this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
60 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37711 readers
157 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Are they drunk over there?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Whatever is causing them to turn around and want to hire him again is evidence he was underpaid. Maybe he’s got dirt on them, maybe they realized he’s actual crucial to operations. Either way, the negotiating field has changed now that they’ve revealed their desperation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I mean the guy was easily making gobs of money. I don't think he needs anymore money. Did he make less than others? Maybe. But he wasn't at the bread bank looking for handouts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not really commenting on whether Altman got paid enough or not, but "well he's not fucking homeless" isn't really a sensible argument in any conversation about compensation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I mean I was being sarcastic. He's gonna be just fine. He will live better than 95% of the population. He was the head of a company valued at 50+ billion. This guy is not being paid less than 300k. Him being fired isn't going to change his life style in any dramatic fashion like it would an average person.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)