681–690 of 798 posts
From Paul Graham's Twitter, three days ago: "No one in the world is better than Sam at dealing with this kind of situation." Jessica Livingston retweet: "The reason I was a founding donor to OpenAI in 2015 was not because I was interested in AI, but because I believed in Sam. So I hope the board can get its act together and bring Sam and Greg back." Also from a sibling comment: https://twitter.com/search?q=from:paulg…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does YC? Or are you just irrelevantly musing? Or is this where we pretend that leading YC is even vaguely similar to being a rogue cop, in terms of potential impact on people’s lives?
>Or is this where we pretend that leading YC is even vaguely similar to being a rogue cop, in terms of potential impact on people’s lives? If a cop shoots someone and kills them, it destroys that life and possibly the family of those around him, the legal system kicks in -- that cop gets ousted or thrown into prison. how many lives have been destroyed by the mere existence of reddit and twitch, and by extension the h…
I’m sorry, are you familiar with the ACAB movement at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…you think calling someone “the best in the world” is a) purely factual b) not supportive Uh, what on earth would count as explicitly supportive language?
Did you miss the context of the image in that tweet? It's the famous "I have a particular set of skills..." speech from Taken: https://youtu.be/jZOywn1qArI In other words, he's basically saying Sam is the best in the world at being a ruthless mofo in these situations and obliterating those who oppose him. "Admiring language", perhaps, but I wouldn't really call that "supportive language".
Exactly, it's not all that subtle, so I find it hard to even come up with an alternative interpretation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's largely engineers who don't really understand the value of a C-level person, as evidenced time and time again in the comments. The concept you could fire someone for business reasons and later be their very good friend and recommend them for another job - sometimes an even better one than you employed them in - doesn't fit the single-input single-output mind of a lot of engineers. It's alright. We all have roles…
Your reg dates are 2012 and 2014. As you know, this is hacker news. not c-level news, not middle management news.. hacker news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's largely engineers who don't really understand the value of a C-level person, as evidenced time and time again in the comments. The concept you could fire someone for business reasons and later be their very good friend and recommend them for another job - sometimes an even better one than you employed them in - doesn't fit the single-input single-output mind of a lot of engineers. It's alright. We all have roles…
Your reg dates are 2012 and 2014. As you know, this is hacker news. not c-level news, not middle management news.. hacker news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's largely engineers who don't really understand the value of a C-level person, as evidenced time and time again in the comments. The concept you could fire someone for business reasons and later be their very good friend and recommend them for another job - sometimes an even better one than you employed them in - doesn't fit the single-input single-output mind of a lot of engineers. It's alright. We all have roles…
I understand the morality needed to succeed and flatly reject it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mature adults can certainly think that someone else is not fit for one job (running YC) and is fit for another (handling OAI). Good business people are even better at it, knowing that makes them more money. PG certainly seems to fit that.
PG doesn’t say he’s fit for the job, he just says he’s good at some unspecified thing. Maybe that unspecified thing is just corporate knife fighting and this time PG is happy he’s not on the other end of it.
It came as a surprise for me to learn that PG fired Sam. It's the first time that I read this actually, and if that's true, I find it kind of mysterious that it remained a secret for so long. Or maybe I missed the news somehow but I could not find any other mention of that event on Google.
> “Ninety plus percent of the employees of OpenAI are saying they would be willing to move to Microsoft because they feel Sam’s been mistreated by a rogue board of directors,” said Ron Conway (...) “I’ve never seen this kind of loyalty anywhere.” 95% is the kind of score one sees when there's an "election" in a dictatorship. Unanimity is often suspect.