4 ms·

I mean wouldn't you fire her? Imagine someone in Ford's board wrote an article criticizing Ford's approach to cars and saying that Mazda was doing a much bette

by vivekd 3y ago

I mean wouldn't you fire her? Imagine someone in Ford's board wrote an article criticizing Ford's approach to cars and saying that Mazda was doing a much better job

g-b-r 3y ago
Is Ford a non profit?
- rvba 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - doodlebugging 3y ago
    References please. From what I remember about all the recent problems in the automotive industry, Ford did not need a bailout because they were fully capitalized with cash on hand to ride out the periods that drove GM and whoever controlled Dodge/Jeep to beg for a bailout. I may be wrong but I don't remember Ford needing to be propped up any time in the last 25 years or more.
  - dralley 3y ago
    Ford was the only US automaker to not need a bailout.
- infecto 3y ago
  This is a poor comparison. Even in a non-profit, if your board wrote anything that went against the non-profit, it would certainly rile up other members.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    This is a non profit which charter places certain values above the reputation of the organization. The board members should arguably not have been riled up by the article
    - infecto 3y ago
      You’re projecting your feelings for the boards which you are not a part of. The board of even a nonprofit can have motivations. Your original comparison is still false and unproven. Sorry.
      - peteradio 3y ago
        A board member did not write anything against the non-profit motivations. They wrote an article critical of the for-profit operation.
        infecto 3y ago
        And who controls the for profit? The nonprofit.
        peteradio 3y ago
        Keanu reaves whoa! That's the whole point of the original charter.
        infecto 3y ago
        Sorry I don’t understand any point your trying to make.
- adolph 3y ago
  In effect although not structure. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/F/ford-motor/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/F/ford-motor/profi...
gwern 3y ago
First, board members criticizing a company is very common, indeed, an entire career for some people (like Carl Icahn) and a useful role, especially in this case. If you think it's so outrageous, as so many OAers apparently do, better fetch the smelling salts the next time you crack open a WSJ... Second, the 'criticism' here is laughably weak and is barely even a criticism at all (I actually read it as a criticism of everyone else but OA); I strongly encourage anyone who thinks that this might justify firing someone (especially without, apparently, a replacement who would be acceptable to the safety faction) to actually read the supposedly unforgivable page of the paper: https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding-Intentions.pdf#page=28 https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding...
- aaronharnly 3y ago
  Wholly agreed — the paper is a pretty mild analysis of the ways different companies have signaled their trustworthiness, and was hardly a scathing critique of OpenAI (or unreserved praise of Anthropic). I found it pretty decent.
- truculent 3y ago
  Third, she was on the board of a non-profit with different goals and duties to a company
barkingcat 3y ago
Wall street is full of corporate board members being very critical of ceo's approach and therefore driving sales of divisions, assets, layoffs, etc. that's one of the fundamental jobs of the board: to be critical and to guide direction, especially if the direction is different from what is happening at the moment. and yes, multiple Ford board members were/are extremely critical of Ford's approach to cars and are very public about it. That's why multiple CEO's were sacked, and even members of the Ford family are not spared from criticism from the Ford Board.

by vivekd 3y ago

I mean wouldn't you fire her? Imagine someone in Ford's board wrote an article criticizing Ford's approach to cars and saying that Mazda was doing a much better job

g-b-r 3y ago

Is Ford a non profit?

rvba 3y ago
[flagged]
- doodlebugging 3y ago
  References please. From what I remember about all the recent problems in the automotive industry, Ford did not need a bailout because they were fully capitalized with cash on hand to ride out the periods that drove GM and whoever controlled Dodge/Jeep to beg for a bailout. I may be wrong but I don't remember Ford needing to be propped up any time in the last 25 years or more.
- dralley 3y ago
  Ford was the only US automaker to not need a bailout.
infecto 3y ago
This is a poor comparison. Even in a non-profit, if your board wrote anything that went against the non-profit, it would certainly rile up other members.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  This is a non profit which charter places certain values above the reputation of the organization. The board members should arguably not have been riled up by the article
  - infecto 3y ago
    You’re projecting your feelings for the boards which you are not a part of. The board of even a nonprofit can have motivations. Your original comparison is still false and unproven. Sorry.
    - peteradio 3y ago
      A board member did not write anything against the non-profit motivations. They wrote an article critical of the for-profit operation.
      - infecto 3y ago
        And who controls the for profit? The nonprofit.
        peteradio 3y ago
        Keanu reaves whoa! That's the whole point of the original charter.
        infecto 3y ago
        Sorry I don’t understand any point your trying to make.
adolph 3y ago
In effect although not structure. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/F/ford-motor/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/F/ford-motor/profi...

gwern 3y ago

First, board members criticizing a company is very common, indeed, an entire career for some people (like Carl Icahn) and a useful role, especially in this case. If you think it's so outrageous, as so many OAers apparently do, better fetch the smelling salts the next time you crack open a WSJ... Second, the 'criticism' here is laughably weak and is barely even a criticism at all (I actually read it as a criticism of everyone else but OA); I strongly encourage anyone who thinks that this might justify firing someone (especially without, apparently, a replacement who would be acceptable to the safety faction) to actually read the supposedly unforgivable page of the paper: https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding-Intentions.pdf#page=28 https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding...

aaronharnly 3y ago
Wholly agreed — the paper is a pretty mild analysis of the ways different companies have signaled their trustworthiness, and was hardly a scathing critique of OpenAI (or unreserved praise of Anthropic). I found it pretty decent.
truculent 3y ago
Third, she was on the board of a non-profit with different goals and duties to a company

barkingcat 3y ago

Wall street is full of corporate board members being very critical of ceo's approach and therefore driving sales of divisions, assets, layoffs, etc. that's one of the fundamental jobs of the board: to be critical and to guide direction, especially if the direction is different from what is happening at the moment. and yes, multiple Ford board members were/are extremely critical of Ford's approach to cars and are very public about it. That's why multiple CEO's were sacked, and even members of the Ford family are not spared from criticism from the Ford Board.