If you think beneficience on the part of the wealthy will "move society forward" you're mistaken.
The systemic issues you point at are far beyond the capacity of the super wealthy to change. Trillions of dollars of entrenched industries exist because of the inefficiency and cost that accompany Education and Healthcare. A few billion in donations are raindrops in the ocean.
>"The naming of process nodes by different major manufacturers (TSMC, Intel, Samsung, GlobalFoundries) are partially direct lies (aka “marketing”) and not directly related to any measurable distance on a chip"
But it make logical sense to conclude that biological gender differences confer specific advantages to one gender or the other in different tasks or situations. More generally, when there is a salient difference between two things, those two things will often behave differently in a given situation.
It just makes sense to conclude that men are better at certain things and women are better at certain things.
It's ironic that Wikipedia has a 'Censorship by Google' article that would benefit from the addition of a paragraph or two about this memo, but due to Wikipedia's censorship of Breitbart as a source and Breitbart being the source on this, that won't happen.
It's a shame when legitimate journalism is stifled by censorship.
Anyone that's not ignorant of modern media knows it's true, that clickbaut headlines stretch and mangle the truth.
Now, what you showed us with your Breitbart analysis is very minor and irrelevant to the basic thrust of the story.
The full quote about migrants not contributing to their own upkeep is "there are still too many who do not support themselves. This applies especially to women, where too few contribute."
"Do not support themselves" and "too few contribute" have the same meaning. So she is basically saying "too many don't support themselves. This is especially true for women". So Breitbart's headline is correct in saying too few support themselves. The meaning is the same.
The way the author wrote the headline is standard journalistic license used by the NYT, WaPo, etc...
The point is your evidence was not really an effective critique of Breitbart.
Breitbart is actually quite accurate, I'd say it's no more misleading than any other mainstream publication. I'd wager that most people here don't actually read the website yet hold strong opinions on its reporting, which in itself is sad.
I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffPo article.
What is the case is that very often Breitbart reports on things more mainstream sites refuse to report on. It's real diversity of perspective like this that's actually valuable in a free society.
But Breitbart doesn't tow the ideological line, so it gets banned.
When we ban websites like Breitbart we lose sources that examine sides of issues that often go unexamined, or issues that get ignored altogether.
The systemic issues you point at are far beyond the capacity of the super wealthy to change. Trillions of dollars of entrenched industries exist because of the inefficiency and cost that accompany Education and Healthcare. A few billion in donations are raindrops in the ocean.
There's no single individual or group to blame.