It's more a ceremonial thing, since as the headline plainly indicates, his son, until today known only as Placeholder Buffet, has been waiting to receive a name for 71 years
He's there to maintain the very unique culture of the company. I think it's sort of like if they have his son there he of all people should know Buffett's/Berkshire's culture and be able to best maintain it. He's got a few years to figure out a successor. But yeah this is mostly about the unique culture they have.
They can just add those people to the board. It’s not a set number and they don’t regularly add or remove people unless they think they can bring something to the table. Sometimes that is simply “holds a bajillion shares” but if they wanted a High Frequency Trading CEO on the board for insight into that, they could add both his kid and that CEO.
It's also entirely possible he's essentially competent at the job of being a board member which is a pretty do-little job if the CEO is doing a good job.
He was giving it to the Gates Foundation for Bill & Melinda Gates to manage, but that deal went into limbo when Bill showed up in the Epstein files and Melinda divorced him.
That's recent, just as of the last couple months. Historically the children's foundations have been a sideshow and he's given the bulk of his wealth away to the Gates Foundation. You can see that from the dollar amounts: this year's gift to the children's foundations was 1M BRK-B shares (the equivalent of about $500M) to each, while he's given away a total of $66B, over 120x as much.
Though unlikely the case here, family foundations should always be looked at as a likely source of corruption.
You cannot bribe me directly - that would be caught. However you can donate money to my family foundation and my kids (or spouse) will draw a large salary from it while doing almost nothing and they do some good for the world so it looks like a charity. Of course the kids/spouse will support me in various ways that all rich kids will.
Again, probably not what is happening here, but every time you hear of a family foundation you should ask who they are using it to corruption in some form. Even when it doesn't seem to be you should still look.
Even very large salaries are probably not a very significant amount of wealth for these people. I think this is a case where "all large numbers look the same."
If Warren just directly gave his money to his three children equally, and paid 40% inheritance tax on that money, and then the children each just used 1% of that wealth per year, then they'd each get:
144000000000 * 0.6 / 3 / 100 = $288 million each year.
No foundation pays its CEO 10% of that much money. I think we may have to accept that in fact this is a way to give money to charitable causes, not just horde it.
I believe they wouldn't have to because of the stepped-up-basis, but my point is that even if somehow they were paying the full 40%, it's still an inconceivably large amount of money.
Even if that kind of corruption isn't there, these charities are still a net negative for society. Why do the super rich rail against taxes but then donate all of their money to family foundations? There are multiple reasons. Pull on that thread.
It's more of a way to secure the fortune. You can't "secure" the personalities of all your offspring. If one of them gets out of line it could have disastrous consequences. Keeping it in a controlled institution boxes them in.
Plenty of other charities in the world. Just because he stopped giving to the Gates Foundation over Epstein ties doesn't mean he won't send the money somewhere else.
Sure. The thing with the Gates Foundation is that it was able to handle billions. Most charities aren't equipped to effectively manage and deploy that kind of wealth. The Gates Foundation made it easy for billionaires to send a large lump sum to one place that was equipped to deal with it.
Having to part out all his wealth $5m at a time to spread it around without overwhelming the systems in place, would be a second act that I'm not sure Buffett has the time for.
Most of them seemingly have control problems where even if they do, it is in the form of a giant money pile still under their control that they give away the returns of, usually also completely under their control.
My hot take is that men with extreme wealth and power are desperate to keep it as part of their identity, where the women I mentioned do not have the same character and personality flaws, and therefore use it as a tool to do good because they are not optimizing for status, power, and wealth: they are optimizing to do good. Doesn't always hold, there are exceptions.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." -- Lord Action
One giant exception was Chuck Feeney, who made $8 billion on duty free shops and gave almost all of it away, much of it anonymously. By the end of his life he and his wife had a couple million and lived in a rented apartment.
When they agreed in Nashville to rename the airport after Dolly Parton, all of the people commenting on the TV clip said it was well-deserved.
Some were more emotional than others, but one of the proponents was very touched, she admired Parton so much because Dolly set an example of how to be as successful as a person can be, and not keep a billion for yourself.
I can't find the clip now, but it was from the heart.
I think more likely is that bill and Jeff built their wealth through their businesses, which they are still directly involved in. Giving away their wealth would be equivalent to giving away the business they built from the ground up
I think there's also a question of efficacy. Bill and Jeff are really good at turning $1 into $10. Melinda and Mackenzie? Not so much. If bill or Jeff wanted to maximize the amount they can give, the best strategy would be for them to continually earn until they die, and then donate it.
That's what it's about though. The amount THEY can give, not the benefit to humanity.
It's not like Bill and Jeff actually built any of these products themselves. Microsoft bought DOS. Right place, right time for that Nepo baby. Bezos at least had a normal family.
I agree that Bill and Jeff are better at exploitation at scale. That’s how you become that wealthy. We are lucky they’re divorced and the wealth is in the hands of better stewards to distribute it to do good.
I agreed right off the bat, they definitely reached scale like few others, but maybe it might have been the way they grew without stopping more so than today's well-known scaling process that got them there.
Doubtless they got in position early to take advantage of many potential upswings.
There's a large body of medical research around women having more empathy than men, specifically around brain volume in the inferior frontal gyrus. Does it always hold? There are always exceptions. Broadly speaking, in most cases, it is a function of brain structure, per person. Do you have many examples of exceptional wealthy and powerful women who are monsters? I do not. I welcome corrections and citations, and am happy to be proven wrong on this.
TLDR Show me the brain fMRI and I will show you the soul. In some cases, facial structure is enough for weak but meaningful signal (as a proxy for brain structure).
It’s not really a “loophole,” it’s a standard way to give away absurd sums of money.
Have you ever tried to donate billions of dollars? It’s actually extremely difficult.
You have to find causes you’re passionate about/things that society needs, find the correct charities to give the money to, make sure your money actually goes towards the thing they say it will (this is difficult), and then figure out how much you can actually donate (you can’t just give N dollars to company Y. They’ve got zero experience managing that much money, and no way to scale into doing it efficiently.)
What happens then is you have $100b to donate, and mostly only do it $10m at a time or less.
Warren’s kids are old now. They’ve all been donating money for YEARS (it’s a mandatory part of their trust).
So yeah, you receive tax benefits by transferring shares to a foundation you also control, but that money is now earmarked for charity. It doesn’t flow both ways, and the laws on this are very tight (bad actors will find a way, but what’s new?).
Sure that is the typical way to donate your wealth but there are many other ways than giving it with control to your children. I have no judgement but doing it this way is a nice way to move money within your family.
Everyone does it different and I have no judgement but you could just as easily pick a quorum of folks to do the job with a very explicit timeline. Charitable donations are quite broad in the US. So sure lots of wealthy folk don’t this way but not everyone!
Can you just as easily pick a quorum of folks? It seems to me that no matter what, you're going to have to choose people you know and be accused of nepotism because those are the people you can actually assess, and in the case of children, hopefully raise/influence to be on the same page as you.
You could always donate it to the US government, but then it'll be used to go start some wars, so that won't work. You could put it in some weird trust where random people can democratically decide what to do with it, but all you have to do is look at the government to see how good of decisions that leads to. So truly what's the alternative?
Easy is relative but someone in his position with decades of experience working with talented individuals, yes. Nothing is perfect but I have seen other foundations structured where it’s a mixture of descendants and leaders that worked with the individuals. We are going to be picking at hairs though since this is all anecdotal and we don’t know how it will play out. Some of kids foundation work has been a bit self-serving but it’s there money to spend. It could also just as easily be that the 3 kids are different enough that requiring all three to agree prevents most of the opportunity.
If it's so difficult, maybe they could take the easy option and, you know, properly fund the government to build the shared infrastructure on which we all rely by paying tax proportional to their wealth.
You mean fund ICE and build some more concentration camps?
Approximately 1% of the federal budget is infrastructure. There are huge advantages to donating to a charity that actually does something productive instead of the federal waste machine.
Or maybe, just maybe, a system that doesn't create massive concentration of wealth won't try to divert people's focus by pitting people against each other and building concentration camps. Governments aren't fundamentally wasteful. In fact, an effective government is an absolute requirement for functioning healthcare, fair wages, consumer protection, and actual public safety that protects all people equally.
This isn't to diminish all the good things charities have done, but charities are fundamentally band-aid solutions to a dysfunctional society. Leaving welfare at the mercy of wealthy individuals as the wealth gap keeps getting bigger and bigger is a losing strategy. It shouldn't be the state of things people should be aiming for.
Fixing government and taxing the rich is the only solution that addresses the core of the issue. Charities can't close wealth gaps, because they lack the power to enforce laws that ensure fair labor and trade practices. Charities can't stop the healthcare industry from bankrupting sick or injured people, because that too requires enforcing the law. Charities can't stop concentration camps.
Charities do have a place in society and they can do enormous good, but can't compensate for a poor government.
Frankly, the notion that government is fundamentally ineffective and only the private sector can fix things is billionaire propaganda. Billionaires undermine government so they can exploit working-class people with fewer constraints. Then they'd use charity to launder their reputation while pushing their own agenda.
Deriding calls for fair taxes and claiming charities will fix things is wishful thinking at best.
Right, donating your present wealth because you expect to continue receiving an astronomical amount of wealth in perpetuity through your company ownership is not all that grand of a gesture.
Certainly better than many alternatives, but it’s not a gesture that should make the median income person feel like existing as an excessively wealthy person should be okay/legal.
In my opinion, personal wealth/asset control above a certain level deemed excessive (perhaps $100 million then adjusted for inflation moving forward) should be taxed at 100% and put into a special fund intended to help pay for social services, healthcare, housing the homeless, etc. In the case of asset control perhaps a good method would be to distribute excessively valued ownership stakes to employees or random members of the public (e.g., many of Elon Musk’s shares in his companies forfeited and distributed to others).
This makes sense as long as public control makes the outcome of that money better than letting the bazillionare control it. I'm not sure which way the actual truth tilts, but I suspect it's sometimes one and sometimes the other.
In my opinion, giving one person that level of economic and social control as a concept is more of the issue than optimizing for the most positive outcome.
E.g., the most intelligent and benevolent king in history might be better in those particular outcomes than democracy, but we should still pick democracy because the concept of giving one person too much powerful is too dangerous.
I think our society needs to think of wealth more in these terms than it does at present.
It bothers me how he and other billionaires think that it's all worth it letting them get so rich because they "give it away". It's almost insulting.
You know who could have used all that money all this time? The people you leeched it away from via this thing known as taxes and a functioning government. But no, let's give it away to private foundations who will serve only their needs.
Still leaves $1.5b, that's a hell of an income if you stick it in any widespread passive fund, and still 100 times more than even the 1% mark in the US.
I would be set for the rest of my life if I got half a mill falling from sky today, I guess I could even make it work with 250k.
Currently I am pondering how absurd amount of money a billion of dollars is. When loads of people can only -earn and eat through/spend not save- $1 million; working their asses off for something like 20 years.
For what it is worth, if you want your withdrawals to last for decades, then you are limited to around a yearly inflation-adjusted cap of around 3% of the original principal per year, gross of taxes, if you invest in low-cost passive index funds. That is a budget of $30K/year for every million you have invested in the market.
If you are interested, the /r/fire and /r/financialindependence subreddits are useful.
> I would be set for the rest of my life if I got half a mill falling from sky today, I guess I could even make it work with 250k.
Maybe you only have a few years left to live? If not, I’m not sure where one can live on $10,000 to $15,000 a year and pay for shelter, food, clothing, and healthcare. It costs more than that per year for health insurance for one adult over 40 in the US.
That is what $500k grants you, chop those in half for $250k.
This is the biggest argument for socialism, you pay the taxes, get free health care and free education, every one gets the same irrespective of their status.
Why do Americans get scared every time they hear "socialism"?
Is it because billionaires have told them it's like "communism"? Are they so brainwashed they can't vote for policies to enable this sort of thing? No wonder the life expectancy in the US is lower than in Europe.
> but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise
Not exactly, he's there to oversee the culture of Berkshire and ensure it's continuity. Buffett is donating all of his wealth (and has already donated $66B), so there isn't a fortune to protect.
Berkshire is an institution of sorts at this point, and requires strong stewardship to prevent enshittification (for lack of a better word).
While I liked your comment enough to upvote, I then realized that Chairman isn't an operational position. It's more a position where the person can exercise ownership of a company (to put it in layman terms). In your analogy he wouldn't be the athlete, more like the person who gets the winning money (assuming his son also has shares) and chooses the trainer/coach of the athletes (which still needs skill btw).
Warren was CEO until 9 months ago. While yes, he's been chairman for 50 years, he's been an exclusive chairman for only 9 months. The role is ambiguous anyways and it's pretty obvious that someone else won't have the authority Warren has. And his son has been a director for 30 years so it's not like he's a new hire
He was chairman and CEO for a long time. Since he has only been a chairman for not that long I don't think it's fair to say that he's been a very active chairman for a long time.
This is a position on the board. The Buffett estate gets an important board role because it represents their family’s large stake. Choosing someone in the family is consistent with this structure.
The article you’re picking the quote from is about estate taxes.
But his family inheriting his ownership of the company contradicts his statements about estate taxes in that article. And passing the chairman position to his son may even be part of a plan to pass wealth to him that avoids estate taxes.
there's nothing wrong with leaving things to your kids to run.
that's the point of the effort after all.
warren as smart as he is was tryna go against the grain of thousands of human evolution. if you train your kids - then most likely they would've values similar to yours. hit or miss but most times a hit.
A lot of rich men, when younger, say that they will not leave so much of the wealth to their children. Then they get older and realize what other old men realized.
Yeah, the "upside" to nepotism is that, if you or your brother or your buddy did a good job raising the kid, you have someone who has had solid training for longer than it's possible for any other candidate to have had, and a better understanding of their character than you can get from interviewing another candidate a few times. Hiring Joe's kid is a no brainer, if you trust Joe, less risk of a really bad hire even if he doesn't turn out to be stellar.
The other downside of nepotism -- besides the risk that Joe did a shit job and won't admit it or maybe can't evaluate his kid objectively -- is that even if the kid is the bee's knees, a great hire, it's not really fair -- there's almost certainly other candidates who are just as good and trustworthy as Joe's kid but they can't compete with either Joe's kid. It doesn't really matter what sort of references or credentials a candidate can show you if you can serve as a reference for the other candidate. You can't really run a meritocracy like that.
for the downside - countless cultures have had preventative mechanism for that.
if your biological child is an idiot/wasteman - then you could adopt - the Roman Empire ran on adopted children, with biological children seen as wasteman.
the other way it's done e.g with Japanese businesses - again adopt your son in law and give him your surname.
the thing about giving helm to the sons - is usually you would've had a whole lifetime to evaluate the candidate 20+ years. do mistakes happen yeah, but honestly the risk is overblown.
>there's nothing wrong with leaving things to your kids to run.
where that's true or not, that's not what happened. this is more like "there's nothing wrong with trying to help your son in his career and getting him a job."
Berkshire Hathaway's market cap is a trillion, and Warren Buffet's net worth has never been close to that, i.e. it's not his company so he's not leaving it to his son to run.
You might admire Warren Buffet's acumen and think he'd be good at picking people, but all (for varying values of all) parents believe in their children so it's not easy to tell if you'd be getting his best advice in this case if you were another major shareholder in Berkshire.
"Company culture" at Berkshire Hathway doesn't mean the same as at most companies. BH buys companies and don't interfere with them. So while BH employs upwards of 100k people, the people whose culture the CEO cares about is probably under 100 people.
This is the answer. While it is very real to talk about "employee culture" as company culture, in this particular case, the "culture" I was talking about was from a corporate/investment/acquisition level. Howards job is not to understand how each company that BRK owns is run, that is the CEO's job. But Howards job is to look at BRK from a high level and make sure that the CEO is executing in the same way that Warren set up, namely – buying companies and stocks at a "fair" price or below, and not micromanaging the companies that they acquire. If the CEO is not living up to that, Howard's (and the board's) one card that they can play is to replace the CEO.
The importance of top executive decisions is overstated, they often do no better than random chance. But their decisions are not where their value lies.
The important part is that they own their decisions, or at least appear to do so. And in doing that, they gain trust for the company, they are the company face. It is more of a performance than a technical job. By that, I don't mean it is fake, people will notice if you don't know what you are talking about, and it won't inspire confidence, which is what leaders try to avoid at all costs.
LLMs will probably be at least as good at decision making (I mean, that's almost a dice roll), and they can be convincing, which is important too, but they are completely lacking in the trust department. No one want to work for a machine, no one want to do business negotiations with a machine either. That's why it is important to have a human on top.
The guy is 71 years old and has built a life long career of his own, people are acting like he just elected a 21 year old nepo baby to run the company.
If you want to split hairs as to what the responsibility of the Chairman of the Board of Directors does, you win.
IDK, maybe I'm a mushbrain but it seems like if someone said they're the chairman of the board, and you told them to their face "well it's not like you run the company..." they'd finish their drink and go talk to someone else for the rest of the night.
Yes, the powerful always do this. It might be challenging to find an exception.
It's not as rewarding to consider that you've reached your position by more good luck than effort, so you hand down advice from on high because clearly you're smarter than everyone else (doesn't help that many people treat you this was to gain access).
Then you continue to do whatever you want despite your own advice because of course... you're smarter than everyone else.
My solution for that is to use skills and add a omnibus shell script in each particular skill folder that does all the deterministic steps and then write the skill markdown to only use the script, usually passing a command line step parameter to the script. I also usually add a note in the skill markdown that it should monitor how it calls the script and suggest any improvements when the skill is used.
As an example I have a `today` skill that has a today.sh script that can check my email, bug tracker, calendars, custom timesheet system and other systems via the script and then the skill assembles a nice summary of what is happening today along with a suggested schedule.
I've been building these same personal apps but on Firebase. They have a generous free tier that includes hosting and you can add real user auth, again all for free.
I have my own review skill (I think it predates when Claude added theirs) and one thing I'd add to your description is tell it to examine all the code and then, based on the changes, do a multi-role review of the code again using the most appropriate N of the following roles based on the changes: ... (where ... is a long list I have like Senior Engineer, Security Engineer, WCAG specialist, etc). Claude will spawn those reviews in parallel and then consolidate the feedback. I do spec based development so I just have my skill append the issues to the spec so I have a trail of issues and decisions.
I've found a mix of peppered in upper case words where you are effectively yelling at the LLM also gives it a strong signal. It is also a bit cathartic.
I miss pre-COVID prices. Our local diner is now $20+ for a simple breakfast (eggs, toast, bacon, coffee/tea) for two people. Pre-COVID is was ~$10 with tip.
Its hard to express what it was like in the early/mid-80s (before I had my drivers licence) to bike a few miles to the bookstore at the start of every month and see all the new computer magazine covers for that month. It was so exciting.
I didn't have much money so I stuck with Micro Cornucopia as it had the biggest signal to noise ratio (and before that Rainbow Magazine). I did pickup Computer Shopper later when I started building/rebuilding my mini-tower every few months.
While I'm glad I have the world's information one web page away now I feel like something has been lost.
I think you're right. A lot of people have written about this, but one of my favourites who has stuck with me in recent years is Byung-Chul Han with "The Disappearance of Rituals: A Topology of the Present"
It covers other topics as well, but describes the value of physical experiences and serendipitous encounters that occurred before the digital era as we know it today. Having everything at hand is an incredible trade-off, and it isn't entirely clear what the downsides are because you can literally never know beyond "I'm missing out on countless experiences". What could they have been?
We gain a sort of efficiency, which at one point almost seemed imperative... But here we are, wishing we could ride our bikes to the bookstore again, just to look at printed copies of weeks or months-old data in inconvenient paper bindings.
It seems to be more than nostalgia to me; it's the desire to be out in the world, engaged, excited, and exploring. Maybe even with friends! We had to do that once, but now, not so much. And the journey to what we're seeking follows the same track, roughly the same distance, and a similar result, every single time. Efficiency isn't always very fun.
Of course, inefficiency is sometimes not fun at all too. I suppose we need to find the right blend, for the right reasons, and be cognizant of these trade offs as we go about our days and our lives.
Definitely agree! I spent so many hours reading BYTE and Computer World and OMNI - and learned so much along the way. If y'all are interested in visualizing and exploring older computer magazines: https://thestacks.dev :)
One sad thing is that at some point these digital archives are all we'll have left. I have an almost-complete set of Byte magazine as molecules, as well as 80 Micro and a few others, and a large collection of ACM and IEEE journals going back to the early 1960s, passed on from people who were getting rid of them due to storage constraints. When I was at Uni I would carry 10kg loads of them home on the bus over an extended period of time. I don't know how many of these collections still exist, and I'm pretty sure my one will get pulped once I'm no longer here.
I had a similar experience in the early 90s (im and 1981 kid). I loved going to the magazine stand and get whatever local programming magazine they had at the time.
Also, I loved Linux Journal (later years) and Linux Magazine. I got a subscription sent to a cousin who lived in the US (In Alaska!!). She came to Mexico every six months and would bring the stacks of those magazines, which i would read back to back.
One thing I miss from thise type of magazines was the high SNR ratio and most importantly the information "push" character of it. You would learn stuff that was related but adjacent to your interests. But it will make you expand your knowledge horizon.
Nowadays sure, everything is a search away... but, you dont know what you dont know. So what would you search for?
Additionally, most content on the internet is VERY low effort. High quality content got heavily devalued.
> One thing I miss from this type of magazines was the high SNR ratio and most importantly the information "push" character of it.
This was so important - you'd get your monthly copy, and you'd read all the parts you were interested in, but after a few days, it'd still be a month until the next issue and all that was left to read were the ads and the parts you weren't really into. But there wasn't anything else, so you'd read them, too.
> You would learn stuff that was related but adjacent to your interests. But it will make you expand your knowledge horizon.
One of the things I like about Hacker News is that it provides some exposure of this kind. The SNR in any given post might not always be high, but the tangential discussions often lead to topics just as interesting, expanding my awareness of what I don't know. There are lots of rabbit holes to explore here.
> While I'm glad I have the world's information one web page away now I feel like something has been lost.
I've got a few great memories from the mid-80s...
Being on school-vacation trip with my teacher and classmates at about 11 years old and sending a letter to my mom with a BASIC program I asked her to type on my computer at home and then calling her to ask her the result of the program.
Then pedaling on my BMX clone bicycle to go meet strangers I'd meet through classified ads in a local newspaper where ads read like this (in french but I'll translate):
"Have 120 games for the C64, listing on demand. Send your listing."
At 13 years old or so, we'd buy an ad in the local newspaper and run ads like that, with our phone number and (snail) mail address.
Many games we didn't care about but we load them again and again to see and re-see the "cracktro" before the game (except they weren't yet called cracktro: the term hadn't been coined yet).
Salivating in front of shops displaying computers: but those looking too "serious", as kids we didn't dare to enter those so we'd watch through the window.
Fast-forward 10 years to the mid-nineties and I find myself working with a person whose books (in french) about computing I used to buy and read to learn about computers and programming.
I’m discovering a renewed appreciation for libraries — never lost in theory but in practice. I’m lucky my community has a good municipal public library nearby, a good university library not too much farther. Book collection at MPL is mixed but plenty of good to great material in the mix. Periodical collection has journalism superior to most freely available web. Periodical archives at university library are incredible (including stuff like Byte).
The environment encourages a better balance between exploration and focus. There are people to greet or not as you wish. There is no algorithm trying to anger for engagement or crumb out just enough other rewards just often enough that you pull the lever for another hit for as long as possible. Search is a whole different game, both higher effort but also passing through a more scholarly tradition and less of the commercial incentive war.
Online advantages still remain (and evolve). I’m not about to give up the web. But I might want more of myself focused through environments and institutions like libraries.
Haven’t seen the bookstore newsstand for a while though, maybe I should see what that’s like these days too.
Yes, I have been telling kids to make library use as part of their search for knowlege. First when you get to your material you face either a shelf of related books or bound journals covering a range of related topics. And there is the serendipity of random encounters focused by the subconcious. Also reference librarians can help direct one to unkown resourses.
First when you get to your material you face either a shelf of related books or bound journals covering a range of related topics.
Unfortunately many novel library buildings are transitioning to electronic stacks which fetch specific resources quickly and are well suited to large collections but deny the experience of browsing.
Yeah, I've got a complete collection from October 1978 to December 1991 (by which time they had became just another x86 PC rag). I bought a fair few individual copies myself from 78 or 79 until the late 80s, but the bulk of my collection I got for free from an elderly engineer in I think the late 2000s.
Here's a tweet I made packing them up when I was moving overseas in April 2015:
I recall the same thing with each new edition of Rainbow magazine. I would read it cover to cover several times. Eventually I would hand type in some of the BASIC programs. I remember reading about people connecting to various BBS's and be jealous of them. Now it's all at our finger tips for better or worse. I guess today there needs to be a conscious effort to filter out distracting noise, our attention has become monetized.
Printed stuff really shaped my life. From PC Magazine and Winworld (is that the name of it? it was a business like weekly or something) and MSDN magazine and PC Accelerator and 2600. Odd duck out in my life was Farmshow magazine but it's basically farm hacking and fascinated me as well. MIT Technology review came later and was good for a few years, I'm still waiting for the huge amount of breakthroughs they showcased in the 2000s to come to market but whatever I'd read about it years before it hit digg.
Yeah, there was a lot of variety too .. I particularly enjoyed the differences between the UK/Euro and UK magazines - it was quite some context, all things considered, to see the markets of both realms go in slightly different directions, at times ..
My Dad regularly gave me Omni magazine subscriptions, it was kind of how I realized there were really great things to read out there, as a young 'un ..
reply