Because this type of comment is not welcome here, I'm going to kill this one now, as well as the other ones in which you've been venting. Please don't vent on HN.
Have you watched the source material?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns
It's not exactly like Travis is abusing the driver - if anything, it's the other way around. The driver had a bone to pick, and needed to vent - Travis obviously just wanted to go home, on what was obviously a night off.
The fact he actually took the time to try to listen to the driver, and explain things - that says something for him as a CEO. Sure, he gets frustrated at the end, but he certainly handled that level of abuse better than I would, and I suspect, better than many of the armchair commentators here.
Public figures don't get time off. It's one of the ugliest parts of the gig.
No, people actually do change, you know.
But I've found that I don't have the mental fortitude to wait for them and see abuse meted out in the meantime. Deliberate assholery once, I'm going to be suspicious for a long, long time. Asshole twice, we're done.
Every dollar you gave to Bill Gates ended up being rather effectively used for good.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
If you bothered to actually read cited sources, you might find that there's criticism there as well. There is criticism at Wikipedia, backup up in some of the 153 cited sources.
Congratulations, by dismissing it out of hand without justification all you've done is remove any doubts as to whether you should be listened to on the topic at all. Hand-waving away massive amounts of information as propaganda because it's inconvenient to your view is not the action of a credible person.
Stop trolling.
The only reasons you would post that link is if you either didn't read it, didn't care how truthful it was, or are truly incapable of seeing how irrational the statements in it are. That article is employing a classic "I'll prolifically link to sources which don't back my claims at all or have no credibility" tactic, and you, by linking to it are using the fake news tactic of hiding bad sources by burying then a few layers deep. You didn't do a very good job at it though, as the source article you linked to is far too irrational and willing to use unrelated appeals to emotion in lieu of actual reasoning.
The article starts with "It isn’t clear if Bill Gates was veiling a threat[1] to help depopulate[2] the planet by 30 million people, if he was simply scare-mongering...". The links go to articles about how Bill Gates dad was the head of eugenics group planned parenthood. That one needs to be backed up, or perhaps they just don't know what eugenics means? Nope, apparently the second link going into the history and details, they know exactly what eugenics is, they just have a hard time between disassociating the (somewhat fictionalized!) history of the group from the current actions. An organization's founding and past actions don't necessarily factor in to their current goals and actions. Tying Margaret Sanger to Nazi policies (which she was against) without backing it up when there's evidence to the contrary[3] is yet one more reason to discount this source.
"[Bill Gates] who has been kicked out of India[4]". The linked article is about how India is funding a key component of an immunization program that used to by funded by the Gates foundation, because there was growing public sentiment that the local government should be handling certain needs itself to protect from outside influence. It goes on to say "[Senior health ministry official] Swaminathan, however, stressed there were no instances of influence found and the decision was only in part prompted by a wider perception about foreign funding of the program."
And that's just the first paragraph.
The trolling accusation is actually the least damning possibility I could come up with as to why you posted that, because the alternative is that you believed everything in the article at face value, and seriously, what the fuck? Do you really think that an interlocking web so self-referencing propaganda blogs, which either never link to a reputable source or when they do wildly misinterpret (or misrepresent) that source are a substitute for critical thinking and actual news? You've linked to the blogosphere version of the Weekly World News, and have done the equivalent of trying explain to everyone the wonders of Bat Boy[5]. Hopefully you were as self aware about it as the Weekly World News was.
1: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/25/10-disturbing-facts-a...
2: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/bill-gates-and-eugenics-the-w...
3: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/sanger-hitler_eq...
4: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN1...
Traits other than those two can change. Classic example: an alcoholic who becomes sober.
Circumstances, triggers, and incentives change wildly. The world is in flux. But people's attitudes generally are not.
I strongly disagree. I think Steve is more remembered for the Macintosh than for the iMac/iPod/iPhone/iPad, at least amongst HN readers and the like.
If NeXt wasn't profitable, it was because their sales hadn't yet caught up with their fixed engineering costs. Uber's unprofitability isn't because they're waiting for sales to grow large enough to cover the cost of their engineering operation, it's because they're heavily subsidizing the unit costs of their business.
I don't think that basic human decency is something you should keep in a ledger to run credit and debits against.
Imagine if I mugged you for $100 and gave $20 to the red cross?
Not sure if you know how many companies and lives, gates made bankrupt with his shady business practices. No different from Travis here.
I hate to digress from this topic, so I won't in depth, but this whole "good tree, bad tree" philosophy is central to protestant theology and has had an impact on Western culture, while it is often not true, in my opinion.
Another variant is the "bitter water, sweet water" parable from Jude.
[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A15-...
tl;dr: Using the "good fruit" passage to condemn people as "bad people" is bad reading comprehension.
Those words were said by Jesus, so it's impossible to ignore, but it's also commonly misinterpreted.
In the place you cited, it's clearly talking about "false prophets", or people who incorrectly claim to speak God's truth. They look like spiritual people (Christians, even), but you can tell they're rotten by the "fruit" of their lives. And (continuing on to verse 20) some "Christian leaders" do not follow Christ and will absolutely be rejected by Jesus on their judgement day. That passage Jude is also about determining if someone follows Christ earnestly more than deciding they're hell-bound or something.
Also, if we back up in that chapter in Matthew a bit (1), we'll see Jesus clearly say you'll be judged by the yardstick we apply to others. If we condemn assholes, we'll be condemned as assholes. Which of us isn't an asshole sometimes?
That's not giving assholery a pass, though. It's just if we're really concerned about improving the world and fixing the behavior of others, we should address ourselves first so that we won't be ineffective in the task.
Anyway, I agree that the "know them by their fruit" passage is misapplied to judge someone as a rotten person. A rotten spiritual leader? Sure. But not deciding that someone hopeless case. You'll have to find another source of authority if you want to claim that.
(1) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-5...