> It sure sounds like a firing.

You fire someone when you don’t want them anymore.

In this case, he was asked to choose between YC and OpenAI (because doing both is too big a job).

That is not firing someone when they choose whether or not to stay.

> That is not firing someone when they choose whether or not to stay.

That's only true if they left on their own accord. That isn't what happened.

They chose a different job (OpenAI) over YC. They chose to leave.

When I someone the option, that is not a firing.

I really don’t understand why you, and others who insist otherwise, have this worldview.

They said 'If you continue to do this thing then you can't work here, so you either stop or leave.' Had he stopped then he would have continued working for YC. That makes it pretty obvious that he wasn't fired - you aren't given the option to keep your job if you're fired.

That's like saying anyone put on a PIP that made the decision not to improve wasn't fired.

> So why now?

Presumably because “[PG] got tired of hearing that YC fired Sam“

> Why wasn't there more details when Altman left Y Combinator?

Why on earth should there be? If it was me I’d think it’s nobody else’s business and therefore be uninterested in sharing or explaining those details.

However once the world starts speculating and assuming something else happened, I can see why at some point it makes sense to provide some more detail to try to correct that, even if you’d rather not.

Paul Graham really likes hearing himself soeak, so it's weird he was quiet on this until now. One would have assumed that he was tired of hearing this way back last year. And his previous statements have indeed pointed more to it being a forceful split.