When Pat wants to make the cut. The board keeps saying he cant do that.

When Pat wants to cut the dividends. The board keeps saying that is not negotiable.

When Pat wants to cut off the GPU because it hasn't produce anything useful other than sucking out immediate cashflow, The board says he cant because they already have huge contract in place for AI or other usage.

When Pat wants to make long term investment and short term will be hit because hardware cycles takes 2 -3 years minimum and you cant catch up in one cycle, the board wants the short term sales to be stable while making changes.

So after 5 years, along with a change of CEO, everything he asked for in the first place was eventually done.

And I am sensing GPU may be on the chopping board.

Commentary in my bubble is:

"Oh good, what with being out of engineers to fire and having exhausted all other options, they're finally doing the right thing and fire some management."

(Though this is probably bureaucrats and C-levels at best, not the board which really deserves a firing.)

This after they cut 15,000 employees (over 10% of the workforce at the time) last August? How many times in a row can you cut 10%, 20%, of the workforce without impacting ability to deliver? Either these people were doing nothing of value (in which case leadership is incompetent) or they were doing something of value and the company performance will be impacted by their departure (in which case leadership is incompetent), so which is it?