Are we reading the same information? There is not one thing I've said that is not in the linked post, or any of the previous posts regarding this topic.
You may want to believe and be sympathetic toward Apollo - fine.
That doesn't change the circumstances nor realities. Apollo screwed up, and is now throwing in the towel. It's really hard to be sympathetic towards a business operator that's made a series of bad choices and now is playing the victim card and shutting down.
I fail to see how I did anything to your argument. The original poster showed the email, the founder responded saying they're going to review the contracts because what's in there is not their intent, figure it out and then add a FAQ. You replied to the founder with a simple regurgitation of the issue and nothing more. The issue the founder just said they will be addressing in the comment you replied to.
So I wasn't sure what you wanted your comment to accomplish. Sounded like it wasn't fast enough but if that's not the case what do you actually want from this conversation with the founder? Do you want him to apologize to you? Do you want them to issue a public apology? What was your goal to avoid me from construing your argument any further?
> To me, it only communicates that the issues were embarrassing, inconvenient, or otherwise do not shine a good light.
> Am I reading too much into this, or does this kind of pithy announcement usually hide skeletons? Genuinely curious here.
This line of thinking bothers me. It reads as if you feel like you're owed something from the company. Why does it matter?
If it's fundraising issues, lack of product market fit, founder disputes, team member stole the entire bank account, the end result is the same. They can't run the business. As long as there's a clear message and a path to EOL for active customers, what possible reason could help?
To me, it actually highlights the praise of the team and the products they built together instead of focusing on the details of why they're no longer operable. And reading the other threads here, they did a great job but there simply wasn't large enough captive market.
Actually, when I read my original message, I can see how it can be mistaken for making the opposite statement.
I usually try to be as clear as possible, but when it comes to that company I just don't see how anyone could be apologetic for them, so I never read my own post from that perspective.
Title says: OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired. They're unconvinced and furious.
Some breaking news: An employer does not owe you an explanation. You exchange money for labor. If anyone thinks for a second that they are essential or that anyone would prioritize them over the company I think they are delusional. OpenAI is a brand (at least in tech) with large recognition and they will be fine.
Thank you for coming forth with a statement on this. I don't remember seeing one from you when this issue first cropped up, which really didn't look good. A lot of people referenced your "founders should push the envelope" phrase in your absence to explain it, which in my opinion made it look even worse. I value your word a lot more than I do theirs since they don't have a known reputation (with me). Culpable or not, that incident still left a bad taste in my mouth.
This is a marketing step of course, no sane lawyer would agree to this.
And that is because, I don't think they show what they think and want to show.
That at some point Elon had an opinion that a lot of money is needed or that OpenAI maybe had no future?
That does not change the duty or obligations of a non-profit to the mission.
Also, it is clear some important information has been blacked out. And that critical conversation happened offline.
I don't think it will do Elon the image pressure they think it will. But if I was Microsoft... I would hedge my bets a lot...
This looks more and more as giving fuel to a dissolution action of OpenAI as a non-profit than anything else.
You write "accordingly" as if it's obvious what's the correct course of action for a company that's in direct competition with a titan, and any other course of action must disappoint their users.
What would you have them do? Would only their demise appease you?
OK, i understand. I'm pretty surprised at how jumbled this message came across here on hn, can't tell if the blame lies heavier on hn cynicism or on a problematic pitch. Could be because your company is so provocatively named. I wish I could get to see if this move is treated as a success or failure a year down the line.
shrug so why imply it in the first place then? The assertion is that his idea of what happened was worth more than the other posters.
Indeed from my experience of huge corporations (which comes from fairly regular contact) none of his (3) scenarios are particularly likely...
EDIT: (because the above was an unclear reply). my point being he is trying to say the people in that thread are probably wrong whilst offering 3 or so alternatives that are, equally, probably wrong too. Whilst he does admit he cant know what really went down that is not what he seems to suggest in the rest of the post.
My point is like PG's: he is falling foul of his own arguments :( and badly.
His example is like many of the "culprits" he ID's on here who lay out their opinions in a very specific way and then throw in a "but it could be like a, b, c of course" as a way to make out they are open to any suggestion... ;) :P
I'm not masking anything. If you would like to read between the lines, then by all means, feel free.
I'm looking at this whole situation without passing any judgement. Looks to me like we have a classic case of a company completely failing to execute properly on an idea.
Did they fail? Yes, spectacularly. Was there malicious intent, or some form of intentional shady practice going on? I think the current evidence doesn't support that.
I saw the original post, and it was clearly written with emotion and without understanding of their business strategy (which can be questioned, but firing Sheryl is really a silly idea).
Glad the OP recognized that. Let's move on.
No, it is the response of someone who was once upon a time CEO of a startup that fortunately did not operate in the present day news cycle where reputations can be destroyed in a couple of hours. DDG is precious, saying things that are very much against what I know to be the founding principles of the company is something that should only be done by those that have been given the proper authority. The response here is candid but ultimately not the one that DDG would and should give. Gabriels' contribution upthread pretty much confirms that. My comment was simply to ensure things would not get worse than they already were until someone in a position of authority at DDG could step in.
All you have to do is to read this comment thread to see the kind of damage that a single statement by someone affiliated with the company can do.
You can be impartial, but it still was a bad post because you posted speculation without making even the basic attempt at determining the facts. They typically answer their email within two hours during business days. Just ask them.
It's not the target of the post, but the way you wrote it. I have the same issue with their last post speculating why Mint sold their company ("The next generation bends over"). I sense that Jason lost more from that exchange than he gained.
I have no qualms with the intention of holding 37 Signals to account. As now I'm holding you to account. However, it's important that I'm giving you fair the chance to state your own case.
I'm referring to the reporting making the outrage rounds that cited DEI comments by the CEO. I'm not trying to bring it in, but comments here are saying stuff that really makes it hard for me to ignore that these people were, to put it nicely, doing sub par work.
Jim Rose, ceo of CircleCI, responded by pointing out on social media that “Paul does not speak on behalf of” the San Francisco-based company, which he declared was “committed to our customers in Israel and around the world”. Soon afterwards, however, Rose posted: “Effective December 22, Paul Biggar is no longer a director at CircleCI. We thank him for his contributions on the board and wish him the best for what’s next.”
You may want to believe and be sympathetic toward Apollo - fine.
That doesn't change the circumstances nor realities. Apollo screwed up, and is now throwing in the towel. It's really hard to be sympathetic towards a business operator that's made a series of bad choices and now is playing the victim card and shutting down.
reply