You and I disagree about a lot. But on this subject, we agree completely. In 30 years, I think we will look back on America's hostile treatment of immigrants, with the same horror we now see the hostility of the 70's to Vietnam vets, or in the 40's, to Japanese Americans. Republicans and Christians have turned against their own principles to follow a xenophobic, angry leader.

Oh, I do believe AI *will* replace 50% or more of today's jobs. I just don't think it's the end of the world. My point is that previous waves of technology have easily replaced that percentage of jobs, or more, and yet we humans found other things to do.

The AI wave might *seem* to be happening at lightning speed. But that's just because we're in the middle of it. Replacing large numbers of people will take time, and that will give people time to adjust, just as it has with every previous wave of automation.

If Buffet is your idea of a hypocrite, then I'd say we need more hypocrites like him.

Big donors (and little ones) *always* want to direct their money towards projects and causes they care about. If you call that meddling, so be it, but there is no other kind of giving. Literally nobody says, "Here, you can have this money, I don't care what you do with it!"

Nobody's claiming Bill and Warren are saints, and that they sacrificed themselves for their causes.

Some, like Trump, do use foundations to "park" money, then get it out by paying people enormous salaries to "administer" the foundation. That's not what Gates and Buffett did. Their money *actually* went to good causes. No, I don't pretend that either are selfless altruists. But you are making accusations that are not supported by the facts.

The article does *not* say Buffet withdrew the $48B from the Gates Foundation. He simply ended *future* donations to it.

And in any case, he didn't give the money to Bill Gates, he gave it to the foundation. Foundations are required by US law to spend their money for philanthropic purposes, and there are no indications that the Gates foundation is doing otherwise.

Some have speculated that Epstein was a factor in the "breakup" but Buffett never said this. Rather, the change has more to do with the divorce of Bill and Melinda Gates, and his wish to have his own children direct the philanthropy.

Even if all your accusations are true, my original statement stands. Even if Buffett never gave anything to charity, he still did humanity a great service in the way he ran his businesses and treated his employees.

Maybe you didn't finish reading your article.

Somehow, I'm having trouble feeling bad that Buffet has chosen to give away $60B so far, and the other $90B over a long span of time. It seems like another case of...long-term thinking.

Whatever. I literally just *did* my research. You haven't provided a single link, to anything. I'm guessing your source is a YouTube influencer who's got a beef. If there's anybody I'd want to model my business strategy after, it's Warren Buffet's. I got *my* info from a credible news source, and I didn't pass along many others that came up in my search. I stand by what I say too.

You mean, actually giving away his wealth, like this? https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/0...

OK, I apologize for assuming that you were going along with the standard dark-matter hypothesis. It didn't sink in that you were using a hypothetical argument.

This is the definition of "standard model" that I'm using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It seems pretty relevant to our discussion.

The timing of inflation isn't important in regards to this discussion. If light took 12 billion years to arrive, that means that the galaxy itself became 22 billion light years farther away, in (as the theory goes) basically an instant. That's pretty exotic. There is no proposal as to *how* this inflation occurred or was triggered or the mechanics of it, only suggestions that it "must have happened" because it fits what we see. Well, it kind of fits what we see.

When COBE was launched, NASA was *not* expecting the CMB to be uniform. They fully expected a bright spot in the direction of the origin of the Big Bang. This discrepancy gave birth to the inflation theory. In other words, the observations didn't fit the model, so a new model was proposed. But the new model needs many exotic features to work, such as faster-than-light expansion, dark matter, and dark energy.

In software engineering, when a developer fixes a bug, I always ask why the problem occurred. If there is no explanation, I know that the bug wasn't actually fixed. Unless you know why the bug happened, you don't know you fixed it. I believe the same principle applies to cosmology. You can't just rewrite your equations to fit the observations. You have to explain *why* the equations didn't come out as expected in the first place, and why the new equations are correct. Otherwise, all you have is conjecture. I know, science needs time. Granted. But these exotic concepts aren't proven yet, just hypothesized.

If by "observations" you mean, "what we can see" (which is a pretty literal interpretation of the words), then yes, I agree. We can't see enough rogue planets or other matter floating through space, to confirm the ordinary matter hypothesis. That is not the same as saying that the observations contradict the ordinary matter hypothesis.

You talk about the pile of observations that don't match "known physics" and yet you and your physicist friends are still highly confident in your "dark matter" hypothesis. Maybe you're right, I just don't think the degree of confidence that you express, has been warranted by actual observations.

In 100 years, I think we will have learned that many of our basic observations, such as astronomical distances, have been off by a significant factor. Every new instrument we send up, most recently the JWST, has called into question many things we thought we knew, such as mature galaxies 33.9 billion light-years away. This should not be possible, either in terms of how quickly they formed after the Big Bang, or in terms of how the light could have reached us in 13.8 billion years. Such observations require ever-more exotic explanations (like inflation) in order to fit the standard model.

The problem is, group-think is strong in the world of science. (This is a feature, not a bug.) So it takes time for new evidence to lead to widespread acceptance of changes to generally-accepted theories. If we learn that our ability to measure astronomical distances is off, then we might discover that we no longer need "dark matter" to explain the discrepancies in our observations.

You know what they're worth now? Zero.

Or the AI bubble could burst, and they'll be worth 1/1,000 in a few years.

Even if he doesn't give his money away, Warren Buffet has done more good for mankind by the way he lived his life and the way he ran his companies. He is a unicorn among private equity investors, always thinking about the long-term. If more business owners thought like he does, companies would be both better citizens of the world, and better employers. We need more Warren Buffets.

Like many foods, there are both good and bad effects of drinking. The Heart Association might be right that some alcohol is good for the heart, but that doesn't diminish the cancer risk. It seems odd that they seem to ignore that part, not to mention the many other health risks associated with alcohol.

Perhaps my hypothesis doesn't match the observations. But I'd argue that the very concept of dark matter, indicates that the standard model *also* doesn't match observations. That's kind of what "dark matter" *is*. Literally no one has a model that accurately describes what we see. So where does that leave us? Humble.