So even when billionaires do give away their money it's still not good enough for you?

The anti-rich sentient has somehow reached such a fever pitch that when a billionaire donates $6B to children the top post on HN is bitching about it.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your "good enough" phrasing. It might actually not be good enough. It begs all sorts of questions about the state of things in the US that an extremely wealthy individual has the means to do this and at the same time that something like this doesn't already exist for the recipients via some other mechanism such as the entity that's responsible for a citizen's well being playing some role.

It is good, though. I think most folks who complain about it, though, wish it were better (better does not mean Dell spends even more of his own money on this, not directly anyway).

Many people view the existence of billionaires as a profound societal flaw. The accumulation of such obscene wealth by an individual is only possible because of systemic problems which prevented employees from capturing their fair share of their productivity, prevented competitors from entering the market to lower margins or prevented customers from being able to purchase at lower prices.

It's a good thing that he's giving away 4% of his wealth. He'll still have $140,000,000,000 left after this donation though, which is relevant context.

Donations are never free. And mentioning children, freedom or safety with any donation instantly makes me question it even more.

It’s only 4% of his wealth.