zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
I would translate "not consistently candid with the board" as "he lied to the board about something important enough to fire him on the spot". This seems like the kind of statement lawyers would advise you to not make publicly unless you have proof, and it seems unusual compared to most statements of that kind that are intentionally devoid of any information or blame.

>>fabian+Z8
Perhaps he had altruistic visions that didn't align with the boards desire to prioritize profits over all else. Cautiously optimistic.

>>thelit+kg
Or maybe the exact opposite? Altman is the one who took it in the profit seeking direction and the statement hints that they don't want to go that way