It's not even that: it's a device for non-dermatologists, to decide if they need to make a referral. "Cleared" is definitely the right language here, this might only be a Class 1 medical device, it's not making any diagnostic claims.
It's a bit chicken and egg though: I would expect that a grant would be much more likely to be granted for an event that had a decent amount of groundwork already done? For new events especially, you'd want to see some commitment.
I'd want to see a plan, for sure. I would, in the place of the PSF folks, not want to be handed a "this is already in motion, and we are depending on funding so you better say yes."
This doesn't appear to be the case, and they had a plan if the PSF had said no. The problem is that they didn't say anything, which in turn meant they couldn't finalize the program or answer to their own requests for travel expense (either way).
Imagine a politician photoed reacting to a member of the public in disgust, except the face was stitched in from moments after. Or, worse, someone captured at the scene of a bomb reacting before the bomb went off?
We have an inbuilt set of assumptions about causality that this AI now violates. That's potentially huge in some very specific scenarios...
No board is ever controlled by a CEO by virtue of the title/office. Boards are controlled by directors, who are typically nominated by shareholders. They may control the CEO, although again, in many startups the founder becomes the CEO and retains some significant stake (possibly controlling) in the overall shareholding.
The top org was a 501(c)3 and the directors were all effectively independent. The CEO of such an organisation would never have any control over the board, by design.
We've gotten very used to founders having controlling shareholdings and company boards basically being advisory rather than having a genuine fiduciary responsibility. Companies even go public with Potempkin boards. But this was never "normal" and does not represent good governance. Boards should represent the shareholders, who should be a broader group (especially post-IPO) than the founders.
That isnt relevant to the question. Sam was on the board prior to all of these other directors, and responsible for selecting them.
The post asks how/why Sam ended up with a board full of directors so far out of alignment with his vision.
I think a big part of that is that the board was down several members, from 9 to 6. Perhaps the problem started with not replacing departing board members and this spiraled out of control as more board members left.
Actually, you're rephrasing the question - it was specifically about "control", not "alignment".
Even if we substitute "alignment" the problem is that the suggestion is still that Sam would have been "better protected" in some way. A 501(c)3 is just not supposed to function like that, and good corporate governance absolutely demands that the board be independent of the CEO and be aligned to the company goals not the CEO's goals.
> good corporate governance absolutely demands that the board be independent of the CEO
CEOs and subordinate executives being on boards are not unusual, and no board (especially a small board) that the CEO (and/or subordinate executives) sits on is independent of the CEO.
By "independent" I don't mean "functions separately". Of course the CEO sits on the board. Sometimes the CFO is on the board too, although subordinate executives usually _should not be_ (they may _attend_ the board, but that's a different thing).
But fundamentally, the CEO _reports to_ the board. That's the relationship. And in a 501(c)3 specifically, the board have a clear requirement to ensure the company is running in alignment with its stated charter.
Whether or not this board got that task right, I don't know, it doesn't seem likely (at least, in hindsight). But this type of board specifically is there for oversight of the CEO, that's precisely their role.
I think there are a bunch of problems in the timeline, not least the ongoing mismatch between statements and filings, and the lack of anything in 2022.
It does look like governance very much played second fiddle, and the unsurprising outcome of that was that governance hasn't worked very well. I don't know who can rightfully take the blame for that, though, other than the Chair and maybe CEO. If the board wasn't fit, it was their job to fix it.
I have to say it makes sense to me that the binaries would be built from the source tarballs rather than git, seems a bit odd that you'd have separate pipelines and binaries that are produced from a (slightly) different source.
I think if you have a set that you want the latest value from, in all engines you can do something explicit like:
> SELECT manifest, versionId, checkinTime FROM version ORDER BY checkinTime DESC LIMIT 1
The problem with putting aggregation functions in the select output is that you're being unclear about what is aggregating; that pattern begins to break down once you have e.g. multiple documents in the same schema. Or if versionId somehow wasn't linear (e.g. branches of changes).
ODT was designed to be standardised: while the predecessor format was very similar too, it relies very heavily on XHTML, SVG, and CSS, to name but three (there's a lot more).
Without being able to call out to existing standards, the ODT spec itself would suddenly become massive. The effort to update the standards appears to be significant and hasn't progressed much in recent years already :/
I think realistically, an Sqlite format could be offered as an option, but the office doc ship has really sailed.
Good argument to formalise the spec of Sqlite as a standard though...
The specification is massive (840 pages) even though it is written in very terse way that does not really specify the effects and behavior, only the syntax.
On the other hand if one ignores few warts (explosion of local styles and text spans due to ooo:rsid attribute, non-sparse spreedsheets and weird mechanism for styling tables as a few examples) it is really well designed markup for this kind of document data that strikes right balance between it being semantic markup and representing the kinds of stuff users want to do. Compare that with Office OpenXML with stateful formatting empty tags (yes, really, in DOCX <b/> _TOGGLES_ whether following text is bold).
