this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
89 points (77.3% liked)
Showerthoughts
38213 readers
730 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What have I said that isn't true?
https://robbreport.com/motors/marine/billionaire-gabe-newell-oceanco-gigayacht-leviathan-1237360429/
You are just continuing to make assumptions based entirely on the assets he owns instead of his behaviour.
Something I keep pointing out, and is why I have also been responding.
I am completely on your side and feel that anyone with over a billion is an ethical and moral burden. However, I'm also wise enough to recognize that as a goal to strive towards not a destination to judge against. So I'm not going to chastise those actively working towards that goal, even if they are a billionaire.
You know what would further more research than give offering a portion of your super yacht to scientific research? Not building a billion dollar super yacht and giving that money to scientific research instead. Let the people who know what they're doing decide what they need and not be beholden to your whims.
Like the 3000 scientists, engineers, and designers that helped him build that yacht for research?
Is there more efficient ways to spend this money on research? Sure. But don't equate this effort as meaningless just because it's not perfect. It's a great place to be a researcher, but it's still for research.
God how much money was wasted on havingthousands of people work on the design of his vanity project?
Yes, it's better than other vanity projects, but it is still a wasteful vanity project.
It's his vessel because he paid for it. That's how money works. There's no other pronoun that is appropriate.
Here's the rest of the article that completely unwinds how far you want to stretch that term:
"His" yacht made through collaboration:
"His" yacht made to have the least environmental impact from noise or oil polution (Diesel hybrid electric engine):
"His" yacht made to have little maintenance requirements so the crew can focus on science and research:
"His" thoughts on "His" yacht being used to better the scientific community instead of just him.
How about you ask yourself how many scientists and engineers HE paid to have a job to work on this?
How about you ask how much he pays their research salaries still and provided them a better vessel to do their job on than anyone else?
Why do you insist that you know how to better spend his money when it's already going to people that need it for a cause that's needed?
Just because you want to claim his money could be used better doesn't mean it currently isn't being used well.
You just see a yacht and think the worse. Worlds far less black and white.
Oh what a good billionaire, his efforts to make his onboard environment more pleasant is also beneficial to the outside environment! Such a giver!
The colour of paint chosen for his mega yacht really shows how much he cares!
And you haven't been listening. I'm not repeating myself on this point anymore.
Literally the opposite of what I said at the end of my previous post. If you're not going to bother to read what I say then what are we doing here?
The end of your previous post:
The literal definition of a vanity project:
https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/vanity+project
Each one of the examples I provided shows very clearly this yacht was NOT made for HIS self-satisfaction. Rather, it was literally made to the satisfaction of the research team that uses the yacht.
Specifically:
Every point of my last comment was proving your statement about this being a vanity project completely and unquestionably wrong. But I guess I just understand your last sentence better than you.
You are shitting on the best deep sea scientific research vessel in existence while implying you have the moral high ground. There's nothing immoral about scientific research just because it happens on a yacht.
You are literally using the same logic as a cop saying a person with dark skin is a criminal. This yacht clearly isn't a vanity project. It is for Inksea, and being used to help fight climate change and the affect that has on deep sea ocean currents.
But to you this yacht is just as criminal as a dark skinned person is to a cop. No exceptions.
Please understand: the point you are making is not incorrect. But the way you are making it very much is.
I completely agree that Billionaires shouldn't exist, and in general most yachts are unquestionably vanity projects. But this one clearly isn't.
So if you want to make your point heard, going about it through uncompromising bigotry is just about the worst way to make it.
As I said, he also owns a billion dollars worth of superyatchts for personal use in addition to the one(s) nominally for marine research.
Your assumption all his yachts were for pleasure has already been proven wrong. Now you're just moving the goal posts.
As I said, he's the second largest doner to marine research on the entire planet, and the burden of proof for proving his yachts are ALL for personal use is something you've never provided, only assumed.
I've proved 1/3 were for scientific research. I'm not going to do the other 2/3 just for you to ignore and move the goal posts elsewhere.
Prove your point, and I'll believe it.
Until then, he's still a billionaire instead of the trillionaire he could be, so I'm not going to think poorly of him just because he's not fitting some arbitrary number of currency tied to his worth that magically makes you think he's moral.
Instead I will judge him based on his actions. The ones that I have detailed have unquestionably made the world a better place for many more people than him.
How about you actually tell me something he's done wrong that's worth your judgement, instead of basing it entirely on yachts you won't research?