undefined | Better HN

0 pointsusehand2y ago0 comments

then the argument that altman would be able to easily stuff the board doesnt hold -- he didnt even have majority.

either you claim (1) that there was a risk of altman having majority and stuffing the board and hence concede that majority allows stuffing the board, in which case you concede the actual majority which was anti-altman could have done that

or (2) you concede that having majority is not enough to stuff the board, in which case we were far from any risk of altman doing so, given that he did not even have a majority of the board

---

edit because i cant seem to reply further down thread: i read the article. my point is precisely that the board had majority. that is how they got to fire altman in the first place. given they had majority they had the chance to stuff the board in their own favor, as per the argument above.

0 comments

ruszki2y ago

You should read the article, because it’s clearly stated how Altman could get a majority. For your other concern, a simple vote change (like Ilya’s) can explain it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsusehand2y ago0 comments

then the argument that altman would be able to easily stuff the board doesnt hold -- he didnt even have majority.

or (2) you concede that having majority is not enough to stuff the board, in which case we were far from any risk of altman doing so, given that he did not even have a majority of the board

---