[quantumsequoia]

One plausible explanation that is less damaging: Gates is a utilitarian and determined that the net benefits that could come from networking with Epstein outweighs the risks.

It can kind of be perceived as the trolly problem in real life. Do you pull the lever and get one person's blood on your hands, but result in 4 met lives saved? Or do you stay morally pure by refusing to kill someone... and let the 5 people die by your inaction?

Gates does strike me as an analytical, ends-justify-the-means kind of guy

[briefcomment]

I doubt Epstein could draw anyone that Gates couldn't draw himself.

[inter_netuser]

What are the benefits he derived?

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

Epstein was friends with many other wealthy people (who could potentially donate to the Gates foundation), and he had the power to persuade them.

[jjeaff]

I can't imagine a single wealthy person that wouldn't take a cold call from Gates and probably at least agree to a sit down meeting on the spot. Epstein was virtually anonymous relative to Gates.

[voisin]

Given the value of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, why would Gates spend any of his own valuable personal time networking to raise more money for it and not trying to put more of the existing money to work?

Seems like the opportunity cost of fundraising is high.

[rasz]

Media Lab, "Negroponte: Windows key to OLPC philosophy" https://www.cnet.com/news/negroponte-windows-key-to-olpc-phi... cha-ching!