I find it a very interesting approach to what she is doing.
The problem with most philanthropic organizations is that they come to rely on a constant stream of money. I've heard the Gates Foundation have to be very intentional with how they deploy capital. Because whole ecosystems come to rely on that money in an unsustainable way. So when they have met their goals or decided its not working and pull funding, those that relied on the funding basically collapse overnight. Which could lead to even worse outcomes.
With her approach, I do wonder if this will occur with many of the organizations she is giving large amount of money to.
EDIT: Reminds me of the saying "Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".
It depends on the terms of what she does. Things like the gates foundation want control over what is done and provide a stream of money. That creates continuous dependence on funding.
IMO this is deliberate - it means you can "give away" the money but keep the power and the status which are the only benefits for having that much money.
If she is making a series of large one off donations that problem does not exist.
Part of the (slightly vague and confusingly written) message is that she's also investing in for-profit organisations that have overlapping goals with the charities.
Lifetime Grand Prix are the biggest right now. They have a series of 7 races that they are doing great media on. Start with Unbound, it’s the most prestigious
"Special Note:
The Flint Hills region of east-central Kansas is an extremely remote area. You will rarely pass through any towns, and there are no convenience stores between checkpoints. Always be aware of the distance to the next checkpoint and be prepared to travel that distance with the supplies you carry. Participants are solely responsible for their personal well-being, will have to make their own informed decisions, and suffer the consequences of those decisions. Please be aware... if you break down or become injured, it is YOUR responsibility to contact your support crew to come get you. DO NOT CALL US. WE WILL NOT COME RESCUE YOU. EVENT PROMOTERS AND SPONSORS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY AND WELL-BEING. If you sign up for this event, make sure you have a support crew with a well thought out emergency backup plan. If you do not feel you are prepared to meet such a challenge, please consider a shorter route option."
Support crew info [2]:
"Support Crews are NOT allowed on course, except to pick up a rider who is abandoning the event. IF A SUPPORT CREW VEHICLE IS SPOTTED ON COURSE, THEIR RIDER WILL BE DISQUALIFIED. Providing support to a rider while on course goes against the self-sufficiency spirit of this event. It is unfair to other participants, and therefore will not be allowed."
The Jetbrain licensing model caused a lot or confusion when it was introduced (as can be seen in posts on their forum and reddit), and when I check now it still seems to be the same.
> as soon as you pay for 12 consecutive months, you will receive this perpetual fallback license providing you with access to the exact product version for when your 12 consecutive months subscription started.
So if you do not renew then in practice you might need to _downgrade_ to an earlier version when your subscription expires. But some of their software doesn't even support downgrade, so you need to uninstall/reinstall it and hope you have some old backup of your settings.
This seems like a smart move. I know some will be frustrated with losing a free tier. But ultimately businesses need to make money and charging for it is part of that.
When you are a product that people build businesses on top of and start by burning money to grow as fast as possible and then switch to caring about profitability with a months notice to your customers that's a shitty thing to do.
> ultimately businesses need to make money and charging for it is part of that.
This is a mentality shift from the investor side. You would be shot down if you said we're focusing on profits/revenue rather than growth from 2010 to 2021. Now it's shifted from growth to profitability.
A bunch of companies were burning money rather than making it for a decade.
Often established businesses that find themselves in a precarious financial situation will announce a hiring freeze several months before resorting to layoffs.
It's a much easier decision than laying people off, and much easier to reverse, so it can be taken a lot earlier. And you'll get a modest but relatively painless reduction in headcount due to attrition, if the rest of the job market is buoyant. It also means, if layoffs are needed a few months down the line, there isn't anyone being laid off on the day they join the company.
Of course, there are some situations where this doesn't work so well - for example, if employees will interpret the hiring freeze as a sign layoffs are inevitable they might suffer months of sleepless nights worrying if their neck will be on the chopping block.
Makes me wonder why you felt the need to create a burner account.
This isn't to say anything one way or another about you, its just my 2 second of reading about you.
reply