zlacker

> Except it's not a "division" but an independent entity.

This is entirely false. If it were true, the actions of today would not have come to pass. My use of the word "division" is entirely in-line with use of that term at large. Here's the Wikipedia article, which as of this writing uses the same language I have. [1]

If you can't get the fundamentals right, I don't know how you can make the claims you're making credibly. Much like the board, you're making assertions that aren't credibly backed.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Sam_Altman

>>emptys+(OP)
Hanging your hat on quibbles over division vs subsidiary eh? That's quite a strident rebuttal based on a quibble.

>>manyos+E
I'm happy to defend any of my points. The commenter took issue with one. I responded to it. If you have something more to add, please critique what you disagree with.

I will say that using falsehoods as an attack doesn't put the rest of the commenter's points into particularly good light.

>>emptys+t1
I don't understand why you think what the board of the non-profit did was unethical. Your presupposition seems to be that the non-profit has a duty to make money - aka "keep the lights on" but it is a "non-profit" precisely because it does not have that duty. The duty of the board is to make sure the non-profit adheres to its charter. If it can't do that and keep the lights on at the same time, then so much worse for the lights.