4 ms·
This is absolutely a firing. I think some people in that Twitter thread, pg included, have become so brainwashed by euphemistic phrases like "we agreed to part
by asveikau 2y ago
This is absolutely a firing.
I think some people in that Twitter thread, pg included, have become so brainwashed by euphemistic phrases like "we agreed to part ways" to cover a firing, that they start to believe their own hype.
A firing can have varying degrees of amicability. It can be a reluctant firing. You can literally say "we're sad to see you go" and mean it. But I think it's still a firing in this case. It is so weird to see people have trouble grasping this.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y agoNot in a negative sense, it was an ultimatum of attention focus.
- jrflowers 2y agoI remember when my neighbor’s boss gave him an amicable ultimatum of attention focus when he was splitting his time between smoking weed and serving ice cream. He wasn’t fired but simply given a set of choices about his future at Cold Stone
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y agoSurely, he could do both if he applied himself and limited intake of weed and ice cream. PS: It's not advertised, but YC participants smoke a lot of bowls.
- jrflowers 2y agoAt the end of the day he was simply more passionate about gravity bong rips and surf rock than he was about dairy and a parting of ways occurred. The fact that the conversation was instigated by his boss should in no way be construed as a firing, but simply a focus of attention ultimatum that led to an ideal outcome for all parties
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y agoHaha and sigh. Telle est la vie de l'herbe. Contrast this with my former hippie nudist neighbors and their hydroponic weed but made millions selling electronic arcade games. Moderation and priorities, or less productivity, employment, and/or more addiction.
- lucubratory 2y agoJust want you to know that your comments have been seen, appreciated, and belly laughed at even if a lot of other people apparently struggle with the concept of "fired".
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y agoSemantics and context. The discriminant is effect on reputation if it was for cause or not. It wasn't, it was for focus.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- asveikau 2y agoThere's literally a Twitter reply saying that normies only understand firing to mean you lose a job against your will, and this is something so much more sophisticated than that. It reads as parody.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y agoPoe's law happens. And the beauty and horror of English is that individual words have ambiguous, authoritative meanings while also often having additional personal, subjective meanings. I vote we replace English with German and are only allowed to write sentences constructed through a grammar construction UI. ;@)
- gwern 2y agoI remember working a part-time job as a dishwasher where my manager demanded I stay until 1-2AM to get it right according to her and indefinitely 'fully focus' on my dishwashing duties instead of my other obligations, like to 'sleep'. I declined. Even though she and I both described it as being fired, as did everyone I ever described it to, I guess we were all just mistaken! Really, if we had been more sophisticated, we would have understood I wasn't fired, I simply 'voluntarily resigned to spend more time with my family'.
- pantsforbirds 2y agoIt sounded more like they forced him to pick YC or OAI. I don't find that particularly unreasonable either.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoMore proof that "all Internet arguments are over semantics". The thing I don't like about this "it was absolutely a firing" take is that when the WaPo article first came out, the clear implication among the vast majority of online comments I saw was that YC didn't want Altman to be president. You can argue all you want about the "true meaning" of firing, but that implication is very different IMO than asking Altman to choose one or the other. And Paul Graham, one of the only people who actually knows the details, obviously agrees. So I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim "it was still a firing", with the unspoken implication that YC didn't want Altman, when all the evidence points to the fact that the decision was ultimately Altman's.
- asveikau 2y agoI think there is some hero veneration going on here. Altman, YC, pg forms superego for you guys. Surely Altman can't get fired. Surely pg knows what fired means. If you see evidence of these people and institutions being imperfect, you bend your reality, your understanding of language, to conform and to not damage your view of the idols. If it were a slob on the bus getting fired, or some boss you've never heard of BSing about how that's not what he did (then gives a textbook example of a firing as if it proves him right...) you're not going to bend your reality to explain it away and make excuses for them. It's entirely the reputation of the people and your opinion of them that drives you to make these statements.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoThis is just plain ridiculously insulting, besides being false. Instead of believing people can have a different opinion than you, you try to pretend that they're somehow "enthralled" with pg or sama, and that I'm "bending my reality". This is utter bullshit. Check my comment history, I've been plenty critical of both pg and sama in the past. But whatever, you believe your fantasy explanation.
- asveikau 2y agoI recognize your username and hadn't noticed this in your comment history. I think my use of the second person is confusing here. I meant to address HN at large. Like latin "vos". But I do notice people get angry and defensive at such pronouncements. I'm not saying everybody here has this. Some do. I apologize for lumping you in.
- d0m 2y agoNo, the distinction is that he had the option to remain at YC if he chose to. He could have simply turned down the offer from OpenAI. It's similar to receiving a job offer from another company... you’re not being dismissed from your current job. You get to decide whether you want to stay or move on.
- tim333 2y agoPG: >No, we would have been happy if he stayed and got someone else to run OpenAI.