> you should consider reading more about Patagonia
I'd be open to reading more. I think they are largely a good company but feel like this move was more of a tax dodge and to ensure generational wealth than for altruism. But I am open to being wrong about it.
But everyone involved in OpenAI doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings at all. I admit it's largely cynicism until I know more. But there isnt enough time in the day to do real research on every subject and topic that comes up on HN and every other discussion board I participate in, so it's difficult to be knowledgeable about everything and still maintain a life. And even if I was read up on OpenAI, I have zero ability to do anything about it, and it likely won't affect my life in a meaningful way as well (and this is true about most everything I read about to not single out OpenAI as not being worth my time). So it is a little pointless or more of a time waste I admit.
Company with decades of going way, way out of norms to operate as an ethical organization at virtually every level does an additional virtuous task: oh ya that’s a tax dodge
What do you think that proves? Yes, it does lower your tax bill to give away gains before they're realized. That's because you do not realize your gains. That's called simply "choosing to earn less money."
Tax dodge would imply the purpose is to reduce your tax bill and still see the upside. There's literally no evidence of that. All the upside he/his family sees will continue to be taxed at the normal rate.
If you're Yvon Chouinard, whose goal is to keep Patagonia going in perpetuity as a funding vehicle for environmental activism, what else could you do?
For the record: he divided up the shares into voting and non-voting. He "donated" the dividend-earning shares into a 501c4 foundation whose mission is to invest in grass-roots environmental activism, and "donated" the voting-power shares into a separate trust, whose objectives are to ensure that Patagonia continues on the path he gave as an example for the previous decades and to hold the 501c4 accountable.
The boards of these organizations are composed of the people whom he most trusts to fulfill his vision, a group of people that includes his children.
Knowing the full context of their lives, it's hard to see it as anything other than one of the more simple solutions to a complicated problem.
I'd be open to reading more. I think they are largely a good company but feel like this move was more of a tax dodge and to ensure generational wealth than for altruism. But I am open to being wrong about it.
But everyone involved in OpenAI doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings at all. I admit it's largely cynicism until I know more. But there isnt enough time in the day to do real research on every subject and topic that comes up on HN and every other discussion board I participate in, so it's difficult to be knowledgeable about everything and still maintain a life. And even if I was read up on OpenAI, I have zero ability to do anything about it, and it likely won't affect my life in a meaningful way as well (and this is true about most everything I read about to not single out OpenAI as not being worth my time). So it is a little pointless or more of a time waste I admit.