which ones do you think I missed?

It's nice to appreciate people who do good things, but keep in mind that the only way people become billionaires is by exploiting people. So I would not want any of these people to be billionaires because it would mean they got that wealth not by doing good things, but by owning ridiculous amounts of capital and exploiting people.
Rant over, sorry.
- it's alright mate. your rant helped me see things in a different light. so thank you.
- Well said. Thinking billionaires are assholes because they're naturally shitty is like thinking they got rich by being naturally hard working.
  Take landlords for example. You can be the nicest person in the world. The kind of person who makes friends with the tenant. What do you think happens to you after you've evicted a few of your friends?
  Systems are a removed.
  
  Landlords are parasites in any case
- I could see someone making something useful and selling it to billions of people at a fair price not being exploitative and also being a billionaire.
  I think it's rare to the point of maybe happening once ever, but I'm not super upset about the behavior of the guy currently bankrolling the signal foundation.
  
  The problem is if you aren't exploitative then you aren't being as "efficient" (in a capitalist sense) so you'll be out-competed. The system is designed to incentivize exploitation. It's mis-aligned to do anything else.
- I choose to see this question as "If you could magically just make someone a billionaire, who deserves it," or more specifically "who would actually do good things with the money if they had a billion dollars."
  As you said, the reason these people aren't billionaires already is because they haven't been exploiting others. That being said, there are likely a few people that would use the money to better support a lot of great causes, like the Free Software Foundation, medical research, or climate change action
- Ok, so who did Taylor Swift exploit? She literally is just a singer and the whole thing is odd, but it's more she's a billionaire because the currency is worthless.
  
  Her ex-boyfriends.
  
  her little private jet already put out more CO^2 this year alone than everyone on lemmy combined
  billionaires are shitty people, period.
  
  She didn't (maybe). Record labels did.
- Paul McCartney is a billionaire. What people did he exploit?
  I think Taylor Swift is now worth a billion dollars, despite being the exploited
  
  Simply by having a billion dollars means they have decided to hoard that wealth. They could give away 90% of it, leaving them with $100 million, it wouldn't impact their quality of life in any way, and still leave them with more wealth than 99.9% of the planet. Imagine the good that $900 million could do if it was put to good use rather than sitting in a bank account as a status symbol - having the capability to do that good with no impact on yourself or your family and choosing not to makes you an immoral person.
  Billionaires shouldn't exist. At all.
  
  Let’s reformulate. No single individual gets to a billion dollars of net worth without someone getting fucked over in the process. The very concept of any one individual having a net worth of hundreds of times the one of the next 99.9% is fucking absurd, regardless of what they did. Nobody “deserves” multiple lifetimes worth of wealth while half of the world’s population is living with dollars a day. It would take collectively for this world’s billlionaires, the equivalent of us foregoing buying a gaming PC (in relative terms) to get rid of world hunger, yet they choose not to. So, yes, they are actively fucking people over by having so much wealth in the first place.
  
  McCartney and Swift 'exploit' tons of people as well. They might flagship their music artist operation themselves and kind of 'be' the product (or rather the brand), but there are lots and lots of people involved to make tours and shows possible, recording, production and especially distribution of music and merch involves labour as well.
  In addition to that: I don't think they store all that money on a nice little heap in their backyard. It usually gets invested into some sorts of corporations, be it through the stock market, where it will accrue revenue, that comes as the result of more exploitation.
  That being said: the term 'exploitation' carries a much more negative connotation than would be beneficial for the conversation. It's concept of marxist economics, and the term 'Ausbeutung' = exploitation was used by Marx himself to describe how capitalists benefit from the surplus that workers produce. I like the term 'reaping the surplus' better because it doesn't carry as much of a negative connotation. The criticism of capitalism shouldn't barely rely on the fact that surplus is being taken away from the workers, but from the consequences to society and the political system that inevitably follow when that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a minority.

no one should be billionaires.

None of them. I don't care who they are, nobody should be a billionaire.
- The point is, I think, if they were to become billionaires (say Bll Gtes leaves it to them in his will), then they wouldn't be billionaires for long -- their moral compasses (given they've spent their lives on non-profit causes) dictate that they'd likely put the money into other non-profit ventures.
  
  Thats a fair point, but money changes people. That kind of money is obscene because it effectively puts you above most laws. I, too, would like to believe that the folks on this list would do only good with the money; but the longer the list, the more likely you witness the “Bad Change!” At the end of the day, most folks have families and other concerns outside of their public pursuits. That kind of money, while bringing its own problems, can get rid of just about any “normal people” worries (obviously not something like inoperable cancer)!

I think they aren't billionaires precisely because they worked for the good of the internet/knowledge.
If they indeed became billionaires that would imply that how they conduct themselves had completely been altered along with their core beliefs.
- You literally can't be a billionaire without exploiting people. If you're not sharing profits equitably, you're exploiting your work force; if you ARE sharing profits, then there's no way you'll become a billionaire.
  
  I heard of a shorter way of saying that: There is no ethical billion dollars.

Nope, there should not be any! Fuck capitalism!
- right, Swartz totally cared about no one else...
  go suck on Musk's toes or something

None of these people could ever be billionaires. Only a sociopathic, narcissistic mind could ever do what it takes to hoard a billion dollars. Capitalism rewards having a lack of empathy for other people.

Reminds me of this tweet from Merman_Melville: "Being a billionaire must be insane. You can buy new teeth, new skin. All your chairs cost 20,000 dollars and weigh 2,000 pounds. Your life is just a series of your own preferences. In terms of cognitive impairment it's probably like being kicked in the head by a horse every day" The experience itself is probably harmful and changes the person.
- Studies have shown that people change at a certain amount of money, like they cross a line in the sand. When you can buy anything everything just becomes yours by default in your mind. And anyone who can't do that are basically sheep dogs - useful but not worth your time. These studies were done in the twenty-tens and the number then was between 20 and 30 million for most people. Imagine your view on the world if you have 100 times that amount.
  
  Whew! Dodged that bullet.
  
  Imagine 5 thousand times that amount, like bezos or musk

You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.
- You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.
  Jeffrey Epstein supporter and pedophile Richard Stallman would qualify then?
  
  Hoooo boy people here get angry when you remind them of Stallman being outspokenly pro-paedophilia.
  
  If he's willing to trample all over people, exploit them, and have them die for his sake, then absolutely.
  Billionaires don't care about people. They don't view others as human. To them workers are robots, a statistical means to an end. Who cares if someone dies in some factory/warehouse somewhere? There'll be another to replace them before the end of the day.
  A billionaire gladly takes the effort of others and claims it as their own. They go out of their way to do it.
  That's not to say that every evil person acting like this will automatically become a billionaire, but you need to be OK with doing these things in order to get there. A billion USD is such an insane sum you cannot legitimately accumulate that without hurting people in the process. Like there's no logical way of actually earning that amount of money. That's money you take.
- Or divorcing Jeff Bezos.
  Joke aside, apparently she has a hard time spending enough money to lower her net worth (currently at $40B). Which is an absolutely bonkers amount of money, no one ever should have that much.
  
  As if a good person would've married him in the first place.

If they were billionaires, they likely wouldn't be the people they are today.
- I meant billionaires for their actions and creations, and not by birth like most techbros are.
  
  That's worse. You see how that is worse right?
  
  That seems worse because it means they went out of the way to get so rich, rather than just having it handed to them.

Image of me is missing but I still agree.
- Haha love your humour dude

- IMO RMS already has the attitude of a billionaire. He's a thoroughly weird man who says stuff he really shouldn't then stands by it. He's right about a lot of things when it comes to software, licensing, and open source in general but outside of that track he's more than a little loopy.
  I think it might be because he's had to fight society so long for things he knew he was right about that now he doesn't know how to have people tell him "no Richard, that's ducked up".
  Anyhow, I don't think him being a billionaire would be a good idea, him having enough funds to branch off into doing wherever strikes his fancy could be very bad.
  And Linus, I love Linus but look at how he's grown as a person and listened and changed how he interacts with other kernel developers. Would he still have been as receptive if he was a billionaire? Something tells me no.
- I understand your point, but those weren't the words he said. though I don't think that's going to make a difference.
  I like RMS for what he did(and is doing) for the free software community. I can also talk about some uncanny things about Gandhi, but that doesn't make his contribution to the independence movement and his views on nonviolence any less relevant.
  to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.
  
  People should indeed be seen in their entirety, the failure of this is why so many people get upset about Stallman.
  The guy is routinely portrayed as a bastion of righteous good will, championing the little guy against the evil corporations. The hero worship is real.
  Some of us see Stallman as a misogynistic asshole who routinely belittles people on mailing lists when they don’t agree with him and publicly defends people who sexually abuse children.
  For some of us, it feels like we need to go out of our way to point this out because we don’t want a guy like that as the public face of something we care about.
- Aaron Schwartz too
  https://web.archive.org/web/20031229025933/http:/bits.are.notabug.com/
  I fight laws that restrict what bits I can put on my website.
  Unlike humans, computers see everything as bits (numbers). They can't tell the difference between the random movement of a lava lamp and a copyrighted song. I believe that our technology should similarly make no distinction and that I have the right to transmit arbitrary bits.
  Here's a list of laws that restrict this right, in order from least controvertial (i.e. most people agree this freedom shouldn't be restricted) to most.
  ...
  ...
  ...
  In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.
  This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won't make the abuse go away. We don't arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.
- wha?
  
  you can read everything in great detail and with citations here if you have the bandwidth.
  but I'm not sure if the commenter is mixing two unrelated accusations towards him.
  stallman is known for his fixation on certain choice of words, which is the reason most people get him wrong. that's why I shared the link to read his exact words and make up your mind by yourself.
- He did not. Go find his exact words if you don't believe me.
  
  Richard Stallman on paedophilia:
  "The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia' also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
  RMS on June 28th, 2003
  "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
  RMS on June 5th, 2006
  "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
  Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "
  RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
  
  Why don't you link his exact words, then?

Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple.
I don't think he was ever a billionaire, though he's certainly done quite well for himself. Since leaving Apple, he has founded several new companies and projects, focusing a lot on education and philanthropy. He was also involved in founding the EFF.
He's an engineer first and foremost, and several of his projects never achieved mainstream success, partly for being, IMHO, ahead of their time -- for example, a programmable universal remote in the 80s, and a GPS-based item tracker in the early 2000s.
As far as I know, he has never been involved in any notable scandals.
- At Apple’s IPO, Woz gave $10 million of his stocks to Apple employees. Jobs didn’t want to give any to employees. Seems like a good guy.

on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”
We don't work tirelessly. We get tired all the time, but keep at it as well as we can.

Can we throw Steve Irwin in here. I bet that dude could have saved the Great Barrier Reef and a whole lot of wildlife if he had more means.
- This is exactly why those people never become billionaires. You can't make billions without screwing over people and the environment.

No one should have that much power.
I wouldn't have trusted Fred Rogers with a billion dollars, and he's practically the only famous stranger I could have seen trusting with my newborn alone.
It's a society warping level of wealth. No single, unelected, unaccountable person should possess that much uniltateral power.
The global ~~allowance~~ encouragement of such an exploitative, reckless goal is why we are in our various bleak situations.
- The only exception I can think of is Dolly Parton. I read a report that suggested she'd be among the world's wealthiest if she weren't consistently giving away 90%+ of her income.
  The problem is that anyone with that much wealth has already proven their selfishness by not giving away most of it. It's the classic issue of "Anyone who can be elected should never be elected."
  
  Recently saw a post somewhere proposing a new style of Government, where we just give the money to Dolly Parton and just kinda let her do her thing with it.
- that's a good point. if i get it right, you mean that since wealth is a resource, it should always be in the hands of those who are accountable(like the government)?
  
  I mean when wealth reaches levels beyond material comfort, needs, and wants, when it becomes easy to warp society. Billionaire's lifestyles doesn't change AT ALL between 1 billion and 2, its about expanding power. That is what capital becomes at those levels.
  Politicians swoon over you for "donations" (bribes), you begin to see regulations over the industry you exploit your profit from as amendable through lobbyists you can hire to represent your interests over society. Meanwhile that billionaire's factory workers, customers concerned with product safety, our shared commons, and our communal environment have no advocates with such massive influence to counter them, when the needs of the many shouldn't just balance the needs of the interests of the wealthy few at the top, they should far outweigh them. As it is, its the other way around. The billionaires have the resources to take care of themselves and protect themselves, most of society does not.
  No one should have enough wealth to have more influence over society than your single vote allows. If you want more power, that should come by selling your ideas to society that votes on them by putting you into a political office, with ALL of the rules and accountability that comes with that office.
  The White House and Senate often invites the billionaires of industries to be the authority on how those industries should be regulated, and it's perverse. The Foxes advising on hen house security.
- No one should have that much power.
  How do you reconcile that with government leaders having that much power?
  
  With elections that monied interests can no longer purchase and disproportionately propagandize with their essentially limitless power/capital.
  They have politicians work against the people, then buy enough ad propaganda to convince people that was a good decision in their interests without that, politicians would rise and fall moreso on what they do in office.
  We are the weird ones in the developed world for allowing unlimited private money to pollute our politics, elections, and even buy sitting politicians though legalized political bribery superpacs. It got this way because of the influence of the wealth class being allowed in the first place using that in to expand its own power and ability to bribe, culminating in Citizens United.
  I think our eventual collapse will be tied directly to that SCOTUS decision.
  
  Because in countries with functioning democracies, political power is narrowly scoped (your electors give you a mandate to do certain things, and if you act contrary to those interests you loose your power) and fleeting (you only have power as long as your electors continue to entrust that power to you, and can remove that power if they decide you are no longer fit to wield it).
  Money, by contrast, is permanent (capital breeds capital) and unaccountable (you can choose to use the power your wealth grants without any regard for what others think - even if people disapprove, they can't stop you spending it)

Rip Swartz man, the idea of all human knowledge from how to change your tire to how to put out a fire being monetised is legitimately scary

RIP Aaron Swartz.
- the US government has blood on their hands for this one...

But of course, such based individuals will never be billionaires. Specifically because their basedness precludes them from being psychopathic enough to commit the kind of cutthroat, violent exploitation of tens of thousands of workers' labor inherently necessary to amass such wealth.
- when you put it that way, I realise how being so rich is anti to what most of these people are known for.
  speaking of which, here's a to-scale representation of how rich some people are.

Me. I use arch btw.
- I fucking love arch.
  
  pfft … you just haven’t discovered our lord and saviour, NixOS

I have a standing theory that once a person is no longer concerned about their welfare or the welfare of their descendants, they go crazy.
Like, once you reach a point where survival is no longer a problem, that part of your brain goes nuts. It's not a flawless theory, since philanthropy is a thing and people like Dean Kamen exist, but it's a thing that seems to happen an awful lot.
- I've worked for several very, very rich men. The pattern I notice is that they always get surrounded by people who make sure that they never, ever hear "no".
  Imagine living in a world where every inane thing that comes out of your mouth, somebody immediately makes it their mission to try and make it happen. You no longer get any kind of useful feedback from the world and your opportunities to learn from feedback are greatly reduced.
  I agree, I think in the end, it does make them crazy.
- I think it’s more that billionaires have very few people to surround themselves with except for sycophants and other billionaires.
  Nobody says no to them, everything they’ve ever done was the right thing according to everyone around them, so why should the next thing they do or say be wrong?
  Covid really really accelerated the craziness among them.
- Survival no longer is a problem to literally everyone in north america. yeah people die, but, when was the last time you have heard of anyone who is not anorexic starving to death? People still talk like survival is an issue, but that's because they actually mean not being comfortable.
  
  This is simply not true. Starvation isn't the only thing that kills people - they die of easily treatable medical issues all the time because of lack of health insurance. Unhoused people die of exposure every summer and winter.

yeah, no

Richard Stallman
Are you sure about that one?
- If you're talking about what he's accused of saying, he did not say that. People kept repeating a badly garbled version of what he said that makes him sound awful, even though his actual words are easy to find and completely disprove the accusations.
  
  So what he been accused of saying that he didn't said ?
- Yes.
- yeah, that would arguably be even more awful than Elon, Stallman has been a known asshole for many years

me. i wouldn't mind being a billionaire. now give me money /s
- real

Aspiring to becoming and staying a billionaire requires a certain amount of psychopathy because it takes a certain mentality to want to own so much wealth that you'll never be able to enjoy all of it in a lifetime while at the same time denying or taking away the wealth of others who might need it.
If I had a billion, I'd take a few million and live off the interest and give away the rest and not be bothered by anyone or anything ever again.

Aaron Swartz created markdown?!! I did not know that!
- I also had no idea he made RSS
  
  Watch "The Internet's Own Boy", it's a great documentary about Aaron.
- No he didn't. He made atx and worked closely with the guy who make markdown. He also was part of the group that made RSS and contributed to the early CC.

Cory Doctorow

As funny as the thought of Stallman becoming a billionaire is, ultimately, like all celebrities, these people are strangers to the overwhelming majority of you. Parasocial relationships are never healthy, and the result of being put on a pedastal is that they became idols and symbols and ceases being people.
And I don't think that's what they would have wanted.
After all, the only good billionaire is a Barbi-onaire.

Would these people actually be billionaires though? Seems to me many of them would put that money to good use instead.

Fundamentally speaking, none of these people would've ended up as billionaires for long. Most FOSS heavyweights already gave up their chance at being much more wealthy for their current roles. That being said, I'm pretty sure Linus and a few others here aren't exactly short on cash

Idk man we just saw a week ago how atrociously Linus used to treat people. Imagine combining that with enough greed to hold onto a billion dollars. Imagine what any of these people would be like if they were the type to ruthlessly exploit others to get rich. I think a billionaire Linus would be worse than Bill Gates. At least Gates is a nice guy.
It is the act of holding onto that much wealth that is immoral, not who is doing it. This is just fantasizing from a painfully neoliberal perspective: OP is imagining the world would be better if the good guys hoarded inconceivable amounts of wealth and exploited the labor of others.
- I haven't met gates and I agree these days he comes across pleasantly, but perhaps you are not old enough to remember stories of what he was like in his 30s and 40s when Microsoft was younger. He was a tyrant and viscously anticompetitive. As a husband my understanding is that he cheated on his wife (not uncommon I know but still hurtful). He might have become a somewhat better person, maybe, but he certainly wasn't one when he was making his fortune.
  
  I have an unfavourable view of gates despite his philanthropic actions. mainly because of his buying of large farmlands and his opposition to freely licence astra zeneca's vaccine.
  
  Oh yeah I know how predatory of a businessman he was, I just assumed he did it politely.
- I have a question:
  almost every single person that you know as a good guy may have a little but of an uncanny side. at which point does a person not remain an overall good person?
  or do we take the person for who he/she is, and use(and learn from)his/her actions as an example, both good and bad ones?
  I'm asking primarily because I don't know an answer to it.

agree with @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca, power corrupts – radix malorum est cupiditas

The creator of Vim is unfortunately no longer with us.

It would probably ruin them and their work though. While I have little sympathy for the plights of billionaires, it's difficult for people to not allow that level of ridiculous wealth and power to affect them. These people have found a much healthier path to success. I'm sure the living ones are all financially comfortable without the ridiculous distortion of excess wealth.
Also though I'd object to anyone being a billionaire since it's absurd.

How would they earn billions without getting the money from other people's work?

I would be OK if the guy that made Stardew Valley became a billionaire.

Ooh, I've met three of them on this list. Jean-Baptiste was the best though ;)

Hummmmm...Lennart Pottering?

The year Aaron Swartz died is the year that everything started going to shit.

I'm sorry, but Stallman is an asshole..
- I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

I dont want anybody to be a billionaire, also they couldn't because to be one you have to be exploitative and a bad person
- That's not necessarily true. My cousin is the nicest person you could meet, he was a programmer who tinkered around with a package delivery tracking system, and Fexex bought him out for almost 2 billion. He became one of our wealthiest citizens overnight. And he's amazing, he doesn't exploit people and he is not a bad person by any definition.
  
  Did he keep the 2 billion for himself?
  I think the point is that anyone who gets and keeps that much money is not a good person. A billion dollars is more than any person could ever need for themselves. Consider that having a meager 10 million in the bank at a pitiful 2% return of interest would provide $200,000 per year, which is a very comfortable life. Who can justify keeping 100x that? And how can you justify it when a tiny fraction of that would revolutionize thousands of people's lives?

There's a whole bunch of people that deserve to become billionaires a lot more than people in tech and that would have a much better impact on the world if they did. I would much rather have a bunch of billionaire physicists, immunologists, virologists, pediatricians and so on.
- that is a nice conundrum. almost like it is impossible to become a billonaire if the desire to benefit society is too high on your priority list.

I think you need to make money to be a billionaire.

John Gruber created Markdown but Aaron helped and tested it.

if Arnold Swartz was a billionaire lemmy wouldn't exist and most likely kbin also

Rest in peace Bram Moolenaar

Is it pronounced git or jit?
- I think it's git as in "Go on now! Git!"
  
  Lol I always say something similar in my head. What do I need to do to obtain this program? I jus' need'a go'on n' git it.

Terry A. Davis

it's precisely that they don't build themselves up by exploring the less privileged and really create value to society that we view them as good people. No billionaire is self-made, no billionaire is good. Eat the rich, help your communities, be kind.

First recognized Linus and was like where’s Aaron. [Probably saw him subconsciously but] Was super satisfied he’s there. Rest in peace, hero.

Patrick Volkerding could use a shout-out --- founder, maintainer, and benevolent dictator-for-life of Slackware.

Oh wow Ian Murdock commit suicide :(

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/15/f4/3d/15f43de9c186ea8d1f9f6c4b5b8c49a7.jpg

If we're putting developers on the list, it should be Fabrics Bellard or Graydon Hoare.

And even if it's contrary to popular opinion, I don't mind Bill Gates being a billionaire. I mean, I'd love to have invented the sole operating system for Windows and get all that money. My feeling is, if you make something that worthy you deserve to get paid over and over again.
- The problem with that thinking is that his wealth wouldn't be possible without a ton of other people's work. His work relied on hardware and other software, and was built on the work of his predecessors, like all software is. He certainly came up with a good product and did well with it, but it wasn't done in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a "self-made" billionaire.
  I can't believe that anything that one person produces is worthy enough for a billion dollars. It's like saying it's worth more than a year's worth of work from 65,000 people (based on min wage in the US). Nothing can be worth that much, in my opinion.
  
  Oh I don't dispute that, I couldn't list all the names that I'm sure were involved in making Windows a viable system. I think a lot of them did make tons of money, at least I hope so. I don't mean to suggest one man invented the whole thing by himself.
  My question is if no one man is worth a billion dollars - why are athletes worth several million. Unions aside, I know these people would be playing their sport even if nobody paid them at all. And I'm not saying they don't work hard. I just don't see how anything one person does in sports is worth several millions of dollars a year.
- there’s still stories going around that Gates copied chunks of CP/M …
  
  I'm sure he didn't really invent the system out of whole cloth, most great inventions were copied from ideas of others.
- He stepped back from running his company and got into philanthropy. That's what all billionaires should do.
  Once you've taken enough, you've gotta work on how to give it all back.
  
  Well I agree, that's actually why I mentioned Bill Gates. He does a give a lot back in philanthropic enterprises and also just to give to charities. And I agree that is something you should do if you have more money than God and King Midas combined.