that climate change is caused mostly by human activity should be concerned about this trend. The deeply political nature of the conversation has turned what should be a deliberate discussion about science and policy into a shouting match.
The problem isn’t the science as much as the proposed solutions. The more extreme solutions are more about income redistribution rather than actual science. Whether or not climate change is unequivocally human caused, there are those that would use “climate” as a means to enact economic proposals they favor regardless of the climate impact. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-c...
For example, what about nuclear? If we are “serious” about climate change, nuclear is the best choice for large scale electrical production, but nuclear faces opposition from those that scream loudest about the danger of fossil fuels. What about the Paris climate meeting? The local airport was filled to the brim with private jets. To normal people like me, why should I set my thermostat to a higher temperature in summer when my energy use is just a blip compared to some “Climate official’s” own carbon footprint. Why should poor people have to pay a higher percentage of their income for energy taxes while the limousine liberals keendoing their thing? They aren’t personally consuming less or suffering the impact of their proposals. Buying “carbon credits” is a cop out — unless they are actually reducing their own energy consumption, they are still spitting CO2 into the air, no matter how much they pay for the privilege. To me, if the situation were so dire, there’d be a lot less hypocrisy. If the “experts” aren’t flying commercial or video conferencing, then clearly the problem isn’t a grave as they suggest. There is absolutely no rationale for climate officials taking a Gulfstream to a climate conference. The concern over the climate rings hollow compared to the bigger goals of redistributing the means of production.
Al Gore becoming a billionaire because of the climate industry also creates some skepticism since he and other like him have a vested financial interest in propagating his opinions. His Inconvinient Truth movie was full of blatant inaccuracies and the forecast FUD never materialized. We constantly hear things like “in 12 years the world will end” yet, here we are, not too much different than we were in 2000. In fact, it might be argued that the climate changes with or without human intervention. The “settled” science isn’t very settled to me, otherwise the predictions wouldn’t be so consistently wrong. I am loathe to support the attempted destruction of capitalism based on unreliable computer models. Those of us skeptical of climate politics — we live here too. It isn’t like we are genuinely interested in destroying the planet; but some of us don’t have a lot of trust in power that they are actually altruistic. Remember, Eugenics was “settled science” too and we saw how horribly that turned out.
The full quote is "In some important ways, my generation has failed you", which I think drastically changes the meaning from the one in the headline, which is clickbaity.
Tim Cook can blabber all he wants about his supposed concerned about filter bubbles — his company, on his watch, is banning alternative social media platforms from putting apps on his App Store (Gab, for example).
While he spouts off about taking action instead of debating, he actively bans alternatives to the status-quo. Shut it, Tim. I don’t buy your propaganda.
Watching talks like this is what helps me keep my sanity in the face of climate change and have hope we will do something about it. My take-away phrase of the speech is gonna be "do something". I know my doing something will not even register in the global scheme of things but I'm gonna do it anyway.
...the problem is, I'm not really convinced that we really know of a specific "something" that we can do that wouldn't backfire and make emissions even worse by creating perverse incentives elsewhere in the economy.
The only idea I've heard that would likely help in a meaningful way would be to simply make all domestic oil and natural gas extraction 100% illegal and try to convince some other nations to do the same. That one thing would raise world energy prices enough to curb consumption and would also slow down the economy enough to decrease emissions. (But the economic consequences of doing this would be brutal)
Perhaps all of the students can fuse into a cyborg-hivemind? That would allow them to all be the CEO of a company, then it would just be a challenge of making it the most profitable in the world.
Okay, so what Mr. Cook is going to do about it? He's one of the few people who is in a perfect position to actually make some change.
May be he's going to move Apple factories back from China to create more middle class jobs in the US?
May be he's willing to relocate the headquarters from Cupertino to a less crowded location? Come on, Mr. Cook, that would kill two birds with one stone: prices for SV houses will go a bit down and you'll be able to revive some dilapidated neighborhood. May I suggest Detroit, MI?
Or may be he wants to start small: just open a school in a poor SF community. Find decent teachers. Pay for the first class principal and give several hundred kids a good start in life.
I feel that we can say a particular person has failed you, an organization has failed you, but saying that his generation has failed us implies that his generation has some control on the overall trajectory of humanity. I think that's a pretty bad assumption. When the sample is big enough, it almost becomes a random walk/ markov chain instead of deterministic algorithm.
Tim Cook's generation can't take all the blame -- the Internet could've been a tool to help fix the problems, rather than spy, neuter, and manipulate.
My generation -- teens and college-aged who were already skilled in software and Internet at the start of the dotcom boom, and who seemed to already have a better median sense of Web opportunities and risks than people do today -- we went for the money and power, and often did the exact opposite of what we already knew about what's good for society.
That admitted, don't fall for standard diversionary and divison tactics that blame problems on some group -- whether it's ethnicity, gender, religion, nation, generation, voting group, sports team, or anything else. If you want to identify where to focus problem-solving, some old investigative advice applies: follow the money.
Not has. They are failing us today. Boomers have all the money and political power yet are doing nothing. Dont say sorry for things you did yesturday. Stop doing what you are doing today. Stop talking and help us fix the problems.
In my opinion, the much bigger issue is the burden of public debt (and Social Security/Medicare liabilities) being saddled onto future generations. Currently it's $181k per taxpayer, excluding Social Security/Medicare. [1]
We've kicked the can down the road for decades, and one day those debts will come due. Whichever generation inherits it, will pay a huge price, whether that is massive monetary inflation, or default on the debts.
Society always supports retirees through the efforts of current workers. If you want to eat forty years from now when you're no longer working, your choices are either to start stocking up on canned food now, or subsist on a portion of what workers make forty years hence. The physical storage plan is obviously impractical when you think about it in full, especially for services like health care.
The Social Security / Medicare point is basically just saying that our future society will not be wealthy enough to take care of retirees and other non-working members of society in the number and standard we're currently projecting. There's no victims of under-saving because it's basically impossible to save. If our current benefit levels are "too high" right now, the people victimized are today's workers having too high of taxes, too much debt to repay, or too high of asset prices to pay.
Made me think about Bruce Sterling's comments in this year's WELL State Of The World about the current depressive mood making headway among the world's richest people. Here's him riffing on Gates -
>"Here in 2019, there are more Americans alive over 60 than Americans who are under 18. So for a brisk, road-ahead, forward-looking viewpoint, it might be time for us to check in with that widely-noted retired guy, Bill Gates.
>Despite his advancing years, Mr Gates hardcore grinds it out more in a week than I ever do in a year. And, although he's not a facile TED-talk optimist, he's always got his eye on the deliverable. That's why it's a little weird to see him tacitly admitting so much defeat in his recent screed.
>To begin, Bill quotes his best pal Warren Buffett, claiming that the bottom line of human good behavior is "Do the people you care about love you back?" This seems an odd scheme to promote, considering the Sage of Omaha's polygamous lifestyle. Buffett's motto should have been, "If your wife leaves for California and sends her best friend over instead, go for that." Let's hope they were all happier.
>Then there's this prediction: "software will be able to notice when you’re feeling down, connect you with your friends, give you personalized tips for sleeping and eating better." Something downright ominous here, because obviously Gates is tacitly conceding that it's not your nearest and dearest but rather the software that ought to be caring about you and loving you back.
>First, I don't think that's ever gonna work. Second, I'm getting concerned about Bill's mood. Is he so personally unhappy now that he would want to digitally monitor his own mental state?"...
>..."finally, "Melinda and I are working on our next Annual Letter. The theme is a surprise, though it is safe to say we’ll be sharing some positive trends that make us optimistic about the future."
>Why does Bill even have to say that bullshit? It's because he's got nothing that he's genuinely enthusiastic about, that's why he says it. Whenever people are truly positive, they never whine about how, just any minute now, they're gonna lift their sorry heads and say something positive. "I'm not gonna be depressed about it, I'm gonna say something really upbeat here," that never works! It's like a poker tell, something Bill ought to get since he plays so much poker.
>You can't scold yourself about not talking properly, you have to take action in some aspect of life that actually makes you enthusiastic. Then you don't have to tell people that you and the wife will be cheerful any minute now. If you're really making any headway, people will show up on their own. You'll have to chase 'em off with a stick.
>In any case, this new-dark malaise I was talking about earlier? He's got it. Yeah, even him."
[+] [-] NE2z2T9qi|6 years ago|reply
Not to mention, there is something extraordinarily presumptuous about the CEO of one tech company thinking he has the standing to either criticize or speak on behalf of literally billions of people.
[+] [-] tedivm|6 years ago|reply
* Wages are flat, * Housing costs are up (in large part due to NIMBYism), * College is more expensive (in large part due to Cook's generation cutting subsidies that they got), * Environment is shot- that whole global warming thing isn't going away anytime soon.
Generally speaking the baby boomers, as a whole, have focused more on enriching themselves than any other previous generation. This is the first time in generations that, in the US, the newer generation is seen as worse off than the one before it.
[+] [-] bulletsvshumans|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|6 years ago|reply
Surely - at a bare minimum - it's everyone's responsibility to leave a habitable planet for future generations. Greed now is going to result in a very, very crappy place to live in the future.
[+] [-] pwinnski|6 years ago|reply
I think he's only presuming to speak on behalf of US residents, which caps at 400 million, and even then only for his generation, which limits the number even more.
In any case, I think one can make observations about a group of people of which one is a member without representing every single member of that group. His generation either did or did not fail current graduates, whether everybody agrees with that or not.
[+] [-] Animats|6 years ago|reply
What we're getting is a big underclass that isn't in the game at all. They're just dead weight. This is hitting the Arab world hard.[1]
[1] https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/youth-unemployment-mi...
[+] [-] mixmastamyk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] impostir|6 years ago|reply
I agree with Jobs; Gen X and further back generations, as groups, raped the planet for short-term economic growth. They aren't the first or last group to do so, but they did do it. My generation, I.e. gen Z, is looking at an abnormally bleak future. Yes, the past generations had the Cold War and possible Nuclear Armageddon. And while the Cold War is dead, possible Nuclear Armageddon is still very much alive. We also face, for the first time in US history, the likelihood that we will die poorer than our parents. We also face the fact that our middle age will come with practically certain catastrophic climate change. Any one of these problems is significant on a global scale, but their collective force is even more crippling.
All these problems exist because of the collective decisions of past generations; thats what every present is. WW1 was a product of dumb alliances and treaties made decades before. And it wasn't the generation that decided on the treaties that were butchered on the Somme, it was their children. And as a group, I believe that they are soaked in the blood of their children. However, I will agree that blaming generations is at best unproductive and at worst needlessly divisive. Yes, the actions of past generations create the wars and disasters of today, but that is a simple fact of societies. Blaming a generation hides the specific culprits behind specific problems. We should blame the Tobacco lobby for the death of millions, we should blame oil companies for crippling greener alternatives for decades, we should blame the Military-Industrial complex for chaining America to eternal wars just to make an easy buck.
This was more rambly than I intended, so I hope it still has some value.
[+] [-] sharadov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drugme|6 years ago|reply
Actually things are pretty much going to hell, as far as climate change (and its spillover effects) are foreseen to go.
Or what is your prognosis of that situation?
[+] [-] scarface74|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silversconfused|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PPPPPPPPr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingdingdang|6 years ago|reply
Yep, more than anything else it is simply patronising. Reading Hans Gosling and Steven Pinker clarifies a lot in terms of this planet's development over the last 30 years - and it's pretty much all for the better for your average human being.
[+] [-] apo|6 years ago|reply
> In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being too cautious]. We spent too much time debating. We've been too focused on the fight and not focused enough on progress. And you don't need to look far to find an example of that failure. Here today, in this very place, in an arena where thousands once found desperate shelter from a 100-year disaster, the kind that seem to be happening more and more frequently, I don't think we can talk about who we are as people and what we owe to one another without talking about climate change.
https://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2019/05/transcript-tim-co...
I get the feeling that Cook, like so many other public figures who bring up climate change post-2016, is really talking about removing the president from office.
Consider the last sentence here:
> When we talk about climate change or any issue with human costs, and there are many, I challenge you to look for those who have the most to lose and find the real, true empathy that comes from something shared. That is really what we owe one another. When you do that, the political noise dies down, and you can feel your feet firmly planted on solid ground. After all, we don't build monuments to trolls, and we're not going to start now.
Anyone who believes that climate change is caused mostly by human activity should be concerned about this trend. The deeply political nature of the conversation has turned what should be a deliberate discussion about science and policy into a shouting match.
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
Maybe I am not sophisticated enough but I have a feeling that he is really talking about climate change.
[+] [-] sidlls|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 50656E6973|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChristianGeek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briandear|6 years ago|reply
The problem isn’t the science as much as the proposed solutions. The more extreme solutions are more about income redistribution rather than actual science. Whether or not climate change is unequivocally human caused, there are those that would use “climate” as a means to enact economic proposals they favor regardless of the climate impact. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-c...
For example, what about nuclear? If we are “serious” about climate change, nuclear is the best choice for large scale electrical production, but nuclear faces opposition from those that scream loudest about the danger of fossil fuels. What about the Paris climate meeting? The local airport was filled to the brim with private jets. To normal people like me, why should I set my thermostat to a higher temperature in summer when my energy use is just a blip compared to some “Climate official’s” own carbon footprint. Why should poor people have to pay a higher percentage of their income for energy taxes while the limousine liberals keendoing their thing? They aren’t personally consuming less or suffering the impact of their proposals. Buying “carbon credits” is a cop out — unless they are actually reducing their own energy consumption, they are still spitting CO2 into the air, no matter how much they pay for the privilege. To me, if the situation were so dire, there’d be a lot less hypocrisy. If the “experts” aren’t flying commercial or video conferencing, then clearly the problem isn’t a grave as they suggest. There is absolutely no rationale for climate officials taking a Gulfstream to a climate conference. The concern over the climate rings hollow compared to the bigger goals of redistributing the means of production.
Al Gore becoming a billionaire because of the climate industry also creates some skepticism since he and other like him have a vested financial interest in propagating his opinions. His Inconvinient Truth movie was full of blatant inaccuracies and the forecast FUD never materialized. We constantly hear things like “in 12 years the world will end” yet, here we are, not too much different than we were in 2000. In fact, it might be argued that the climate changes with or without human intervention. The “settled” science isn’t very settled to me, otherwise the predictions wouldn’t be so consistently wrong. I am loathe to support the attempted destruction of capitalism based on unreliable computer models. Those of us skeptical of climate politics — we live here too. It isn’t like we are genuinely interested in destroying the planet; but some of us don’t have a lot of trust in power that they are actually altruistic. Remember, Eugenics was “settled science” too and we saw how horribly that turned out.
[+] [-] tptacek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone|6 years ago|reply
That’s not in all ways, not even in all important ways, so quite a different statement.
[+] [-] ibeckermayer|6 years ago|reply
While he spouts off about taking action instead of debating, he actively bans alternatives to the status-quo. Shut it, Tim. I don’t buy your propaganda.
[+] [-] askafriend|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kye|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcode|6 years ago|reply
The only idea I've heard that would likely help in a meaningful way would be to simply make all domestic oil and natural gas extraction 100% illegal and try to convince some other nations to do the same. That one thing would raise world energy prices enough to curb consumption and would also slow down the economy enough to decrease emissions. (But the economic consequences of doing this would be brutal)
[+] [-] skywhopper|6 years ago|reply
... to become the CEO of one of the most profitable companies in the history of the world? I mean, aim high I guess.
[+] [-] jsnider3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] avip|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|6 years ago|reply
May be he's going to move Apple factories back from China to create more middle class jobs in the US?
May be he's willing to relocate the headquarters from Cupertino to a less crowded location? Come on, Mr. Cook, that would kill two birds with one stone: prices for SV houses will go a bit down and you'll be able to revive some dilapidated neighborhood. May I suggest Detroit, MI?
Or may be he wants to start small: just open a school in a poor SF community. Find decent teachers. Pay for the first class principal and give several hundred kids a good start in life.
No...?
[+] [-] tuxpenguine|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neilv|6 years ago|reply
My generation -- teens and college-aged who were already skilled in software and Internet at the start of the dotcom boom, and who seemed to already have a better median sense of Web opportunities and risks than people do today -- we went for the money and power, and often did the exact opposite of what we already knew about what's good for society.
That admitted, don't fall for standard diversionary and divison tactics that blame problems on some group -- whether it's ethnicity, gender, religion, nation, generation, voting group, sports team, or anything else. If you want to identify where to focus problem-solving, some old investigative advice applies: follow the money.
[+] [-] fred_dev|6 years ago|reply
This sentence reminded me today's headline news about Huawei !!!
US government bulldozing the other countries tech companies to make CEO of apple a role model.
I also enjoyed the speech, congrats to all 2019 graduates around the world.
[+] [-] umadon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amai|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdq|6 years ago|reply
We've kicked the can down the road for decades, and one day those debts will come due. Whichever generation inherits it, will pay a huge price, whether that is massive monetary inflation, or default on the debts.
[1] https://usdebtclock.org/
[+] [-] ThrustVectoring|6 years ago|reply
The Social Security / Medicare point is basically just saying that our future society will not be wealthy enough to take care of retirees and other non-working members of society in the number and standard we're currently projecting. There's no victims of under-saving because it's basically impossible to save. If our current benefit levels are "too high" right now, the people victimized are today's workers having too high of taxes, too much debt to repay, or too high of asset prices to pay.
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|6 years ago|reply
No kidding.
[+] [-] higgy|6 years ago|reply
Jump to mentioned segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taLzKBs-Yu4&t=11m55s
[+] [-] inflatableDodo|6 years ago|reply
>"Here in 2019, there are more Americans alive over 60 than Americans who are under 18. So for a brisk, road-ahead, forward-looking viewpoint, it might be time for us to check in with that widely-noted retired guy, Bill Gates.
>Despite his advancing years, Mr Gates hardcore grinds it out more in a week than I ever do in a year. And, although he's not a facile TED-talk optimist, he's always got his eye on the deliverable. That's why it's a little weird to see him tacitly admitting so much defeat in his recent screed.
>To begin, Bill quotes his best pal Warren Buffett, claiming that the bottom line of human good behavior is "Do the people you care about love you back?" This seems an odd scheme to promote, considering the Sage of Omaha's polygamous lifestyle. Buffett's motto should have been, "If your wife leaves for California and sends her best friend over instead, go for that." Let's hope they were all happier.
>Then there's this prediction: "software will be able to notice when you’re feeling down, connect you with your friends, give you personalized tips for sleeping and eating better." Something downright ominous here, because obviously Gates is tacitly conceding that it's not your nearest and dearest but rather the software that ought to be caring about you and loving you back.
>First, I don't think that's ever gonna work. Second, I'm getting concerned about Bill's mood. Is he so personally unhappy now that he would want to digitally monitor his own mental state?"...
>..."finally, "Melinda and I are working on our next Annual Letter. The theme is a surprise, though it is safe to say we’ll be sharing some positive trends that make us optimistic about the future."
>Why does Bill even have to say that bullshit? It's because he's got nothing that he's genuinely enthusiastic about, that's why he says it. Whenever people are truly positive, they never whine about how, just any minute now, they're gonna lift their sorry heads and say something positive. "I'm not gonna be depressed about it, I'm gonna say something really upbeat here," that never works! It's like a poker tell, something Bill ought to get since he plays so much poker.
>You can't scold yourself about not talking properly, you have to take action in some aspect of life that actually makes you enthusiastic. Then you don't have to tell people that you and the wife will be cheerful any minute now. If you're really making any headway, people will show up on their own. You'll have to chase 'em off with a stick.
>In any case, this new-dark malaise I was talking about earlier? He's got it. Yeah, even him."
https://people.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/506/State-of...
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ngcc_hk|6 years ago|reply
You can have progress but many consequences not taken on board.
If you roll through the world,
India ...
Russia ...
China ...
Europe ...
USA ...
Canada to Argentina ...
Let us not just talk so American centric as many like climate change, totalitarian control of humanity, human gene, AI, religion ...
Some goods some bad. Some very bad.