Hacker News Reader

> That said, the Packards have been very local vs. Gates more international (maybe it's need, size of endowment, etc).

Given the international needs are fare more pressing, I'd say the Gates have the right objective.

>My point in general was I think the Silicon Valley elders of old, Grove, Moore, Packards (I know multiple individuals who benefitted from the Packard Children's fund w/ pre-mes. (sp?), etc. were much more community and outward focused than that which we see today.

That is a fascinating observation. I was alive and in the biz back then, but I've burned an awful lot of brain cells between then and now and don't have a particularly objectiv eview of things.

Why do you think folks then were outward focused? Was there less competition so more focus on "doing something really cool", or leftover 60's 'free love' culture, or less shitty traffic in Silicon Valley, or...?

I think this is viewing the past with rose-tinted glasses. I recall the same exact complaints being leveled at the 1980's tech generation.

I'm being selective about comparisons, but it's a matter or proportion, and things then were way more subdued.

Ellison, Jobs (mainly on the woodside mansion and not being charity oriented), Clark, etc certainly contrast with those I mentioned.

I think 80s-90s had seriously strong personalities emerge that get to the core of what you mention. Yet around that was much more down to earth philanthropy, etc.

I don't see that same balance today.

I think it depends on the route they take up the mountain. You can be brilliant or you can be brilliant at taking shortcuts.

The shortcut takers are generally more insecure and that manifests in different behavior once they reach the top.