In defense of the Google chef
This is essentially a Trolley problem that people are getting quite indignant about:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem</a><p>Here's an oversimplified example that mirrors the classic Trolley problem:<p><i>Suppose the company consists of three people: The founder, the engineer and the chef.  The founder can't raise more money from investors and she realizes that if she fires the chef it'll free up 200K ISOs which can be used to recruit a sysadmin.  Without a sysadmin the startup will fail.  If the founder gives up her own shares, she loses control of the company to one of the investors, who she knows will sell the company to cash out immediately.  If she stays in control, the founder aspires to grow the business to 20x its current size.  Should the founder fire the chef?</i><p>What small detail would have to change in order to quell the ire of all of the people claiming that Pincus is acting unethically?