His charity also does a ton of good stuff in areas like public health and sanitation.
and other commenters have pointed out similar things...
first, i'll grant you that my comment did not mention some of the work they do for the neediest globally, it is an oversight that should matter in evaluating "tech billionaires" and how effective/self-serving their charity work proves to be.
I'm mostly frustrated that so much of what made M$ so bad is going into **how** they do the work in the developing world, on a macro scale, but this is off topic.
second, to my main criticism of "tech billionaires" and how they do charity is how self-serving and low-return *most* of it is.
I imagine the parts of the Gates Foundation that are the most effective correlate very closely with the parts where Gates & minions have the *least* input into decision making.
Delivering water to communities in Africa is more a problem you throw money at to the right people, because there are obviously already people trying to accomplish the task, the best option just doesn't have the resources.
That's still **good** but we can do much, much better. That's my point.
Why not start right in the Bay Area? Why not just start paying off family mortgages and boosting school budgets?
990 Million Dollars of that...seriously...i'm not an isolationist but have you ever heard of how in a commercial airliner emergency, the mother should put *her own air mask* on first b/c she needs to be coherent to help the baby?
Nation building begins at home!