Support NeoGAF

[Timedog]

So it's an investment into strong AI then?

 

[MarkMclovin]

Good on them.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Cure all disease? You might need to add a few zeros to that cheque.

It's hyperbole, but with American public research only doing so little. It helps.

The cynical side says you are right. I hope it isn't just in vogue research such as biomarkers.

 

[Zaru]

Disease is nature's way to combat overpopulation. You fight disease, you enable overpopulation. It's great they're trying to cure the world, but the fact is that the result will only mean more suffering.

Putting aside how insane that sounds,
pretty much all wealthy countries with high standards and accessibility for healthcare have non-immigrant birthrates below replacement level.

 

[Nocebo]

Cure all disease? You might need to add a few zeros to that cheque.

Hopefully we will finally manage to cure "knee-jerk-reaction-to-thread-title"-itis in our lifetime.

 

[RustyRobot]

What for profit pharma company are they funding? Links? And you seem to suggesting this is all they are doing with the 3 billion, funding a for profit pharma company? Interesting confidence for someone who just moments ago admitted to only reading this thread and nothing else. Not even the full article presumably?

Dude, I just read the OP and based on the information in the OP I came to the conclusion there is nothing admirable about founding a pharma company with a small R&D budget and claiming it could cure all diseases one day.

 

[Vindicator]

Healthy people are the pharma companies biggest enemy.

 

[Nocebo]

Dude, I just read the OP and based on the information in the OP I came to the conclusion there is nothing admirable about founding a pharma company with a small R&D budget and claiming it could cure all diseases one day.

Obviously you conclusion was wrong because that is not what they're doing.

 

[RustyRobot]

Obviously you conclusion was wrong because that is not what they're doing.

Obviously, you cannot tell me the difference between his initiative and the stuff pharma companies are doing anyways with a many times larger budget.

 

[Condom]

Thank you mercifull rich people for your help to us peasants. Imagine where we would be if we didn't have billionaires.

 

[orava]

cure all diseases? by the end of the century?
no way is 3 billion enough, they can't be that naive

The 3 billion is for the first 10 years for building the base. It's right there in the first line.

 

[Crazyorloco]

Great PR

Yup, if they said "Zuckerberg creates pharmaceutical company" people would react very differently here.

 

[SgtCobra]

I doubt this will do much
Let's hope it does something at least.

 

[darkace]

Pretty much. Would be a better start if companies like Facebook started paying tax like regular chumps like everyone on this forum, but hey, that doesnt result in people calling you amazing like hiding it all from the IRS and then going all ''hey all this untaxed money is going to be spend on creating for-profits that perhaps do something good but will most likely make me even richer!".

People would be much worse off if companies paid their taxes. This is a much better way for spending money.

 

[Moosichu]

You know what would also help a lot? If more not rich people, "regular" people, started giving money to medical research foundations and the like. Along side or preferably Instead of crowd funding games, people's vacations or potato salad.

It is kind of sad that promising cancer research does not meet its stretch goal but potato salad does. People are more interested in things that are for the "lulz" it seems.

You do realise that on average, poor people give away a much larger proportion or their personal income and wealth than rich people right?

The problem is, the top 1% have 50% of the world's wealth.

EDIT: Also, it would be great if Facebook started paying tax.

People would be much worse off if companies paid their taxes. This is a much better way for spending money.

You do realise most of the money companies save by paying less taxes is mainly just hoarded right? Not spent on anything and just hoarded, so I challenge your assertion that people would be worse off if this was the case.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

A worthy cause, but they would have been better pledging $3 billion towards combating the massive tax avoidance that the Silicon Valley tech sector shamelessly revels in, which would return $100 billion+ in lost tax revenues annually. That would address the suffering of millions of people today, who have been paying the bill for massive corporate fraud and failed government policy since 2008.

How would that address anything important? The US gov't will spend more than it taxes via an estimated $590 billion deficit in 2016 according to the CBO. No one is losing sleep at night over the current level of tax avoidance under the law. If it was that big of a deal, then the law could be changed and correspondingly enforced. In any event, the financial system has to balance out on a daily basis and all money within the system is accounted for no matter what is or isn't done about a minor issue like tax avoidance.

Congress and the next POTUS could always make the political choice to dedicate $100 billion or more specifically for worthwhile causes like fighting against cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer. Private sector banks could dedicate more time to financing worthy causes instead of focusing so much time on laundering billions for cartels and terrorists, crafting fake accounts, and peddling fraud schemes that prey on minorities. Pharmaceutical firms, researchers, non-profits, HHS, and so on who are doing great work could get a boost to their accounts so that they can staff more people and stop begging for money.

 

[darkace]

You do realise most of the money companies save by paying less taxes is mainly just hoarded right? Not spent on anything and just hoarded, so I challenge your assertion that people would be worse off if this was the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_identity

 

[Nocebo]

Obviously, you cannot tell me the difference between his initiative and the stuff pharma companies are doing anyways with a many times larger budget.

Obviously you don't know the difference between what gets funded by pharma companies and what this initiative aims to fund. Which you would have realized if you actually read the article.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative focuses global efforts on four areas: personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities.

The initiative is a limited liability company, not a nonprofit.

The 3 billion is for the first 10 years for building the base. It's right there in the first line.

I'm not sure it is saying there will be more than 3 billion. It says the 3 billion will be spread out over 10 years. I can imagine there could be more but I don't think it is explicitly stated as such unless I'm missing something?

 

[Nocebo]

Oops double post.

 

[gconsole]

How could some people find the negative out of this? Even if it's for specific purpose, it's better than they keep all the money for themself. Seriously people.

 

[Kill3r7]

Good on them for donating and creating their own mini NIH. Hopefully with time more money will be donated. For reference, NIH's annual budget is $30Billion dollars.

 

[SolidChamp]

And all I need is a couple hundred grand to enrich every aspect of my life tenfold.

This cause is better though.

 

[Nocebo]

You do realise that on average, poor people give away a much larger proportion or their personal income and wealth than rich people right?

So? What do you want to do about it? If you want something, and someone who could help give it to you does not do so, do you sit around pouting and lamenting that fact? Is that the rational course of action? That is not really going to get you anywhere.

Personally I'd much rather spend 90$ on cancer research than buying new skins/hats/whatever for characters in a game.

 

[eot]

If you have that much money, donating most of it to good causes is basically a moral obligation in my book. Such extreme concentration of wealth shouldn't happen in the first place.

 

[bigmit3737]

I honestly only see nanobots as the future. It is cool how many advances has been made, motors the size of a few atoms, selfduplication exists, but the problem remains sensory capabilities.

Any books you can recommend for someone who knows nothing on this subject ?

 

[*Splinter]

You know what would also help a lot? If more not rich people, "regular" people, started giving money to medical research foundations and the like. Along side or preferably Instead of crowd funding games, people's vacations or potato salad.

It is kind of sad that promising cancer research does not meet its stretch goal but potato salad does. People are more interested in things that are for the "lulz" it seems.

Now to be fair I don't think I'd back an individual research programme - I don't know nearly enough about cancer to know if that particular bit if research is the best place to be looking or even valid at all. I'd donate to a more established cancer research foundation and rely on them to direct the funds to where they will do the most good.

Most people will have a better understanding of potato salad, so they can make a more informed decision as to whether or not it's something they want to back.

That said, I won't deny that pretty much everyone can/should donate more than they do.

 

[Guevara]

Obviously the intentions are good, but after Zuckerberg's $100M Newark public schools debacle, it's hard for me to be optimistic.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled
(worth reading)

It would be much better just to give this money to established charities in my opinion.

 

[Oppo]

That's real cool of them.


How about investing some money in some free health care? Because I'd love to get some stuff checked out at some point.

wow.

maybe have them start with your ass, it's not supposed to be able to talk.

OT, the profit /LLC nature is pretty strange, is there any reasoning offered for this approach?

 

[Nocebo]

Now to be fair I don't think I'd back an individual research programme - I don't know nearly enough about cancer to know if that particular bit if research is the best place to be looking or even valid at all. I'd donate to a more established cancer research foundation and rely on them to direct the funds to where they will do the most good.

Most people will have a better understanding of potato salad, so they can make a more informed decision as to whether or not it's something they want to back.

That said, I won't deny that pretty much everyone can/should donate more than they do.

That's a fair point. I can imagine people being mistrustful or confused by what would be effective/legitimate to put money towards.

Though, the endeavors I've seen that were open to a kickstarter like crowd funding were associated with reputable research groups/foundations. What's more, usually there is a fund backing the campaign that will match any dollar donated. Essentially you're doubling the money you put in when funding such an endeavor. That sounds like a good deal to me.
It's not like stuff like that is organized by some random Joe.
But that is beside the point, I wasn't only talking about funding efforts that are open to limited crowd funding campaigns. I meant, like you said, donating to a research foundation or something like it. In order to fund important scientific research. Instead of funding potato salad.

 

[Kill3r7]

Obviously the intentions are good, but after Zuckerberg's $100M Newark public schools debacle, it's hard for me to be optimistic.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled
(worth reading)

It would be much better just to give this money to established charities in my opinion.

Ironically enough one of the most elite graduate program in the world (Knight-Hennessy Scholars Programs at Stanford) is tasked with coming up with proposal of how the Newark money could have been better spent or allocated.

 

[Raist]

Hopefully we will finally manage to cure "knee-jerk-reaction-to-thread-title"-itis in our lifetime.

With her family in the audience, Chan described how the initiative's mission is to prevent or manage all diseases in our children's lifetime -- or by the end of the century.

This is nothing more than a PR / ego-tripping announcement and initiative.

If he wants to be Bill Gates so much, then they should takes some notes from BMGF.

 

[Erevador]

This is nothing more than a PR / ego-tripping announcement and initiative.

If he wants to be Bill Gates so much, then they should takes some notes from BMGF.

He did, Bill Gates spoke at this event and is a huge supporter of Mark and this initiative.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[samn]

If Bill Gates is so generous then why is he now worth $90 billion?

 

[Cyan]

If Bill Gates is so generous then why is he now worth $90 billion?

How much should he be worth in order to count as generous?

 

[Aselith]

This is nothing more than a PR / ego-tripping announcement and initiative.

If he wants to be Bill Gates so much, then they should takes some notes from BMGF.

Man, that sure would be bad if he made the world a better place but it was only to stroke his ego!

 

[Raist]

If Bill Gates is so generous then why is he now worth $90 billion?

His foundation funded various programs totaling over $20B in the last 7 years alone.

He did, Bill Gates spoke at this event and is a huge supporter of Mark and this initiative.

You don't know what you're talking about.

No, he didn't. Their plan is nothing like the way BMGF operates. They don't blow 20% of their pledges to build fancy new centres to just relocate existing teams of scientists, for starters.

 

[Charcoal]

That's real cool of them.


How about investing some money in some free health care? Because I'd love to get some stuff checked out at some point.

So you want someone else's hard earned money to be used so you can get free stuff?

 

[Caelestis]

All I could think about is Dean Munch from Scream Queens while reading this news.

 

[Oersted]

Thats less than a year of tax sheanigans.

 

[Raist]

Man, that sure would be bad if he made the world a better place but it was only to stroke his ego!

Heh, good one. Just FYI, I work in biomedical research (academia).

 

[Sulik2]

So they are actually building robot bodies and a way to transfer consciousness to a machine? Cause you aren't ever curing disease.

 

[Barzul]

If they cure cancer or viral diseases, it'd be 3 billion well spent.

 

[kamspy]

Anyone know why they would set up an LLC instead of just giving the money to a charity?

 

[Mental Atrophy]

I'm cynical enough to believe this is just another angle to collect and sell data on its users, except this time it's all medical history.

 

[Window]

If Bill Gates is so generous then why is he now worth $90 billion?

If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?

 

[Aselith]

Heh, good one. Just FYI, I work in biomedical research (academia).

Ok?

 

[samn]

If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?

yeah im not going to read that

 

[yongeandcollege]

How much does that work out to per disease?

 

[Odrion]

they can start with the alt-right

 

[inner-G]

I read the name in title as "Priscilla-chan"