Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move.

Sure, but is that what happened? Or, did they sit down and have a chat and mutually agree that on what was best? I guess we will never know with certainty (and I frankly don't care).




I don't know what happened either and I wouldn't even be surprised if the parties have internalized it in ways that aren't 100% consistent. I do know that situations arise where it becomes mutually apparent that a parting of the ways is best for everyone concerned even if not explicitly stated. And, in those circumstances, there's a public story that is often not untrue but isn't the whole backstory either because it's simpler for everyone involved that way.


Is there actually a difference between those two things?

When your immediate superior sits you don't for a "chat", and you "mutually agree on what is best", it comes across an awful lot like an ultimatum.


Yes, it's directly in the tweet. "We told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find somebody else to run YC."




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: