NVIDIA Interns Build Bikes for Low-Income Kids

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Smartphones. Remote controlled cars. Digital music players. Every kid loves electronics. Ask kids what they want most, however, and the answer is almost always the same. They want bicycles, Robyn Bartkowski, a program manager with TurningWheels For Kids, a non-profit that distributes bikes to low-income kids in the San Francisco Bay Area, told a group of NVIDIA interns gathered at our Santa Clara campus Thursday. “A bike can change the trajectory of a young person’s life,” Bartkowski said.

So, 80 members of our latest crop of interns got to work, cracking open boxes and building 20 bikes for local children with the help of a team of volunteers from TurningWheels. Giving is a big part of NVIDIA’s culture. So involving interns in giving is an important part of exposing them to life at NVIDIA.
 
Give a low-income kid a bike, and he'll ride for a day; teach him how to steal a bike, and he'll ride for a lifetime.
 
Why don't they build them some affordable video cards instead? Kids are usually quite reckless on bikes, better to keep them busy with something that has less potential for trouble, like video games.
 
Putting those interns to good use by having them build bikes at a GPU company... wut?
 
Chongmagic said:
Maybe having 5 kids on a low-income budget isn't the best idea?
Click to expand...
If you're already on welfare anyway, that just means a better quality of life for you... although I don't think its really even intentional, just the result of people that have a history of making poor life decisions. Rather than take care of the kid they have, they continue to party, stay out late, get drunk, have unprotected sex with men they aren't married to, then get preggers and put their hand out.

And the popular way for them to really bank in Texas at least is they will baby sit each others children. They get additional money for each child they have while on welfare, but what they can do as a "job" is to babysit children. The state won't let you get paid to babysit your own children, but they will let people say they are babysitting their neighbors children. So one welfare mom tells the other welfare mom across the street or next door that they should each say they are babysitting each others kids, and they get paid to babysit for five children each by the state... and if they are audited (never happens), they just say the kids ran next door even if they are never even at the other person's house. Unfortunately, this lifestyle is comfortable enough for them that they are happy to just kick back and accept the checks, and they make a hell of a lot more money that way than they would working in a fast food kitchen. The kids brought up on welfare though, usually without a male role-model and a pisspoor female one learn such bad behavior and entitlement from birth at home and playing with kids from households doing the same often end up just as bad.

'Murica!
 
wyqtor said:
Why don't they build them some affordable video cards instead? Kids are usually quite reckless on bikes,
Click to expand...

Good. I rather see kids outside raising hell, than staying inside all day being risk aversive video game pussies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trashing gaming, but there needs to be some balance in a kids life.
 
Must suck to be an itern. Being voluntold to do anything sucks a bunch.
 
WALMART. That is where you get bicycles for low income kids.
Amazingly cheap chinese made bicycles with acceptable quality. If you want to really HELP "the children" you would instill in them the desire to break the cycle of generational poverty their parents fell into by teaching them rugged individualism instead of a entitlements mentality which leads to the cycle of dependence and another generation of poverty for them and their children.
 
Makes sense. Some nVidia exec's housewife probably feels responsible for the twenty to thirty something year old lard asses that sit around playing WoW on their video cards all day. Make the younger generation healthier by getting them active, so they can buy more video card upgrades in their life a bit later on credit. Get interns to assemble them, so they can continue to crack the whip on actual employees, rather than paying someone to do it. Make it charitable to appease the IRS. All while making a splash with the press and public. Muahahaha!
 
allenpan said:
wait...wait 80 interns for 20 bikes... u need 4 person to bike 1 bike?
Click to expand...

I had to put my own bike together from a scrap pile when I was 8.
Grant it, my grandfather talked me through it, but I had to do the work myself.

How long has it been since any of you have put a child's bike together? You ever see those instructions? I'm pretty sure 1 out of 4 on each team is just translating the instructions from Chinese to English.
 
I just bought a bike online but will be taking it to a shop for assembly even though it's "90% complete." I have no clue how to assemble the brake.
 
allenpan said:
wait...wait 80 interns for 20 bikes... u need 4 person to bike 1 bike?
Click to expand...

My company did a similar bike build for kids activity at one of our sales meetings. We had to earn virtual money doing various team building activities, and then with the money we could buy tools, the bikes, and helmets. Then we assembled them. Teams of 8 to 10 and each team built two bikes.

So you don't need four people to build a bike, my guess is it was the same kind of team building exercise. Giving the bikes to kids is kind of a cool perk to the activity though.
 
Aren't all kids low income? I don't know many working kids here. Maybe they're donating them all to Foxconn.
 
I hope those interns were full retard if it took 80 of them to build 20 bikes.
 
by build I bet they mean assembly, if these are the typical huffy bike, that I used to put together for work, then they took a good day, day and a half worth of income from a working guy.

A good worker could signal handedly put these bikes together in a day.
 
Megalith said:
I just bought a bike online but will be taking it to a shop for assembly even though it's "90% complete." I have no clue how to assemble the brake.
Click to expand...

That's just sad...


80 interns 20 bikes. 1 person doing the work, 1 person telling them how, 2 others performing "qa" on the other two telling them they are both wrong.
 
Ducman69 said:
If you're already on welfare anyway, that just means a better quality of life for you... although I don't think its really even intentional, just the result of people that have a history of making poor life decisions. Rather than take care of the kid they have, they continue to party, stay out late, get drunk, have unprotected sex with men they aren't married to, then get preggers and put their hand out.

And the popular way for them to really bank in Texas at least is they will baby sit each others children. They get additional money for each child they have while on welfare, but what they can do as a "job" is to babysit children. The state won't let you get paid to babysit your own children, but they will let people say they are babysitting their neighbors children. So one welfare mom tells the other welfare mom across the street or next door that they should each say they are babysitting each others kids, and they get paid to babysit for five children each by the state... and if they are audited (never happens), they just say the kids ran next door even if they are never even at the other person's house. Unfortunately, this lifestyle is comfortable enough for them that they are happy to just kick back and accept the checks, and they make a hell of a lot more money that way than they would working in a fast food kitchen. The kids brought up on welfare though, usually without a male role-model and a pisspoor female one learn such bad behavior and entitlement from birth at home and playing with kids from households doing the same often end up just as bad.

'Murica!
Click to expand...

Well to be fair the USA wouldn't be like that if most of the upper income folks were not so preoccupied with their jobs they cannot be bothered to have or raise kids. So what we have is nice little system. You take the upper income people to pay the lower income people to pop out tons of kids that provide the economic growth needed to pay off the social security of the rich folks who have no kids when they get old.

Simply put the USA has a problem with birth rates and so we try to do as much as we can to encourage people to have children. Logically some people figure out how to make a decent living at this.

When those kids grow up they will vote for the system that provided for them. This cycle will not end unless resources run low enough the upper class people decide to revolt on the system.
 
rudy said:
You take the upper income people to pay the lower income people to pop out tons of kids that provide the economic growth needed to pay off the social security of the rich folks who have no kids when they get old.
Click to expand...
The rich folks don't need social security, they have their own investments and would never be able to maintain close to the quality of life they are used to on SS. And those poor kids mostly never become net tax contributors, that means that they will always cost the state more income than they bring in to the country. Remember, if your skillset contribution to the world market is valued at less than the average per capita GDP of the country you live in, you are a BURDEN to the state, and the country would have greater wealth without you.
rudy said:
Simply put the USA has a problem with birth rates and so we try to do as much as we can to encourage people to have children. Logically some people figure out how to make a decent living at this.
Click to expand...
The US has too high a birthrate, and successful women tend to have less children as they are more career oriented and practice birth control, meaning that they simply don't have many "accident" children. Ideally, we would have a declining birth rate, particularly among those least able to support and raise children.

Politicians subsidize breeding because it makes them appear to be "pro family" and its "for the children", and yes, the children that grow up dependent on the state will vote, and every vote counts equally, whether it be five successful people or five oopsies that end up living on welfare just like mom.
 
Ducman69 said:
The rich folks don't need social security, they have their own investments and would never be able to maintain close to the quality of life they are used to on SS. And those poor kids mostly never become net tax contributors, that means that they will always cost the state more income than they bring in to the country. Remember, if your skillset contribution to the world market is valued at less than the average per capita GDP of the country you live in, you are a BURDEN to the state, and the country would have greater wealth without you.

The US has too high a birthrate, and successful women tend to have less children as they are more career oriented and practice birth control, meaning that they simply don't have many "accident" children. Ideally, we would have a declining birth rate, particularly among those least able to support and raise children.

Politicians subsidize breeding because it makes them appear to be "pro family" and its "for the children", and yes, the children that grow up dependent on the state will vote, and every vote counts equally, whether it be five successful people or five oopsies that end up living on welfare just like mom.
Click to expand...


lol the stuff you say makes no sense. The USA does not have too high a birth rate almost no one says that that is why we immigrate. Security in all societies comes from the next generation. Farmers produce children to work the farm and take care of them when they are older. Developed nations have just shifted the system, the people with money are too selfish to have kids, that is why they have money, because they are focused on themselves as you say. So who will work the land, fight the wars, build the hospitals when they are old? That's right the poor kids who they subsidized.

You are wholly ignorant of economics and reality if you think that any significant number of people buy into the concept of a declining birthrate as ideal.


Second by rich I just mean the upper class, and no they don't have the great retirement. The middle or upper class that isn't having kids has some of the poorest savings of any generation. And monetary wealth is only one measure, you still have everything else needed for the resources of a society. What good is your money if you have no one to pay to clean your depends when you are old? Want to see what kind of problems start, look at Japan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top