71–80 of 324 posts
I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong, but there's really no way to put out a release like this without a "history is written by the victors" vibe coming across.
(this was originally posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39647488 but we've merged that thread hither)
In all the possible timelines, there is no universe in which the review concluded wrongdoing on Altman's part and demanded his immediate removal. Trust me, I checked. In fact, I hired WilmerHale to review all 30,000 possible timelines. After paying them $2M in fees, they concluded that I was right all along.
In all the possible timelines, there is no universe in which the review concluded wrongdoing on Altman's part and demanded his immediate removal. Trust me, I checked. In fact, I hired WilmerHale to review all 30,000 possible timelines. After paying them $2M in fees, they concluded that I was right all along.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My prediction is that Altman will, unmoored from any sort of accountability, wind up fucking shit up like every god damned SV founder, get fired Who has this happened to except for Travis kalanick at Uber?
Parker Conrad at Zenefits, Jack Dorsey at Twitter, Andrew Mason at Groupon (but not before cashing his shares out at IPO!), Sandy Lerner and Leonard Bosack at Cisco, Steve Jobs at Apple. I have a lot of confidence in Altman's ability to extricate himself before getting fired, but this is a very common Silicon Valley story.
In all the possible timelines, there is no universe in which the review concluded wrongdoing on Altman's part and demanded his immediate removal. Trust me, I checked. In fact, I hired WilmerHale to review all 30,000 possible timelines. After paying them $2M in fees, they concluded that I was right all along.
I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong, but there's really no way to put out a release like this without a "history is written by the victors" vibe coming across.
He pretty clearly won. There's not much to it. A huge chunk of the company went into open revolt and he got a competing offer that threatened to recruit all of them. There's nothing really underhanded or sneaky about it: the board drastically overplayed their hand, and all Altman and Brockman had to do was say "I call". To use the parlance of this community of people: people's priors here all seem to be that somethin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is that Altman tried to get the Board removed, the Board found out and snap fired him, which scared the shit out of Microsoft. The prior and new Boards both cannot make the allegation that Altman tried to commit a corporate coup, albeit for different reasons[0], so we're never going to get official confirmation of anything. My prediction is that Altman will, unmoored from any sort of accountability, wind u…
> The answer is that Altman tried to get the Board removed, the Board found out and snap fired him Who elects the board in a non-profit? Who did sama go to to get them removed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Nah, Steve Jobs would need to be alive for that, and they haven't come out with iResurrection yet. The public hasn't really thrown themselves into reverence for Apple since the last Jobs product announcement. Even the Apple Watch's reception was kinda lukewarm. They make good hardware, but they aren't cool hype machines the way they were a decade+ ago.
> reviewed more than 30,000 documents As somebody completely ignorant of the inner workings of the legal trade, can somebody explain what this means? Does this mean a group of informed humans reviewed 30k docs? Does this mean 30k docs were grep’d for keywords? Somewhere in between?
Then attorneys do a second pass review on the much smaller set of relevant documents.
Reviewing 30,000 documents is a relatively small project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(this was originally posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39647488 but we've merged that thread hither)
Thanks Dan.