I didn't see a "concise critique", just internet snark and name-calling. Those things are tedious and degrade discussion, which is why the site guidelines ask commenters here to avoid them.
You even used quotes to make it look like you were quoting someone when you weren't, which is a trope of degraded discussion in its own right.
Thoughtful critique is welcome on HN. That requires substantive engagement with something somebody actually said. It also requires some meaningful relationship to the topic. I didn't see that here, nor any actual information.
By 'fulminating' I suppose I mean the high-indignation-low-information style of internet commenting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
One thing you might find helpful for understanding what's good vs. bad to post to HN—at least I have found it helpful—is the distinction between reflexive and reflective posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Your GP comment struck me as reflexive. It basically seems to hop along a chain of reflexes like this: rich person -> rage -> other rich person -> rage.
Another point I orient by is that HN threads get less interesting and valuable as they get more generic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and especially as they get more generic+indignant. To me your GP comment seemed like a sharp move in those directions, which is always a move towards threads getting worse and more predictable. Keep in mind that the issue is not just the value of a comment individually but the expected value of the subthread it is likely to lead to: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
I hope that helps explain things a bit and isn't too much of a downer. I appreciate the question and your intention to understand. I also agree that there are reasonable critiques to be made about "billionaire donates to soup kitchen" stories (if that's what this was). But not by fulminating, and especially not on classic flamewar topics.
