More 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.
I 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.
This 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.
I 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.
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.