Yeah I would say 1% is not very much, even if it is $2bn. In fact, it's less because it's $2bn. Him giving 95% of his wealth away would affect his lifestyle about as much as most people giving 1% of their wealth away. Probably less. Him giving 1% away is completely insignificant.

I guess you could argue he can't give away 95% now because he wants to maintain control of Oracle... which is fair enough I guess. But still, 1% is not very much.

I don't understand how people can defend extremely wealthy sociopaths. He's a CIA contractor and a genocide supporter, and he's trying to consolidate media to censor certain narratives. The guy is a piece of work. And there's no way he contributed that much more than everyone else to capture most of the wealth generated by the work of his employees. Being more of an aggressive sociopath doesn't mean you did more or better work than everyone else in his orgs.

Boo hoo.

Misinformation is misinformation and it does no one good.

You must be talking about yourself, everything I said is easily verifiable with 30 seconds of research. Do some introspection - you are projecting.

Oh I'm talking about you colordrops without color.

CIA contractor, like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and more.

Introspect my bung****

More than 0 is more than zero. In case you forgot where this conversation started from

My only point is that the parent post wasn't being misleading. No, 1% isn't much.