[almeria]

This windowless thing is just a bunch of crazy suppositions by an ignorant man.

Wow. For the sake of its reputation, legacy and future funding from other sources, which, over time, will utterly dwarf the dollar amount of this toxic "gift" that this crank billionaire is trying to twist their arm with --

Let's all hope that UCSB comes to its senses, and cuts all ties with this bully as soon as conceivably possible.

[Traster]

It was truly amazing to hear him say that and follow it up with utterly trivial considerations.It's not like he has some amazing insight that no one else has, he literally has just made a decision to force a load of value judgements on exploited teenagers. The US university system is already a capricious mess, without billionaires coming in to run experiments on their students.

[rkk3]

Seems like you are embracing the outrage narrative rather than thoughtfully examining the tradeoffs.

1 in 20 UC students are homeless and SB has an acute housing crisis [1]. They are building a dorm for 5,000 students and also need to deal with cost, zoning, etc.

Personally I would have been glad to give up a window to not share a room when I lived in the dorms. I also lived in an effectively windowless (against a brick wall) apartment in NYC, you just spend less time in your room.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/what-crit...

[almeria]

It wasn't "embracing the outrage"; rather facing up to the fact that -- whatever the merits or lack thereof of his proposal -- the donor's language was intrinsically manipulative:

This windowless thing is just a bunch of crazy suppositions by an ignorant man.

At the end of the day, this just isn't the kind of person you want to sit down and do business with. No matter what dollar amount he's trying to jerk you around with.

[rkk3]

> whatever the merits or lack thereof of his proposal -- the donor's language was intrinsically manipulative

The architect caused a media-circus because he didn't agree with a tradeoff they made and he called him ignorant. You are here also making personal attacks calling him; a "Crank", "Toxic" "Bully"...

> this just isn't the kind of person you want to sit down and do business with.

Charlie Munger would probably top "a most desired business partner" lists...

[almeria]

He didn't merely call him "ignorant", but "crazy". Both are ad-hominem attacks. What I don't get here is why you're trying to soft-pedal this very obvious fact.

"Crank", "Toxic" "Bully"

Accurate and justified, in light of the aforementioned unprovoked attacks.

He just thinks that because he's a billionaire, he can get away with it.

[rkk3]

> Accurate and justified

I see so when you make ad-hominem attacks they are ok, but if you don't agree with someone & they make ad-hominem attacks they are a "toxic bully"

[almeria]

The situation is in no way symmetric. I think we can let it go at that.