Seriously, goddamn. He had, say, 2002 million, he gave away 2000 and he kept 2 for himself, and people are fucking OUTRAGED. If he had 2000 million and gave all of it away, well, people still wouldn't be satisfied because people suck.

Close to $8,002 million but the point stands.

Handful men-children will always complain on the internet about something (everything).

No point to pay any attention to it.

Just another reason for rich people to justify their current behaviour. Why donate, if you would still be shat on by envios poor bastards? Fml

Do you really believe that if you are not aware of something that did not happen? For one example read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crates_of_Thebes . There are perhaps many, many, many more.

You are so right. I get happiness out of 1 of every 100 hn stories. This was a big one.

I think the "not picking" is justified. If the journalist who wrote this can't get the headline right or intentionally made it misleading, than can we trust the rest of their content? Journalistic integrity is a valid concern.

Oh come on, nobody in this thread shitting on the guy who gave away $8 billion is concerned with journalistic integrity.

$2 million in retirement is $80k/yr. Most of the people reading this thread will retire with twice that or more.

Your math is based on the "4% rule" but that assumes you retire at age 65. Chuck Feeney is 89, so it is more like $350,000 a year.

That said, I agree with you that nitpicking headlines is a constant on HN. It is low value, gets tiresome, doesn't actually improve the web, and makes me stay away from HN in favor of other communities that actually want to engage with articles and not just their headlines.

> It is low value, gets tiresome, doesn't actually improve the web, and makes me stay away from HN in favor of other communities that actually want to engage with articles and not just their headlines.

I find it to be high value. The misleading-ness of a title is a proxy for quality of content, in my opinion.

Isn't the 4% rule to avoid eating into the principal? Why would that change based on your age?

I don't see people knocking the Billionaire, only the title.

Journalists making attention grabbing headlines is not big news

A man giving away $8bn leaving himself $2m really is. I mean it really really is.

"A man giving away $8bn leaving himself $2m really is."

I agree. If it really is that big news, then a title phrased the way you did above would be work and be truthful.

Who's nitpicking? It's an objectively incorrect headline.

Missing the whole thrust and pointing out that a minor aspect is objectively correct is almost the definition of nitpicking

Donating is cool. Does he want a medal, too?