ragall

> people realize their reaction was disproportionate

No.

Graphical applications should never ever never change the UI. Change the default for initializing an empty config, like on a new machine, if you like but never change what's already a running config.

> how do we adjudicate what is a legitimate part of someone's soul

We think, then we vote; then we think some more, and we vote again. It's democracy, just as for other things.

> Learning isn’t copyright infringement.

Of course, but only humans are able to learn. Clanker enhancement is stealing.

The woman who carries the child.

Has everyone tried ? I know people are different, but it's pathetic to see how much people like you are attached to the idea that they can't change. Grow up.

The burden of proof is on you. It's funny how personal you've taken this, lol.

The baby is a part of the mother's soul. If anything, it's worse than selling a kidney.

It's well known among urban design researchers that the average number of other people one is interacting with on a daily basis has been decreasing ever since the move to the suburbs that started 100 years ago. The movr to the suburbs has been turning Americans into asocial people, generation after generation, in a vicious cycle. If you look at other countries that are still social because they live in denser environments, there's a certain amount of people "naturally" introvert, but much fewer than in the US, where most of it is learned.

Maybe yours is innate. How do you know that's true for all people ? You don't.

Maybe it applies to you too. Have you tried ?

Bla bla bla.

> New York city could put plenty more housing right in Manhattan, but you don't see even the most radical pro-housing types suggesting they build over Central Park to do it.

Central Park acts as counterweight to the very dense urban area of Manhattan, which doesn't have that much place for building anew. Your merry walled garden doesn't have that excuse.

> The CEO can't fire the board.

He can when he's the majority shareholder.

> but one of the whole points of corporate governance is that everybody plays their actual role when they're in that role and assigned to do that role.

Where do you think you are ? In Victorian England where everyone dutifully plays one's role with a stiff upper lip and never tries to abuse power ?

I'm talking about the fact that this is a special situation, where the majority shareholder is also the CEO. In that case the board cannot effectively fire the CEO because he, as the majority shareholder, also had the power to nullify that. The only way to remove such a CEO is to sue and ask the Court of Chancery of Delaware to have the CEO removed and barred from further appointments as CEO. The board can't do that, as it's outside its authority.

The members of the board should have recognized the special nature of this situation, and take the only principled course of action possible here: resign and sue to have the CEO removed and barred; instead they let the interim CEO give himself a golden parachute (so much for protecting the shareholders, he was protecting his arse).

It's not a glib response. People like you have made their "Garden cities" into a fortress, from where you drink champagne (or your favorite equivalent), while watching the plebs fight to the death outside, because they don't have a place to live. Maybe one day you'll realize you're one of the baddies and shed a tear.

> saying LLMs can't do math isn't really a hundred percent accurate anymore

It's still accurate. Just because the LLM gave you a corect result doesn't mean it made a calculation.

> Yet everyone yells that this sort of town should be subject to the exact same massive high-density developments of other towns, utterly destroying the environment and town character, and yet providing nothing of value.

Nothing of value to existing inhabitants perhaps, but massive value for those that don't have housing yet.

It is not. Boards don't have the power to decide on issues of legality, which is the purview of courts.

It's not clear what the wellbeing of the company actually is, especially if there's a disagreement between shareholders as to how long of a horizon the management has to think about. Delaware courts are well known to give great leeway to majority shareholders, with some narrow exceptions.

Sure, but it's not the within board's authority to preempt a court's decision and fire the CEO. The board should have resigned, and let the minority shareholders sue so that that court may decide.

The role as a majority shareholder wins, and only courts can decide that that's not the case and declare the CEO to be unfti.

> Boards are elected by shareholders to act on behalf of their fiduciary interests, the actions the board took were in that interest, and matt replaced the board, because he placed personal power above financial upside

Contrary to popular opinion, Delaware courts have given great leeway to majority shareholders in deciding a company's strategy, and placing certain things above short-term "financial upside" is among those.

> I'm excited for this proposition because it would mean discovery of matt's terrible management decisions

It's funny you don't see the contradiction between considering the board as the paladins of small shareholders, just while the board was allowing the new interim CEO to leech company money by giving himself (and the chief legal counsel) a golden parachute.

Resign and let minority shareholders sue, in order to have the courts decide that Matt is unfit as CEO. It wasn't the board's authority to decide the CEO was illegally abusing his powers, only courts can decide that.

> but are also expected to act as a reasonable person would for the good of the company

It's the people they represent, i.e. the shareholders, who get to decide what's the good of the company, and the board is simply meant to enact those wishes. This is a constitutional issue of representation: at what point do the elected representatives decide the current situation calls for a referendum instead of an ordinary (representative) vote ?

> The majority shareholder says jump off a cliff and we must obey” is nonsense

If the majority shareholder decides that, then 1) the board must resign at once and 2) any one minority shareholder must sue and have the Delaware Court of Chancery determine that the majority shareholder has abused his powers. I'm not sure what would follow that court decision.

> That's sort of true and sort of not, right? He's not in fact "the boss" of the board

He is the boss by virtue of having 84% of the voting power; and, as the board represents the will of the shareholders, the board should always consult with the shareholders before taking such action, if nothing else because majority shareholders have the power to dissolve the board and appoint a new one.

There's a parallel here with firing regular employees: there's dismissal with cause, and without cause. The dismissal *without cause* of a CEO that's also a majority shareholder makes non sense, so any dismissal would have to have a *cause* as codified by Delaware Law. IANAL, but it's usually mental unfitness, moral reprobation, or something of that gravity. Since they did not have a justified cause, I agree with you that the board should have resigned.

The interesting question here is whether the new severance packages, that the board gave itself in the brief interim, will be considered legal. We'll have to wait for a lawsuit to settle that.

The board represents the will of the shareholders. When the CEO is also the majority shareholder with 84% of the voting power, the board better have a damn good reason, otherwise the majority shareholder can simply dissolve the board and appoint a new one, which he did.

The board does have the legal ability to fire the CEO, provided that it passes a very bar, such as being able to prove mental unfitness, etc... which wasn't the case here.

On the other hand, if you're arguing that a board should be able to fire the CEO without cause and have him barred for eternity, then you're arguing that majority shareholders shouldn't be allowed to serve as CEO - in a private company !! - which has been the basis of capitalism for ever. It would destroy the economy as we know it.

> Alternatively, Matt can resign if he doesn't like what his bosses did

The board members weren't "his bosses", he's "the boss" and the board serves as his pleasure, within the limits of the Delaware statutes with regards to the protection of minority shareholders.

Hahaha, "One command holds the feature together". That page is a gallery or horrors.