If his personal security detained the person videoing them and offered them money to sign an NDA, it feels like something they had experience with. Could this just be the tip of the iceberg?
Most likely. It's hard to imagine an ultra rich man who is already unfaithful to only be having sex with 2 women. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot more, including paid encounters.
No, that's the point, we wouldn't. And if we would then we should not be in charge of an extremely large organisation.
Part of the point of all this is that he's supposed to be in control of his emotions and able to make the best decisions without letting his emotions interfere.
If he can't even make the very simple decision to keep his dick in his pants in this very clear breach of commitments he has publicly made, then what other terrible decisions is he making? What other commitments will he break because it feels good and he can't control himself?
You seem to imply there is a performance aspect here. Yet there are high performing people in all fields do this. Something like 20% of men have committed adultery.
> Quite frankly he has had an affair with consenting adult women not trafficked children why are the knives out for him when this is all he has done?
Because he made commitments to people to not do this.
If you promise to do (or not do) something, and then you break that promise, you should be held to account for it. It should be obvious that you cannot be trusted to keep promises in future. Nothing you say should be believed, because you are clearly an untrustworthy person. You should not be trusted to make decisions that involve other people's money.
And, in addition. If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room. If your idea of managing people includes having sex with them, then that is an indication that you are unable to manage people.
This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand. This is about Huang not living up to the professional standards that we expect from people in authority. It's about being a good, trustworthy, custodian of other people's money, and about being a good choice as CEO of this business. Not having enough self-control to avoid these situations is a really good indicator that he is not a good choice for this role, because of that lack of self-control. If he can't control himself, how can he be relied on to control the organisation?
> If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room.
> This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand.
My point was the president who has brought about an expensive war is an example of this times 1000. I think all we can infer from this is he is unfaithful to his wife, the inference you make about his commitment to his fiduciary responsibility is incorrect to me. They are different things and he has not shown he has been a highly effective CEO who actually has technical knowledge.
Perhaps I am overly cynical but I think a lot of CEO's (and other's for that matter) will engage in dishonesty.
Consider Aquinas on merchants (possibly quoting Chrysostom possibly mistaken)
> “He that buys a thing in order that he may sell it, entire and unchanged, at a profit, is the trader who is cast out of God’s temple.”
My claim is not that this practice is wrong per-say but even in this kind of business of arbitrage you can see at guile and cunning, that is hard to deny. Maybe he only lacked the ability to hide it.
I would ask you who would run a business better a man who is unable to use cunning, guile and manipulation (marketing) or one who does not. Their is times when the sort of morality you talk about is important and times where it is a hindrance and most people are evil, if you want the good Aristocratic souls you would do well not to look for it in the world of commerce.
Plenty of leaders throughout the years, most notoriously royalty (leaders in an "extremely large organization" if there ever was one), have been doing this.
Or maybe it's inherent to power and the recent trend is against human nature. You cannot seriously say that this is a major concern in moving against monarchies. After all, the royals are just the most well known ones (because it involves succession). Plenty of non royal powerful people also do so.
People have always been ostracized for adultery, royalty or no. You need only look at stories from e.g. the Old Testament or similar to see how long this has been a thing in human society.
Infidelity is as old as the institution of marriage. Very few people are ever ostracized for it, and most of those were women. Among elites, it was usually expected to have lower-status women for fun and not to bother the nobly-bred wife for anything other than bearing legitimate heirs.
Even if you don't care about the adultery aspect, or the spying aspect(!), having sex with the people who report to you is a huge problem. First of all the power imbalance complicates questions of consent. Secondly, even if that's all fine, there are legitimate questions that could be raised by other employees about objectivity and favoritism. And for all of these reasons and more, it reflects very poorly on a leader in terms of their judgement and impulse control, which are reasonable traits to want a CEO to have.
Pedophilia is illegal, and that's not changing no matter how many grotesque articles are written. Adults having consensual sex with other adults is not illegal.
Sorry I see how my point can easily be missed as I brought this up kind of randomly in a thread about otherwise legal behavior. My point is the normalization of deviance.
In media for stories surrounding Epstein and that class of people, we often hear of 'underaged girls' instead of 'children'. That is part of the shift of the overton window. Modern media is replete with children being put into adult situations (not necessarily media targeted at children, mind you) and that only helps to blur the line.
> But one Kentucky teacher said her arrest for an alleged affair with a 16-year-old football player was unfair and untrue and has ruined her career, possibly her life. https://abcnews.com/US/story?id=8221857
Calling a teacher raping a kid an affair.
> According to a report on FOX Baltimore, the victim was a 12-year-old girl and met Laury on the playground of the Pikesville apartment complex where they both lived. The girl was reported missing by her mother in June and was located about a week later inside Laury's apartment, according to the report.
The whole point is reducing the care. You can't blackmail what people don't care about. Your response is pretty callous. Saying "next time you have a thought related to raping children" like what the fuck?
If I said "you can't blackmail people for littering because people don't care, but littering is still wrong.", would we be making the same point, or is there a connection between this and Epstein that I'm missing?
If there was an effort to downplay littering in media then yes but I'm not aware of it. There's no direct connection to Epstein beyond blackmail. I regret bringing it up, I thought it would make for interesting discussion.
It just seemed to come out of nowhere, and following that guy saying he doesn't care about adults having affairs, it sounded like you were trying to say that anyone who doesn't care about this is somehow condoning child abuse? Which is why I was sure there was an Epstein connection I was missing, and also why I had a hostile reaction.
Now that I know where you're coming from, yeah, that is interesting.
There's a saying, and I have no idea if there any truth to it, that you can't blackmail French CEO's and government officials this way. Their wives already know they are cheating on them and the public expects it.
Chinese also the same. Super rich Chinese typically expected to have mistresses with the legit wife controlling access. It is abnormal for super rich Chinese not to have mistresses. Historically only one Chinese emperor did that monogamy thing, but he died young, so that probably the real reason. Western kibgs are bizarre monogamous by Chinese culture standard even today.
I believe this is true yes, you would have a hard time getting anyone to care. You should be worried anytime you are in a union with a French man (or Lady). See Cardinal Richelieu and French alliances behind the backs of the Catholic League.
I say this as a Brit and we are the same, only we are just as perfidious (maybe worse) but hide it from are selves and others so we are easy to blackmail.
truly, I think it's way out of proportion, unless it had an effect on Nvidia management, we should give the guy and his family space and privacy. Jepsen net effect on the world is hugely positive. hope he recovers a good life and fix whatever they decide makes sense
You don’t think helping your girlfriend circumvent export controls and score billion dollar contracts for GPUs that her shell company bought for China doesn’t impact Nvidia?
Shareholders like it though. Money is far more important to most people than which country "wins" AI. Huang also has a good relationship with Trump so enforcement is unlikely.
I don't really care that much about Jensen being an unfaithful husband. That kind of pales in comparison to hoarding hundreds of billions of dollars. And as far as "paid encounters" go - I would hope no one uses this as an opportunity to tell me prostitution is unethical.
Nobody cares about that. They care about Jensen being an unfaithful CEO and compromising Nvidia's share price with this naughty flings.
They're already being sued by shareholders over the first affair. The suit claims Nvidia's relationship with Megaspeed posed a "material risk" to Nvidia's reputation and business prospects. Of course sleeping with your own employees is also considered a bad business practice.
It does feel a bit like Jensen is being held to a very much unfairly higher standard than, say, elon, who does drugs, lies extravagantly, has an openly corrupt relationship with the goverment, build the world's biggest deepfake porn machine, etc etc.
I don't disagree that they are being held at different standards, however Elon should really be held far more accountable for his manipulations around Tesla stock, porn machines, Space X fraud etc.
>
I don't disagree that they are being held at different standards, however Elon should really be held far more accountable for his manipulations around Tesla stock, porn machines, Space X fraud etc.
Outside of his fan bubble, Elon Musk is really not well-reputed.
Yeah the moral angle of 'oh my god a billionaire was unfaithful' is just bizarre, given all the Epstein stuff at least he is cheating with adult women who consent.
> at least he is cheating with adult women who consent.
Well, he is her superior in a work setting, so there's that. There can be consequences for rejecting your boss's advances, which is the reason this kind of thing is usually heavily frowned upon!
> That kind of pales in comparison to hoarding hundreds of billions of dollars
Unsurprising to see that the economic illiteracy that plagues reddit has made its way here, a place that is made by billionaires and tries to find and mint new billionaires
Slightly pedantic but I think in most US jurisdiction private security can detain you for theft under the doctrine of shopkeepers privilege but only long enough for law enforcement to get there.
Obviously not super relevant to this but that's where people get the idea at least.
I had a feeling something damaging would happen to him sooner or later. My prediction was sometime before mid 2027.
My reasoning was that that he had become too powerful while largely avoiding politically charged positions, or other "stuff" that can be used to "control" him.
The political and intelligence establishment doesnt particularly like powerful individuals who remain politically independent.... outside of their control.
This explanation actually makes more sense. He was even invited to EU, ASEAN Goverment etc more often than any other elected individual or powerful figures.
That is why ancient wisdom said you should keep low profile if you are super rich.
Huang has had a noticeable shift in personality over time not unlike people such as Musk and other super rich. It doesn't take any external influence to cause bad character.
So many people here think character doesn't matter but it has now caught up with him as much as it has for Trump.
For years he was in the same anti-human AI hype club way too similar like Altman and he thought no consequences can catch him... it really doesn't take any conspiracy here. Everything he has chosen was all his doing.
Musk is known for his ketamine habit. Maybe Huang uses something as well. Those high-powered careers are conductive to becoming a junkie. "The Wolf of Wall Street" exaggerated a bit, but not too much.
“It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known. This is especially true in written communication, as dictated by professional etiquette. […] It is normally considered correct to address a woman as Ms. [Lastname], regardless of her marital status.”
>It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known.
Hm. Weird. Never seen that before. Let's check the source, emilypost.com:
>Mx. Is the universal title that can be used by anyone. It is gender non-identifying. Even if you identify specifically with a gender you may still use Mx. and you may see Mx. used when the sender is unaware of your title.
I don't think so. In the UK the default is also Ms unless a preference has been expressed for Miss/Mrs.
Especially in a business context, it would be unprofessional to ask if a woman is married or not merely for determining which title to use. Unless you want to have an affair with her, of course.
Look, if you want to learn about social cues you’re going to have to draw from experience instead of links from the internet. Experience interacting with women will quickly teach you that Ms. is the safest option, if not preferred.
I semi seriously suggest we come up with neologisms to avoid gendered forms of address. We could take from Morrowind and replace Mr/Ms/sir/ma’am with “muthsera”.
> Hm. Weird. Never seen that before. Let's check the source, emilypost.com
This is taught to children in the United States. I didn't go to an especially good school and I remember it to this day. If you're not from the US the custom may be different.
Perhaps you will consider the advice from Grammarly [0] as a more acceptable source.
Oh my God are native English speakers okay?? Ms. is not miss it's pronounced like "miz" and it's always been a convention to refer to women with their full or last name regardless of marriage state. Mx is just a gender neutral honorific for full or last names.
No. He's out because he works in a professional environment and knows that the statement that Mx is a universal title that can be used with anyone is untrue. In the vast majority of workplaces in the world, you'd get a weird look for calling somebody with an obvious gender identity Mx.
Yes, I work in a workplace, so I've experienced people using personal titles first-hand. I've also read some studies about neo-pronouns and neo-titles, yes. Their prevalence is generally measured as being quite low.
Obligatory reference to Douglas Hofstsdter’s parody about gendered pronouns where he imagines an alternate reality in which English pronouns are race-based instead of gender-based, and they have the Miss/Mrs. distinction, but only non-whites have to use it, and it’s based on whether you have a job — because obviously only non-whites need to advertise this.
I looked at guardian's style guide (british) and some australian style guide I found and they both default to "Ms". Which specific anglosphere country did you have in mind?
> It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known. This is especially true in written communication, as dictated by professional etiquette.[1]
> [Ms. is] intended as a default form of address for women regardless of marital status. [2]
You didn’t know, because it started with Gloria Steinem in the 70s.
Wikipedia tries to make it sound like it’s some old tradition, but it’s actually fairly new, with the prior historical references being obscure until it was resurrected. It’s right there in the article:
> “Ms. was another acceptable, but rarely used, abbreviation for Mistress in England in the 17th and 18th centuries.[12] During the 19th century, however, Mrs. and Miss came to be associated almost exclusively with marital status,[13] and Ms. was popularized as an alternative in the late 20th century“
Cant read it, but the title literally says “1986, ‘Ms’ joins the Times vocabulary”, so I’m guessing that, you know…1986 is when it became the Times’ standard. This likely corresponds to the campaign of Geraldine Ferraro, which is what I personally remember as the point where the term became widespread.
I don’t understand this need to rewrite history. Nobody in this thread is objecting to the use of the term. Even the wikipedia article says the term was resurrected in the 80s.
Hate to break it to you, but you’re arguing with me about something I never said. I said it was revived in the 70s.
The term is recent in a linguistic sense. Even if you personally think it’s ancient history, “my dude”, there are plenty of us alive where it was invented in our lifetime.
A teacher explained this to me in elementary school as some new fad.
> Skeletor will return next week with more disturbing reminders about passage of time...
It's recent both linguistically and culturally. It was a thing in my lifetime, to the point where I remember explaining it to other people in high school (which was itself about a decade after the term became "popular").
I realize that the average age on HN is quite young, but we're not talking about ancient history here.
> For what it's worth, the median human is 31.1 years old. I wouldn't call something older than the median human "very recently, culturally."
That’s cute. Now try searching for the median age in developed countries, where people care enough to make up revisionist history about minor culture debates? (nevermind, I did it for you; it’s around 50)
More to the point, what’s the human lifespan in first-world countries? (average lifespan in the US is almost 80)
(All this is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that perhaps disparaging people for being older than you is not such a bright idea. I know it’s hard to believe, but we’re not going anywhere for a while.)
The person you're responding to isn't disparaging you. They're simply stating their opinion. That's all a judgment about whether something is recent can be.
Fine, that’s fair. It’s not explicitly disparaging, it’s just implying that facts older than you, personally, can remember are irrelevant. I don’t know what to call this, but none of the words that come to mind are positive.
Someone on a parallel thread explicitly called the 1980s “ancient”, so whatever.
I said the word is recent, linguistically and culturally. I said it was "fairly new". I also said when it was popularized, in terms of actual decades (70s-80s).
You've chosen to die on this particular hill of whether or not something is "recent". I don't know why.
What? You had a whole thing about rewriting history because the parent said the NYT adopted 40 years ago, then you made a big deal about how it was in 1986 and resurrected in the 80s and talked about rewriting history.
What was that all about if you both perfectly agree on the timeline?
> Classy edit, btw.
Edit? I did not edit my post. I think you may not understand what that means. It is neither classy nor unclassy, it is a type of meme.
> What? You had a whole thing about rewriting history because the parent said the NYT adopted 40 years ago, then you made a big deal about how it was in 1986 and resurrected in the 80s and talked about rewriting history.
It's simply a fact that the term was revived in the 70s and popularized in the 80s. The person I replied to was trying to imply that was incorrect, by suggesting that the NY Times was some long-time holdout.
> So your argument is that anyone with a memory longer than yours, yet well within the median human lifespan, is “ancient”.
Deftly convincing my rhetorical opponent of my youthful vigor by misunderstanding what they wrote and getting noticeably worked up about being called ‘ancient’
I always thought that it was Mrs. = missus, Ms. = miz, at least that’s how I would say them, but I now realize that a) that’s plainly incorrect and b) I’ve never actually ever seen them non-abbreviated.
If an abbreviation is never expanded, is it still an abbreviation? Personally I think it isn’t; I advocate for condensing i.e./e.g. to simply ie and eg, though this is a minority opinion.
Because Ms. Powell is an Nvidia employee who is not suspected of being a Chinese spy. You're thinking of Alice Huang (turns out Jensen was having multiple different affairs!)
Can someone explain how the CEO sex life is relevant? Is it because of the risk of a messy divorce that can both distract the CEO and eventually force voting share transfer since he’s also a shareholder? This isn’t really like the Chinese spy mistress thing after all.
Edit: honestly, this one feels like a moralistic freak out more than anything. Who cares about sex with the non-spy lady?
Yes, his actions carry potential shareholder risk and the board has a fiduciary duty to treat it as such. Nvidia (and Jensen) carry extra risk given their corporate structure which is flatter than most companies. Jensen has dozens of direct reports and is a cornerstone of the company. The recent changes to the stock price exemplify all of this.
> Can someone explain how the CEO sex life is relevant?
If it's true that he had the affair with the CCP spy or otherwise was encouraged to sell GPUs using loopholes that violate export bans, that would put him and NVDA into some hot water.
Investors do not like that and the implications for any rapid change in NVDA valuation would be immense.
So? He is a shareholder and CEO having sex with another consenting adult, who and why anyone would fire him. AFAIK Musk had kids with his subordinates and became a trillionaire afterwards.
Say your boss has two reports, you and someone else. You are the same gender as the someone else. They are sleeping with the someone else. They then promote the someone else while not promoting you. Now you have to ask yourself: do I need to have sex with the boss to get promoted? This type of situation is why most companies will fire you if you’re sleeping with someone you’re writing the performance reviews for. Also, all of Jensens reports now have a path to sue Nvidia for unfair treatment, he put the company at huge risk.
You can ingratiate yourself to your boss without having sex. I have seen people doing non-sexual favors to then successfully get promoted. Not saying that sex with subordinate is OK, but that you have to ban all kinds of personal favors.
Lmao. No, one of those is not like the other. At all. Sounds like someone wasn’t paying attention during the harassment training. Basically you have a right to a workspace free from sexual harassment. The behavior described above is either explicitly harassment or getting close enough to it for people to get uncomfortable (and you have a right to not be made uncomfortable due to inappropriate/sexual work situations.)
You don’t have a right to a workspace free of social discomfort or pressure though. Feeling some pressure to bring them a donut isn’t protected in the same way unless it’s becoming harassment.
Because she's not actually able to properly consent if she feels her job is on the line, whether it actually is or not. When a supervisor comes onto their subordinate, that subordinate may feel that they'd be putting future work opportunities (e.g. promotions) in jeopardy if they say no. Or worse, they'd worry that they're putting their employment at risk. Even if Jensen had "pure" intentions and this affair in principle didn't affect their working relationship, he in fact can't know that.
For the same reason that, today, you're not considered a national security risk if you are openly gay, but you still are if you are closeted and trying to hide it. You can't easily blackmail an Elon type who has no shame and whose sex and drug addictions are part of his public reputation. Jensen presented himself as a faithful family man.
Also, if you cannot comprehend that there are issues of consent when it comes to having a sexual relationship with someone whose career you can destroy with no consequences, then I seriously hope you never get a management position. Elon's boards seem to be okay with this, but that is not the norm.
Most companies have policies prohibiting employees from having relationships with subordinates. If he's going to violate company policy in this way, what's to say he isn't doing other shady things inside the business?
Regardless, the saying, "don't shit where you eat" exists for a reason. Huang engaging in this relationship shows profound poor judgment. Is it wise to have someone with such poor judgment running a company of Nvidia's scale and importance?
The problem is that you can't know. You can't read the minds of the people involved, so you can't know if there was pressure, coercion, or something else going on, and you can't be sure if either of them are telling the truth when they both insist it's fine and fully consensual.
So you prohibit it in all cases, punish in all cases, and then you don't have to wade into that mess.
Nobody should have sex with people whose livelihoods they have control over, it's not that crazy and its not a "men aren't allowed to flirt anymore" thing.
Morals are important. He could have used his position of power to do this. If you don't care about morals that's fine but don't get all tetchy when people who do have ideals care.
Let's say that we discover that he didnt use his position of power to advantage himself with Ms Powell. According to your reasoning, then it should be fine, right?
1. Legally this is highly problematic as it exposed Nvidia in a bunch of different ways.
2. A CEO who is so unconcerned about 1. may be engaging in other risky activities.
Yes, no one questions what he does with his wife (or used to...). That's sex life. Promiscuity and risky behaviors are that and have nothing to do with his sex life.
Potential for blackmailing, messy divorce, corporate liability with regards to potential sexual harassment lawsuits, overall negative PR/image... and a dozen other reasons.
1. having sex with CEO of the company your are doing business with may affect the business itself, so you are not delivering best results for your own company
2. having sex with your own subordinate employee seems like potential abuse of power for starters and it is just calling for lawsuit, because while she can say today it was consensual, tomorrow she can say the other way
if he would be having sex with random girls he found in bars it would be certainly less problematic than having sex with people who are directly related to his company
btw. it also shows his character, if he was unfaithful once, he was unfaithful twice, do you really think these are only two cases and it ends just with his sex life?
If by "this" you mean the affair with Powell, probably not much difference between Jensen Huang's affair with Powell and affairs that Gates, Bezos, and Brin have reportedly had.
But the extramarital affair with Alice Huang is quite different. NYTimes reports that Alice Huang is a Chinese spy, with whom Jensen Huang may have conspired to break the law, selling advanced NVIDIA chips to China. That affair puts the whole company at extreme legal risk. Gates, Bezos, and Brin have nothing like this on their records that I'm aware of.
As I write this, the top post on HN speculates that this is "the tip of the iceberg," indicating that there at least may be more affairs yet to be uncovered, and, plausibly, Jensen Huang may have committed even more enormous mistakes with serious consequences for NVIDIA.
He is very hands on. He has more direct reports than other other tech CEOs. I think close to 40. Someone else stepping up or stepping in has things to do.
In addition Nvidia is incredibly tech-heavy company. You need another EE with experience with AI chip design and business. Just having good experienced businessman looking at simplified powerpoints before making decisions of technical issues is probably not enough.
Without discussing the morality of his actions and what he should do as a person, I'm fairly convinced this is either a Chinese intelligence operation to destroy one of the last bastions of US dominance or a CIA operation to install a puppet in a powerful company who is not currently entirely subservient to the will of the US government.
And I'm pretty sure Jenson resigning without a suitable, almost identical successor will kill NVIDIA, the way Intel and AMD and IBM became mere husks of what they were, with no possible road to another western replacement in sight.
> I'm fairly convinced this is either a Chinese intelligence operation to destroy one of the last bastions of US dominance or a CIA operation to install a puppet in a powerful company who is not currently entirely subservient to the will of the US government.
It's odd that you seem to consider two /entirely opposed/ hypotheses as being similar to one another. Superficially, "I'm fairly convinced [this is an intel op of some kind]" makes the two seem similar, but each comes with an implicit set of consequences, right? So it's really "I'm fairly convinced [this is supposed to be really advantageous to the west because of these suspected consequences for the west] or that it's [really harmful to the west because of these other suspected consequences]". It seems odd to suspect two highly opposed set of consequences as both being reasonably likely and thus admitting to two diametrically opposed motivations for the same act.
Nvidia is incredibly valuable, in large part due to Jenson.
The US is aligned with Nvidia, but it does not have total control and so is largely beholden to its choices. Amung other things, the US is paranoid about the resource ever aligning with China (thus export controls). Jenson may refuse to cede more control.
China is misaligned with Nvidia, due to competition with the US. It will never have any control, and thus wants it removed from alignment with the US to mitigate their advantage.
Both superpowers have vast intelligence networks with a long history of causing untold human suffering in pursuit of their short-term, often meaningless goals.
Suddenly, Jenson is under attack from all angles over something relatively unrelated and meaningless to Nvidia - certainly disproportional to his role as arguably one of the most important people on the planet. Within a day, with no actual information of what happened, major media companies are calling for Jenson to be removed from his position.
This could benefit the US government, who can now get a replacement more amenable to, say, the surveillance state or more ideologically opposed to China. Destruction of Nvidia be damned, the CIA hasn't though more than 2 years ahead since the 60s.
This could benefit China, as this could cause a rapid decline in Nvidia's progress and therefore the West's ability to continue beating China - in particularly since there seems to be no one capable of filling the gap if it were to happen.
Occam's razor. We all saw the picture of Jensen signing the woman's breasts in Taiwan, his trademark leather jacket, etc. He very intentionally cultivated the rockstar CEO image. If your conspiracy is true (and I think it's much simpler than that), then Jensen was a huge flashing billboard saying to the world that he's absolutely down to be compromised.
> And I'm pretty sure Jenson resigning without a suitable, almost identical successor will kill NVIDIA
Maybe, but Nvidia bears responsibility for having such poorly de-risked corporate governance. It's actually shocking that the company propping up the entire AI industry (and thus the US economy) is led by a CEO with no COO and dozens of direct reports. Jensen thought he was invincible because he positioned himself to have total control of the company operations, which certainly didn't encourage him to think twice about making the mistakes he did. He acted out because he felt empowered to, and it's easy why.
> We all saw the picture of Jensen signing the woman's breasts in Taiwan
My argument isn't that Jensen didn't do it - I have no doubt he had multiple affairs. He already admitted to the first one!
My argument is that the President of the United States raped children and nobody even talks about it anymore. So Jensen fucking consenting 50 year-olds and suddenly having the CIA outing him (after knowing about it for a year apparently), and every major media company calling for his resignation over it, before any actual investigations finish and over something seemingly neither illegal or particularly related to his work is weird.
> Occam's razor.
In light of the above, I would say Occam's razor is someone is trying to get rid of Jensen.
Reporting by both NYT and WSJ has said there have been two opposing factions in the White House on China/AI policy since Trump was elected. The Model Hawks want to Keep America Strong by slowing China's progress in advanced AI models. They think the best way to do that is by stopping US advanced AI hardware going to China (as much as we can).
The Hardware Hawks wants to Keep America Strong by slowing the development of China's homegrown advanced AI hardware industry. They think the best way to do that is by ONLY selling US semi-advanced AI hardware to China that's slightly more powerful than what China could make on their own now.
Trump vacillates between the two factions (sometimes daily), as indicated by banning the sale of certain semi-advanced chips, then later reversing that ban. The argument to reverse the ban was because before any ban, NVidia had >90% of China's domestic market and after a couple years of ban that was down to ~50%, with the difference funding the development of China's AI hardware industry.
I think both factions actually have valid points and don't know which would be better. However, to your point about the reason for these leaks of >6 month-old intelligence reports now - it's that Jensen (and NVidia) have always been pro "Keep America Strong by slowing China's domestic hardware industry." Sure, that's in their interest but there are a lot of serious people who aren't at NVidia who are Hardware Hawks too. If China's domestic AI hardware companies are Mice, NVidia is the Cat saying, "I was keeping your mouse problem under 10% until you locked me out and now it's 50%. Let me back in and I'll get it under control again."
Jensen has developed a pretty good relationship with Trump and is able to sometimes sway his opinion. Whether this is good or bad depends on which kind of Hawk you are. For example, Jensen was invited to go on Trump's first China trip and the Model Hawks were not happy. On Trump's second trip, the Model Hawks managed to keep Jensen from being invited and the Hardware Hawks were not happy. Air Force One left Washington without Jensen, but then stopped in Alaska and picked up Jensen - which made the Model Hawks crazy. The Model Hawks made sure the intelligence report about Alice being a suspected asset for Chinese intelligence was included in briefing report sent to Trump back in May. But that didn't get Trump to stop listening to Jensen sometimes (Today, Trump claimed he "doesn't remember seeing the report, or if I did see it, it didn't make a big impression on me").
So who benefits by these old reports about Alice from May leaking now and blowing up all over the news? Maybe people upset that Jensen keeps unswaying Trump after he's been swayed?
BTW, Jensen and NVidia have consistently been Hardware Hawks since long before Jensen met Alice in March 2024. Arguably, any NVidia CEO has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to be a law-abiding Hardware Hawk. Also, the WSJ has reported that Chinese intelligence first developed Alice into an asset because of her relationship with Jensen. Because export controls were bad for her data center company, Alice was obviously already on the Hardware Hawk side before being an info source for Chinese intelligence.
The under-reported story (dig a little on WSJ) is that after nearly two years of Commerce and Justice Dept investigating Megaspeed, the US govt still hasn't put Megaspeed on the blocked Entity List (which they can do anytime without explanation). No one knows why and congress is starting to ask about it. BUT, strangely, NVidia voluntarily placed Megaspeed on their own blocked list in June 2025 and hasn't sold any new GPUs to Megaspeed since then (they did ship a few repair parts and replacement components after June for warranty support). So... "Good Guy NVidia?" Well, maybe more like "Don't-want-to-go-to-jail-for-decades NVidia." You see, these export controls have the same severe penalties as selling cruise missiles and it's a 'strict liability' regulation on suppliers. That means if a supplier "knew, or should have known" that GPUs were being diverted, they would be guilty - and that's potentially serious jail time for every individual employee who knew and personal fines up to $1M per card. So... yeah, Alice banging Jensen didn't stop Megaspeed getting cut-off by NVidia just over a year after she met him. What do those confusing and conflicting bits mean? I have no idea - other than this whole thing is a shit show all around and it's not even a blue vs red thing. There are Model and Hardware Hawks in both parties.
In the case of Musk, the amount of equity they own in the company. In the case of Gates, the fact that it didn't come out when he was still an executive.
Musk is also very "out" about it. Kinda like how it's okay to be gay in the CIA, as long as you're out. Being in the closet gets you fired because it makes you blackmailable.
In principle I agree. But at some point there were many enough of them that anyone who gets involved with Musk has very little legitimate basis for claiming to believe there won't be others.
Is it worse or does it dilute the bad if there are a ton of baby mammas not just a "girlfriend who is also the mother of a couple of children"? I don't like the guy but it kind of feels like it somehow isn't as bad when it's just open, repeat behavior and nobody thinks he is even trying to be exclusively "with" these women. I have no idea what their shared understanding is but it might not be as bad as your framing makes it sound if that is openly known between them.
Not a lifestyle I could ever be proud of living personally but ymmv and elon seems to be enjoying himself.
I would think so. We can probably expect more to keep trickling out until he has no other choice but to resign. The spy thing was already bad enough. Now we find out he's hooking up with one of his direct reports? Seems like he runs a toxic workplace.
We have become a permissive society in regard to sex and extramarital affairs. What’s so wrong about having an affair with another employee in the company? I think they are making a big deal about this.
Boss-subordinate relationships are a lot like conflicts of interest. You can’t really rule out something nefarious without the ability read minds because coercion and self-dealing can happen at an unstated or even subconscious level.
There are plenty of contexts where adults can't even legally consent, because it sometimes becomes impossible to rule out coercion, and many more where it may be legal but still shows questionable judgement for the same reason.
propriety is a higher bar than what you're referring here. it IS inappropriate to date in that power dynamic. but it is legal. and it can even be ethical with mutual consent and management of consequences. dont confuse them.
This is questionable in the context of one of the adults holding a position of power. Also, even when assuming the adults are peers, there's another saying 'Don't shit where you eat' which is rooted in a lot of stories of workplace relationships going wrong in very creative ways.
"Position of power" is a bit of a stretch when we're talking about two high-ranking execs who presumably make tens of millions of dollars. I doubt there's any problem related to consent / coercion here. They just wanted to bonk.
It's a corporate governance problem because the relationship can be seen as tainting personnel decisions. But that's HR optics versus morality.
Note that I'm not defending Huang, but I think he's done for because of the spy thing more than because of this.
The Chinese spy who he was having sex with and probably helping break export controls and smuggle Nvidia tech into China through singapore is probably a bigger deal than this one
Well seeing how he also had an affair with a Chinese spy and broke federal law in assisting the Chinese government to access to billions of dollars worth of frontier AI chips, it's a little more than just worrying about extramarital affairs.
This is why you should only do one shitty thing at a time and not multiple.
Or Nvidia comes out of this damaged but not nearly as much as if they were glued to Jensen. "Superstar" CEOs that have complete control over a company are only benefits until they become enormous risks.
There is no way that would have been possible. And as I saw another commenter mention, even if NVidia were founded much more recently when dual share structures became much more common, you rarely (or maybe never, I can't think of any cases) see that dual share structure in very capital intensive industries like hardware where you have to sink a ton of money into the enterprise before you even see any revenue. Software is a whole different ball game.
You are correct, and I was wrong. I originally thought SpaceX was a bit of a special case because the board (pretty much Musk loyalists) gave Musk a ton of restricted stock right before the IPO, but the voting rights vested immediately. But the part I was wrong about is thinking that was just an IPO thing. All the many billions that SpaceX got pre-IPO was done with investors being fine having Musk alone having majority voting control.
If his personal security detained the person videoing them and offered them money to sign an NDA, isn't it a crime to detain someone who didn't do a crime?
Not surprising at all. Many tech CEOs are like this; Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt and so on. People don’t stop idolizing these people, they don’t even think that this is a problem.
Something like one in five married men has cheated on their spouse, approx one in eight women. It’s not that tech CEOs are “like this” it’s that they are not that different from other people, outside of their professional skills.
That number would be dramatically higher in scenarios where men had desirable women basically throwing themselves at them, which is the case for the extremely wealthy. This somehow reminds me of the Churchill joke:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for $1 million?
Woman: Why Winston, yes I would.
Churchill: How about $10?
Woman: What sort of woman do you think I am?
Churchill: We've already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price.
And I think this is all a logical consequence of evolution, which is driven solely by fertility. A woman can only carry one child at a time and so it makes sense for them to seek a highly qualified/'resourceful' partner to have the most chance of her genes being successfully carried forward, whereas a man can theoretically father hundreds of children in a single year, so it makes sense for him to be more 'driven.'
So you don't think the world's most powerful and richest people engage in infidelity more often than the guy that cleans the toilets at the local gas station?
every argument that attempts to humanize and 'us too' these types of folks (billionaires that own islands and ultra-yachts) totally bewilders me.
about 30-50% of people across cultures self-report infidelity. I grew up in a neighborhood where people had jobs like cleaning toilets and it's pretty difficult to cheat more than what I saw growing up. I can tell you from first hand that economically downward communities aren't known for their stable families
the thing that's stopping Joe from the gas station is that he lacks the yacht and the credit line, not any ethics. Jensen's no more or less human than anyone else. The issue with megacorporation's is structural, not some "these types of people' provincial nonsense
It’s an odd phenomenon alright. South Park covered it in the episode “Sexual Healing” where famous rich men kept cheating on their wives. We may never get to the bottom of it.
I feel like they would have come out and said so if that was the case. Sure, admitting being poly has some social risk, but feels like it would be better than what's currently happening.
Marriage/long term coupling is not "natural" but normal in society
With the decline in religious attendance has come a decline in marriage; from 70%+ to 50%ish over the last couple generations
But divorce rate has declined so those that do marry seem to really want it; in the before times though it was how women survived
Coupling fits with biological imperative to have partners but longterm/for life is obviously not necessary since divorce is common too, partners die, etc
That and recent research shows long term married couples are 50% more likely to develop dementia; an imbalance in effort develops where one becomes codependent and forgets how to live and the partner in charge loses grip of themselves and taking care of their partner consumes them.
Being primary caregiver to a spouse who has dementia does substantially increase the caregiver's risk of cognitive decline due to caregiver burnout. [1]
I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to express.
If you read that paper, they posit that a likely "cause" is that unmarried people tend to have cognitive impairments diagnosed later relative to when someone (i.e. a spouse) is living with them.
Not less likely to _have_. Less likely to be _diagnosed_. It is unsurprisingly difficult to be diagnosed with progressive cognitive decline in most places regardless of source even if you have been referred once for MCI.
I think the easier way of looking at it is this: there is a Lancet commission that produces robust characterizations of the modifiable risk factors that lead to dementia. If you're in a marriage that promotes reducing those risk factors, you'll likely have a lower risk of dementia. Isolating one variate like this raises interesting questions, but isn't a "smoking gun'-- especially in this case since the authors themselves indicate this is a surprising result given other studies.
I think the easiest way is like I wrote "No beating physics."
Seems just as reasonable but less verbose; we appear to get cancer and mental illness with old age regardless of social conditions around us. Physics and entropy win again regardless of the care we put into our semantics.
Regardless my original point was about "long term".
"Marriage staves of mental health" and "a single, long term marriage improves mental health outcomes" are two different things.
Could just be a tight knit quasi-nuclear family social circle is sufficient too but social desirability biases lead is to lean into marriage tradition.
The difference is that Intel had a policy against it. Brian was having a relationship at the time they made the policy and it took months for him to wind it down
They used it against him 7 years later. He wasn't ousted because of his relationship. It's just the tool they used.
Also he wasn't CEO at the time of his relationship.
It also wasn't an affair. He was single at the time.
> People don’t stop idolizing these people, they don’t even think that this is a problem.
They'd go as far as to call it a virtue. Silicon Valley is the greatest domestic enemy this country has ever seen. They've built entire machines to protect, reward, and normalize antisocial activity.
Not much different from other industries, other than scale and reach. Took many decades to regulate out killing workers and customers for profit, some are still barely regulated.
The Jungle is famously about horrifying working conditions back in the day and was critical for gaining public support for legislation and regulations. "Capitalism" didn't improve the working conditions; regulations did.
“Billionaire” is largely a responsibility the market gives you: you have to command billions in capital. It’s actually a job a the end of the day.
We should have high standards for who is allowed to have this job. Huang should be replaced as easily and quickly as any mid-level executive who costs his company 340 billion in market cap.
Replaced by whom though? Think about him what you will, but he is not your typical ivy league MBA CEO. He built Nvidia from the ground up, while being very technical and involved, and has done a great job at that.
Looks to me like he has a target on his back, and people are just throwing stuff at it now. This could have come out years ago, if it is true. No reason not to. None, not in this day and age.
the timing of this coming out now is certainly not a coincidence; same with the spy affair (which was known a year or two ago). the interesting question is who wants Jensen gone
Yes and no, Nvidia have said they're conducting their own internal investigation among others. It doesn't surprise me that more information about this or other allegations come out while the fire is hot.
But I agree, anyone within the Nvidia circle looking to spread the information is certainly not doing it to help Jensen.
not really interesting, clearly china. Kill their competition by chopping off the head of the snake. Continue to gain massive lead and solidify their dominate position.
actually, because of the scandal becoming public, Jensen's replacement is almost certainly likely to take a harder line towards China than if Jensen had remained in place and the scandal had remain buried
If, at the end of the day, it is moral merit that matters for leadership positions, why is the hiring and training paradigm solely focused on technical skills?
Isn't Jensen on record as saying he won't do 1 on 1 meetings with employees? He seems like a run of the mill sociopath that runs off the work other people do
Evading export controls and lying about it is a crime, falling for a spy is stupid and has tons of potential fall out, having an affair with a direct report is a major liability, I wonder what is next, maybe we will find out more about the connection to the administration next, this season of the leather lothario is wild, will it be the finale, is there another season of fall guy or a full on traitor arc?
No I don't think it is, a breach of contract is a civil matter, not a criminal one. I think it's especially relevant in the case of the CEO of a company, it's certainly common for contracts to be breached, but it doesn't reflect positively on the company.
Marital contracts are not unlike commercial contracts and we are finding out the CEO is in the (non)business of systematically violating them.
Right? Why are we suddenly pretending like shareholders have such high morals? I really don't understand what's going on. Destroying the world is fine, but cheating, that's where I draw the line!
I knew this was going to happen. It's highly unlikely that a man cheats on his wife for the first time after age 60. This was just the first time he was outed for it.
I hated the misogynistic narrative that Huang was somehow helpless against a super-spy-seductress. Men can in fact control themselves, and it takes a lot of effort, you might even say willpower, to turn a business meeting into a bedroom encounter, especially when you're in the public eye. If Huang was targeted, it was because he was an easy target, a philanderer.
> This was just the first time he was outed for it
For good reason. The level of fuck-up in sleeping with a Chinese spy and then having the gall to try and corruptly quash the investigations into it, coming clean only after Congress flips, is nuts.
I’m not convinced a good CEO can’t have affairs. I am convinced a liar and corrupter can’t.
On nearly every post online about his affair, one of the most visible comments always ended up being about how one must "understand" that this just sort of "happens" when you're this rich and powerful. Poor thing, couldn't keep it in his pants. "Oh, just think of how hard it would be to resist! Would you?"
I pity whomever is in a relationship with someone who actually thinks that way. I'm disgusted, to be honest.
> Yeah but then what's the point of busting your ass your whole life to become one of the wealthiest and most influential men in the world, if you can't have an affair when the mood hits you?
Perhaps don't get married then, or have a consensual open relationship.
I love all these comments that are basically like "what's the point of being a billionaire if you can't stick your dick wherever you want when the mood strikes you and lie about it to your wife."
I think the unspoken implication is that being a billionaire means having an inordinate amount of power, such that immoral behavior like this becomes almost a given, because you can literally buy your way out of consequences (if only up to a point). Maybe the pertinent question is less, "How do we stop there being billionaires who succumb to the temptations of their unfathomable amounts of power?" and more, "How do we stop there being billionaires?".
I find it hard to describe why this comment triggers me... partly because 黃 is the 7th most common surname in China. And I don't think any native speaker would make that connection. It's like saying "haha that guy named Ryan Johnson was adulterous because his surname is slang for a penis!"
You just made me have a flashback to the early 90s when there was a popular brand of t-shirts called 'Big Johnson' with the character E. Normus Johnson. The jokes wrote themselves and I am sort of shocked to see they are actually still in business!
I'd never noticed, but that's the first character in my Japanese family name, and I was once in a relationship with a Chinese girl whose family name was close to huáng.
I joked that she was a PRC intelligence asset because of what a perfect partner she was and came out of nowhere, which doubled as a subtle dig at her family having been supporters of the cultural revolution.
Ai yai yai - resorting to that degree of personal aggression is absolutely not ok on HN, regardless of how bad some comment is or you feel it is.
Your comment would have been fine, and even appropriate, had you stopped at the first sentence. What you wrote after that is much worse than the comment you're criticizing, and obviously a bannable offense.
I don't want to ban you, so if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. We've had to ask you this more than once before.
> Mr. Huang’s security witnessed the bystander with their phone and sequestered them, the people said. They made the person an offer to sign a nondisclosure agreement
This is not their first rodeo, is it? Wonder how much was offered? Did the person take it? ("hey, psst, we'll throw the latest GPU card on the table, how about now?")
Then, will Huang issue another, equally sincere, public apology to his wife about this other affair. He could have grouped them both into a batch for efficiency I guess.
If there are ants in your kitchen they might be coming in due to rain outside.
You can leave sugar water in strategic places and then follow the ant trail to track where they are coming in.
Probably there will be an entire trail of ants in the morning - not just two. You can then track the place where they are coming in and block up the entrance point.
I like how the OP specified the "average" number of ants in the kitchen, as though the distinction is meaningful. Like, yeah, I guess that's technically not wrong? Actually, I'm not even sure of that, because an average here implies that time matters, so... it could be wrong!
As for the above, well, let's just call it art. How should I interpret it? The analogy is that ants are affair partners, and so if I put some sugar water out, they'll all come out of the woodwork. Is this some kind of journalistic or legal exercise for building a body of evidence against Jensen? A mating strategy? I don't know! It could be both of these, either, or none! The limits of my own imagination are laid bare.
On the actual topic, though, anyone who doesn't see why this is a problem needs to think a bit harder. If the CEO puts on the show of being a family man, but is secretly getting hands-on with coworkers and spies, he's a liability to the company. It would be a stretch to say this would be acceptable behaviour even if he were above board about it, because it calls his overall judgement into question, but it would be marginally better. Remember, this is a guy who runs a multi-trillion dollar company that has limits on what it can sell to whom, because the product is a strategic asset. He can cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage (and did!) just through his own personal behaviour. He doesn't get to have lapses like this, and if he does, is he making bad judgement calls elsewhere? It's not like it's hard to not sleep with your coworkers and clients. Billions of us do it every day.
Of course, this could just be the jealous ramblings of someone who doesn't have a sweet leather jacket...
Once the entrance point is blocked, you have the ants trapped, and can begin reeducating them to fight their own kind. Then, after months of work, you unblock the entrances and let them all duke it out, thus solving the problem once and for all.
Maybe it's in the contract that such relationships are verboten. But what if two consenting adults find themselves in a state of mind where they want to pursue a sexual relationship? Do they ask for permission? And to whom - HR? What if it's not granted? Can they temporarily resign for the duration of the encounter, and resume their previous lives?
Uno was highly criticized in public not for having a Geisha mistress, as it was a traditional leisure practice expected of politicians and wealthy men but instead due to relating his poor financial habits in the Japanese Diet as compared and paralleled to the ungenerosity towards his former Geisha mistress.
Oh good, I thought it was just me. I had to ask an LLM to break it down for me, despite being a native English speaker. Turns out it's trying to communicate something completely orthogonal to my initial interpretation.
Is the affair just be on surface like chitchat and dates, holding hands and kissing minus the Elon level of bed and babies? In the traditional western context you have to bed the women to consider affairs. Anything on surface is more like feminist definition of affair. Can anyone confirm the bedding part? Or even babies like Elon?
Not sure why everyone is bringing Musk as an example here, every single of his children alive today [afaik] were had via IVF (why he does it that way is a whole different can of worms), but it changes the consent dynamics quite a bit.
It's one thing to say your boss cornered you in the office, it's a another thing to go through the entire IVF procedure and then pretend you had no chance of escaping or whistleblowing over the however many weeks it takes.
Would prefer if more like Elon tbh, don't cheat and just be open about your relationships with clear consent lines, causes investors far less grief. He's weird and thus when you are investing, you are absolutely clear what sort of person you are investing in.
Maybe I'm too old and stupid but I'm less concerned knowing that the guy has a few mistresses. It makes it less likely that any of these ladies are tugging on his heart strings for the keys to his kingdom. Nvidia security is probably all over these affairs monitoring his communications, personal devices...
I'm not condoning cheating at all, but if you're a billionaire with endless connections around the world, why wouldn't you just go to an escort if you can't keep it in your pants.
I know things are different when you're only thinking with your johnson but jeez, showing up with the same woman in front of the media many times and even displaying affection in front of a camera (there is pictures of them with light body contact afaik), what did he think was going to happen?
it's a power thing - yeah he could go to an escort, but then it becomes only about money. He wants these relationships as a proof of his power; then walking around in public is to flaunt the power, the 'you can't do me nothing, look at me'. Power is the drug.
Everyone is completely indifferent to the white guys who visited Little Saint James, yet a boring affair gets treated like the biggest news in the world.
He's kind of like 'scum bag lite' and now barely qualifies to join the rest of the mega wealthy and powerfull in there conspicuos imunity from censure.
Purely accident that the news dribbles out like that. Nothing to see, moving on.
(If he's done this without his wife's full consent, he's certainly a despicable human, but that doesn't change that this looks like a really nicely orchestrated PR hit job)
I agree with you. I also find it “interesting” that this all really started appearing a few days after DOJ made angry noises about nVidia buying Hugging Face.
Also see our friend Elon Musk,
Bill Gates,
Jeff Bezos,
Finance fundamental research since it is well-known how precarious the job situation in academia is.
Part of the point of all this is that he's supposed to be in control of his emotions and able to make the best decisions without letting his emotions interfere.
If he can't even make the very simple decision to keep his dick in his pants in this very clear breach of commitments he has publicly made, then what other terrible decisions is he making? What other commitments will he break because it feels good and he can't control himself?
I agree but that ship sailed a long time ago and this action is being blown out of proportion.
Look at the president of the US that is a guy who has to go (and all the people around him) and is still in office.
Quite frankly he has had an affair with consenting adult women not trafficked children why are the knives out for him when this is all he has done?
Because he made commitments to people to not do this.
If you promise to do (or not do) something, and then you break that promise, you should be held to account for it. It should be obvious that you cannot be trusted to keep promises in future. Nothing you say should be believed, because you are clearly an untrustworthy person. You should not be trusted to make decisions that involve other people's money.
And, in addition. If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room. If your idea of managing people includes having sex with them, then that is an indication that you are unable to manage people.
This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand. This is about Huang not living up to the professional standards that we expect from people in authority. It's about being a good, trustworthy, custodian of other people's money, and about being a good choice as CEO of this business. Not having enough self-control to avoid these situations is a really good indicator that he is not a good choice for this role, because of that lack of self-control. If he can't control himself, how can he be relied on to control the organisation?
> This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand.
My point was the president who has brought about an expensive war is an example of this times 1000. I think all we can infer from this is he is unfaithful to his wife, the inference you make about his commitment to his fiduciary responsibility is incorrect to me. They are different things and he has not shown he has been a highly effective CEO who actually has technical knowledge.
Perhaps I am overly cynical but I think a lot of CEO's (and other's for that matter) will engage in dishonesty.
Consider Aquinas on merchants (possibly quoting Chrysostom possibly mistaken)
> “He that buys a thing in order that he may sell it, entire and unchanged, at a profit, is the trader who is cast out of God’s temple.”
My claim is not that this practice is wrong per-say but even in this kind of business of arbitrage you can see at guile and cunning, that is hard to deny. Maybe he only lacked the ability to hide it.
I would ask you who would run a business better a man who is unable to use cunning, guile and manipulation (marketing) or one who does not. Their is times when the sort of morality you talk about is important and times where it is a hindrance and most people are evil, if you want the good Aristocratic souls you would do well not to look for it in the world of commerce.
He’s already proven himself to be untrustworthy… what else is he lying about, hmm?
It's a sign of a really bad leader that they do this.
Maybe eventually. After they have been doing it for decades. When it’s inconvenient for folks now.
Notably, every senior woman leader I worked for had something similar going on too.
Notably, it does get folks incensed, and it’s a good way to take out a senior leader if all other leverage fails.
No one is calling him a sinner.
> But one Kentucky teacher said her arrest for an alleged affair with a 16-year-old football player was unfair and untrue and has ruined her career, possibly her life. https://abcnews.com/US/story?id=8221857
Calling a teacher raping a kid an affair.
> According to a report on FOX Baltimore, the victim was a 12-year-old girl and met Laury on the playground of the Pikesville apartment complex where they both lived. The girl was reported missing by her mother in June and was located about a week later inside Laury's apartment, according to the report.
> The report says the girl admitted to having consensual sex with Laury after telling him she was 22-years-old. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/baltimore-city-school-teacher-ch...
"Consensual" sex with a minor. There are many more examples.
Now that I know where you're coming from, yeah, that is interesting.
I say this as a Brit and we are the same, only we are just as perfidious (maybe worse) but hide it from are selves and others so we are easy to blackmail.
Until the medical advances come raining from the sky, that is yet to be proven.
The net effect of the data centers filled with his cards is not positive.
I would have to agree. Also at least three top 40 songs in the US and 7 in Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Rae_Jepsen
You of course are doing your part by not using any of the data centres with his cards right ?
Is it possible you are conflating USD with Nvidia shares that he hasn’t sold? Is he not allowed to have 3.5% of the voting power for Nvidia?
They're already being sued by shareholders over the first affair. The suit claims Nvidia's relationship with Megaspeed posed a "material risk" to Nvidia's reputation and business prospects. Of course sleeping with your own employees is also considered a bad business practice.
It does feel a bit like Jensen is being held to a very much unfairly higher standard than, say, elon, who does drugs, lies extravagantly, has an openly corrupt relationship with the goverment, build the world's biggest deepfake porn machine, etc etc.
I don't disagree that they are being held at different standards, however Elon should really be held far more accountable for his manipulations around Tesla stock, porn machines, Space X fraud etc.
Outside of his fan bubble, Elon Musk is really not well-reputed.
I'm talking fraud. The SEC should be getting involved.
Things that are illegal.
Well, he is her superior in a work setting, so there's that. There can be consequences for rejecting your boss's advances, which is the reason this kind of thing is usually heavily frowned upon!
Different scales, but all should be considered negative and penalised.
Unsurprising to see that the economic illiteracy that plagues reddit has made its way here, a place that is made by billionaires and tries to find and mint new billionaires
Obviously not super relevant to this but that's where people get the idea at least.
My reasoning was that that he had become too powerful while largely avoiding politically charged positions, or other "stuff" that can be used to "control" him.
The political and intelligence establishment doesnt particularly like powerful individuals who remain politically independent.... outside of their control.
That is why ancient wisdom said you should keep low profile if you are super rich.
I hope Jensen can get through this.
So many people here think character doesn't matter but it has now caught up with him as much as it has for Trump.
For years he was in the same anti-human AI hype club way too similar like Altman and he thought no consequences can catch him... it really doesn't take any conspiracy here. Everything he has chosen was all his doing.
Dumb language question: if Powell is married, why isn’t she referred to as Mrs. Powell in this article?
“It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known. This is especially true in written communication, as dictated by professional etiquette. […] It is normally considered correct to address a woman as Ms. [Lastname], regardless of her marital status.”
Hm. Weird. Never seen that before. Let's check the source, emilypost.com:
>Mx. Is the universal title that can be used by anyone. It is gender non-identifying. Even if you identify specifically with a gender you may still use Mx. and you may see Mx. used when the sender is unaware of your title.
https://emilypost.com/advice/guide-to-addressing-corresponde...
OK, im out. I'm immediately out.
Miss indicated that a woman was unmarried. Mrs indicated that she was. Ms was added to behave like Mr in that it doesn't indicate marital status.
Especially in a business context, it would be unprofessional to ask if a woman is married or not merely for determining which title to use. Unless you want to have an affair with her, of course.
This is taught to children in the United States. I didn't go to an especially good school and I remember it to this day. If you're not from the US the custom may be different.
Perhaps you will consider the advice from Grammarly [0] as a more acceptable source.
[0] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/ms-mr...
No doubt, in today's absurdly woke school system.
Have you experienced this first hand? Have you done any research? Have you read any peer reviewed papers on the matter that concluded this as a trend?
there is woman,
and there is Klinefelter's.
(worth the karma hit)
Once that's in place, I would feel better about the use of Mrs.
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.htm...
Many people find it demeaning to address women differently depending on whether or not they are married, especially when we don't do the same for men.
I was always taught it was 'Master' for unmarried and young men.
I remember when I was a kid, bank correspondence would address me as MASTER. I found it amusing.
I don’t think they do that anymore though??? I think our son has always been MR to them, even when he was a 5 year old
She insisted they get my surname only. So that's what they have.
Notably, both my (now ex) wives insisted on taking my last name. I didn’t really care either way.
> [Ms. is] intended as a default form of address for women regardless of marital status. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.
Wikipedia tries to make it sound like it’s some old tradition, but it’s actually fairly new, with the prior historical references being obscure until it was resurrected. It’s right there in the article:
> “Ms. was another acceptable, but rarely used, abbreviation for Mistress in England in the 17th and 18th centuries.[12] During the 19th century, however, Mrs. and Miss came to be associated almost exclusively with marital status,[13] and Ms. was popularized as an alternative in the late 20th century“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/insider/1986-ms-joins-the...
I don’t understand this need to rewrite history. Nobody in this thread is objecting to the use of the term. Even the wikipedia article says the term was resurrected in the 80s.
Skeletor will return next week with more disturbing reminders about passage of time...
The term is recent in a linguistic sense. Even if you personally think it’s ancient history, “my dude”, there are plenty of us alive where it was invented in our lifetime.
A teacher explained this to me in elementary school as some new fad.
> Skeletor will return next week with more disturbing reminders about passage of time...
Classy edit, btw.
I realize that the average age on HN is quite young, but we're not talking about ancient history here.
That’s cute. Now try searching for the median age in developed countries, where people care enough to make up revisionist history about minor culture debates? (nevermind, I did it for you; it’s around 50)
More to the point, what’s the human lifespan in first-world countries? (average lifespan in the US is almost 80)
(All this is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that perhaps disparaging people for being older than you is not such a bright idea. I know it’s hard to believe, but we’re not going anywhere for a while.)
Someone on a parallel thread explicitly called the 1980s “ancient”, so whatever.
I hope your day looks up.
You could have avoided the issue entirely by using clearer language like "in the last 40 years."
The idea that I was claiming things older than me are "irrelevant" is nowhere near orbit of anything I wrote.
(Also I don't know if you are American but I am and the median American is around 39.4).
I said the word is recent, linguistically and culturally. I said it was "fairly new". I also said when it was popularized, in terms of actual decades (70s-80s).
You've chosen to die on this particular hill of whether or not something is "recent". I don't know why.
What was that all about if you both perfectly agree on the timeline?
> Classy edit, btw.
Edit? I did not edit my post. I think you may not understand what that means. It is neither classy nor unclassy, it is a type of meme.
It's simply a fact that the term was revived in the 70s and popularized in the 80s. The person I replied to was trying to imply that was incorrect, by suggesting that the NY Times was some long-time holdout.
Given the magnitude of more recent shifts in language around equity, 50 years is ancient.
So your argument is that anyone with a memory longer than yours, yet well within the median human lifespan, is “ancient”.
Okay, then. Good luck with that.
Deftly convincing my rhetorical opponent of my youthful vigor by misunderstanding what they wrote and getting noticeably worked up about being called ‘ancient’
Gloria Steinem cofounded Ms. Magazine in the early 70s which helped popularize it further.
Anyway, how old are you that well over half a century is “fairly new” to you? Do you still wear galoshes and use a mimeograph?
If an abbreviation is never expanded, is it still an abbreviation? Personally I think it isn’t; I advocate for condensing i.e./e.g. to simply ie and eg, though this is a minority opinion.
But when Mrs first stood for Mistress, the word Mistress wasn't "loaded" at all.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/mistress
Only in English.
Because she is about to be single?
Edit: honestly, this one feels like a moralistic freak out more than anything. Who cares about sex with the non-spy lady?
If it's true that he had the affair with the CCP spy or otherwise was encouraged to sell GPUs using loopholes that violate export bans, that would put him and NVDA into some hot water.
Investors do not like that and the implications for any rapid change in NVDA valuation would be immense.
You don’t have a right to a workspace free of social discomfort or pressure though. Feeling some pressure to bring them a donut isn’t protected in the same way unless it’s becoming harassment.
Also, if you cannot comprehend that there are issues of consent when it comes to having a sexual relationship with someone whose career you can destroy with no consequences, then I seriously hope you never get a management position. Elon's boards seem to be okay with this, but that is not the norm.
Regardless, the saying, "don't shit where you eat" exists for a reason. Huang engaging in this relationship shows profound poor judgment. Is it wise to have someone with such poor judgment running a company of Nvidia's scale and importance?
https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-16-states-where-its-illeg...
It is basically the difference between impropriety and appearance or possibility of impropriety
So you prohibit it in all cases, punish in all cases, and then you don't have to wade into that mess.
2. having sex with your own subordinate employee seems like potential abuse of power for starters and it is just calling for lawsuit, because while she can say today it was consensual, tomorrow she can say the other way
if he would be having sex with random girls he found in bars it would be certainly less problematic than having sex with people who are directly related to his company
btw. it also shows his character, if he was unfaithful once, he was unfaithful twice, do you really think these are only two cases and it ends just with his sex life?
But the extramarital affair with Alice Huang is quite different. NYTimes reports that Alice Huang is a Chinese spy, with whom Jensen Huang may have conspired to break the law, selling advanced NVIDIA chips to China. That affair puts the whole company at extreme legal risk. Gates, Bezos, and Brin have nothing like this on their records that I'm aware of.
As I write this, the top post on HN speculates that this is "the tip of the iceberg," indicating that there at least may be more affairs yet to be uncovered, and, plausibly, Jensen Huang may have committed even more enormous mistakes with serious consequences for NVIDIA.
Troy 2.0
In addition Nvidia is incredibly tech-heavy company. You need another EE with experience with AI chip design and business. Just having good experienced businessman looking at simplified powerpoints before making decisions of technical issues is probably not enough.
And I'm pretty sure Jenson resigning without a suitable, almost identical successor will kill NVIDIA, the way Intel and AMD and IBM became mere husks of what they were, with no possible road to another western replacement in sight.
It's odd that you seem to consider two /entirely opposed/ hypotheses as being similar to one another. Superficially, "I'm fairly convinced [this is an intel op of some kind]" makes the two seem similar, but each comes with an implicit set of consequences, right? So it's really "I'm fairly convinced [this is supposed to be really advantageous to the west because of these suspected consequences for the west] or that it's [really harmful to the west because of these other suspected consequences]". It seems odd to suspect two highly opposed set of consequences as both being reasonably likely and thus admitting to two diametrically opposed motivations for the same act.
Nvidia is incredibly valuable, in large part due to Jenson.
The US is aligned with Nvidia, but it does not have total control and so is largely beholden to its choices. Amung other things, the US is paranoid about the resource ever aligning with China (thus export controls). Jenson may refuse to cede more control.
China is misaligned with Nvidia, due to competition with the US. It will never have any control, and thus wants it removed from alignment with the US to mitigate their advantage.
Both superpowers have vast intelligence networks with a long history of causing untold human suffering in pursuit of their short-term, often meaningless goals.
Suddenly, Jenson is under attack from all angles over something relatively unrelated and meaningless to Nvidia - certainly disproportional to his role as arguably one of the most important people on the planet. Within a day, with no actual information of what happened, major media companies are calling for Jenson to be removed from his position.
This could benefit the US government, who can now get a replacement more amenable to, say, the surveillance state or more ideologically opposed to China. Destruction of Nvidia be damned, the CIA hasn't though more than 2 years ahead since the 60s.
This could benefit China, as this could cause a rapid decline in Nvidia's progress and therefore the West's ability to continue beating China - in particularly since there seems to be no one capable of filling the gap if it were to happen.
> And I'm pretty sure Jenson resigning without a suitable, almost identical successor will kill NVIDIA
Maybe, but Nvidia bears responsibility for having such poorly de-risked corporate governance. It's actually shocking that the company propping up the entire AI industry (and thus the US economy) is led by a CEO with no COO and dozens of direct reports. Jensen thought he was invincible because he positioned himself to have total control of the company operations, which certainly didn't encourage him to think twice about making the mistakes he did. He acted out because he felt empowered to, and it's easy why.
My argument isn't that Jensen didn't do it - I have no doubt he had multiple affairs. He already admitted to the first one!
My argument is that the President of the United States raped children and nobody even talks about it anymore. So Jensen fucking consenting 50 year-olds and suddenly having the CIA outing him (after knowing about it for a year apparently), and every major media company calling for his resignation over it, before any actual investigations finish and over something seemingly neither illegal or particularly related to his work is weird.
> Occam's razor.
In light of the above, I would say Occam's razor is someone is trying to get rid of Jensen.
Reporting by both NYT and WSJ has said there have been two opposing factions in the White House on China/AI policy since Trump was elected. The Model Hawks want to Keep America Strong by slowing China's progress in advanced AI models. They think the best way to do that is by stopping US advanced AI hardware going to China (as much as we can).
The Hardware Hawks wants to Keep America Strong by slowing the development of China's homegrown advanced AI hardware industry. They think the best way to do that is by ONLY selling US semi-advanced AI hardware to China that's slightly more powerful than what China could make on their own now.
Trump vacillates between the two factions (sometimes daily), as indicated by banning the sale of certain semi-advanced chips, then later reversing that ban. The argument to reverse the ban was because before any ban, NVidia had >90% of China's domestic market and after a couple years of ban that was down to ~50%, with the difference funding the development of China's AI hardware industry.
I think both factions actually have valid points and don't know which would be better. However, to your point about the reason for these leaks of >6 month-old intelligence reports now - it's that Jensen (and NVidia) have always been pro "Keep America Strong by slowing China's domestic hardware industry." Sure, that's in their interest but there are a lot of serious people who aren't at NVidia who are Hardware Hawks too. If China's domestic AI hardware companies are Mice, NVidia is the Cat saying, "I was keeping your mouse problem under 10% until you locked me out and now it's 50%. Let me back in and I'll get it under control again."
Jensen has developed a pretty good relationship with Trump and is able to sometimes sway his opinion. Whether this is good or bad depends on which kind of Hawk you are. For example, Jensen was invited to go on Trump's first China trip and the Model Hawks were not happy. On Trump's second trip, the Model Hawks managed to keep Jensen from being invited and the Hardware Hawks were not happy. Air Force One left Washington without Jensen, but then stopped in Alaska and picked up Jensen - which made the Model Hawks crazy. The Model Hawks made sure the intelligence report about Alice being a suspected asset for Chinese intelligence was included in briefing report sent to Trump back in May. But that didn't get Trump to stop listening to Jensen sometimes (Today, Trump claimed he "doesn't remember seeing the report, or if I did see it, it didn't make a big impression on me").
So who benefits by these old reports about Alice from May leaking now and blowing up all over the news? Maybe people upset that Jensen keeps unswaying Trump after he's been swayed?
BTW, Jensen and NVidia have consistently been Hardware Hawks since long before Jensen met Alice in March 2024. Arguably, any NVidia CEO has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to be a law-abiding Hardware Hawk. Also, the WSJ has reported that Chinese intelligence first developed Alice into an asset because of her relationship with Jensen. Because export controls were bad for her data center company, Alice was obviously already on the Hardware Hawk side before being an info source for Chinese intelligence.
The under-reported story (dig a little on WSJ) is that after nearly two years of Commerce and Justice Dept investigating Megaspeed, the US govt still hasn't put Megaspeed on the blocked Entity List (which they can do anytime without explanation). No one knows why and congress is starting to ask about it. BUT, strangely, NVidia voluntarily placed Megaspeed on their own blocked list in June 2025 and hasn't sold any new GPUs to Megaspeed since then (they did ship a few repair parts and replacement components after June for warranty support). So... "Good Guy NVidia?" Well, maybe more like "Don't-want-to-go-to-jail-for-decades NVidia." You see, these export controls have the same severe penalties as selling cruise missiles and it's a 'strict liability' regulation on suppliers. That means if a supplier "knew, or should have known" that GPUs were being diverted, they would be guilty - and that's potentially serious jail time for every individual employee who knew and personal fines up to $1M per card. So... yeah, Alice banging Jensen didn't stop Megaspeed getting cut-off by NVidia just over a year after she met him. What do those confusing and conflicting bits mean? I have no idea - other than this whole thing is a shit show all around and it's not even a blue vs red thing. There are Model and Hardware Hawks in both parties.
certainly sounds like that's the case, yup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd
Rest in peace.
Musk is also very "out" about it. Kinda like how it's okay to be gay in the CIA, as long as you're out. Being in the closet gets you fired because it makes you blackmailable.
morally I don't really disagree with you, but practically I do.
Not a lifestyle I could ever be proud of living personally but ymmv and elon seems to be enjoying himself.
It's inappropriate to use coercion.
2. Other employees might feel that the employee having sex with the manager is getting better treatment at work.
This is questionable in the context of one of the adults holding a position of power. Also, even when assuming the adults are peers, there's another saying 'Don't shit where you eat' which is rooted in a lot of stories of workplace relationships going wrong in very creative ways.
It's a corporate governance problem because the relationship can be seen as tainting personnel decisions. But that's HR optics versus morality.
Note that I'm not defending Huang, but I think he's done for because of the spy thing more than because of this.
Which, ironically, swaps the power imbalance.
This is why you should only do one shitty thing at a time and not multiple.
For this conclusion to be valid, you have to provide the proportion of tech ceos who cheat.
every argument that attempts to humanize and 'us too' these types of folks (billionaires that own islands and ultra-yachts) totally bewilders me.
the thing that's stopping Joe from the gas station is that he lacks the yacht and the credit line, not any ethics. Jensen's no more or less human than anyone else. The issue with megacorporation's is structural, not some "these types of people' provincial nonsense
my wife and I date other people, you'd be surprised how big the ENM/Poly community is when you start looking
With the decline in religious attendance has come a decline in marriage; from 70%+ to 50%ish over the last couple generations
But divorce rate has declined so those that do marry seem to really want it; in the before times though it was how women survived
Coupling fits with biological imperative to have partners but longterm/for life is obviously not necessary since divorce is common too, partners die, etc
That and recent research shows long term married couples are 50% more likely to develop dementia; an imbalance in effort develops where one becomes codependent and forgets how to live and the partner in charge loses grip of themselves and taking care of their partner consumes them.
Being primary caregiver to a spouse who has dementia does substantially increase the caregiver's risk of cognitive decline due to caregiver burnout. [1]
I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to express.
[0] https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/89/3/231
[1] https://www.ovid.com/jnls/neurotodayonline/fulltext/10.1097/...
18 year study found unmarried more likely to not have dementia:
https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz...
So either way, like how if ya live long enough some kind of cancer would get ya, so will mental illness
No beating physics
I think the easier way of looking at it is this: there is a Lancet commission that produces robust characterizations of the modifiable risk factors that lead to dementia. If you're in a marriage that promotes reducing those risk factors, you'll likely have a lower risk of dementia. Isolating one variate like this raises interesting questions, but isn't a "smoking gun'-- especially in this case since the authors themselves indicate this is a surprising result given other studies.
https://www.thelancet.com/infographics-do/dementia-risk
Seems just as reasonable but less verbose; we appear to get cancer and mental illness with old age regardless of social conditions around us. Physics and entropy win again regardless of the care we put into our semantics.
Regardless my original point was about "long term".
"Marriage staves of mental health" and "a single, long term marriage improves mental health outcomes" are two different things.
Could just be a tight knit quasi-nuclear family social circle is sufficient too but social desirability biases lead is to lean into marriage tradition.
Source: dude trust me
Tell that to all the animals that exhibit long-term, often life-long coupling.
https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/intel-ceo-resigns...
They used it against him 7 years later. He wasn't ousted because of his relationship. It's just the tool they used.
Also he wasn't CEO at the time of his relationship.
It also wasn't an affair. He was single at the time.
They'd go as far as to call it a virtue. Silicon Valley is the greatest domestic enemy this country has ever seen. They've built entire machines to protect, reward, and normalize antisocial activity.
lol, I called it perfectly even.
For a time, Kansas was the "Breadbasket of the Soviet Union".
Don't cherry pick.
What even is the problem with that really?
Did you not see his leather jackets?
We should have high standards for who is allowed to have this job. Huang should be replaced as easily and quickly as any mid-level executive who costs his company 340 billion in market cap.
He is not that easy to replace.
So it's all opportunistic, at this point.
Then Investor lawsuit kick off, more allegations, a big drop, profit. Then "oh well", "can't prove it".
This was all immensely quick, putting together an investor's lawsuit this fast, other allegations waiting...
It's almost as if someone had the lawsuit ready to go.
But I agree, anyone within the Nvidia circle looking to spread the information is certainly not doing it to help Jensen.
so no, IMO, not likely China
The same people who want to ban open-weight models. For safety, of course.
Desire is the enemy of happiness. To abandon sorrow, abjure want.
We are all in wanting. Our want in lesser that the needs of our partners, our friends, and our world.
my point being, Buffet still is Buffet.
hopes Jepsen life privacy is kept and they solved it backstage whatever they like.
In terms of sexual crimes, I think there's cases and situations where there can be coercion, but it's not necessarily the case.
Oh also it's a breach of the marital contract of course.
Marital contracts are not unlike commercial contracts and we are finding out the CEO is in the (non)business of systematically violating them.
Ya'll need help.
I hated the misogynistic narrative that Huang was somehow helpless against a super-spy-seductress. Men can in fact control themselves, and it takes a lot of effort, you might even say willpower, to turn a business meeting into a bedroom encounter, especially when you're in the public eye. If Huang was targeted, it was because he was an easy target, a philanderer.
For good reason. The level of fuck-up in sleeping with a Chinese spy and then having the gall to try and corruptly quash the investigations into it, coming clean only after Congress flips, is nuts.
I’m not convinced a good CEO can’t have affairs. I am convinced a liar and corrupter can’t.
Maybe his autographing that women's bra (boob?) at a trade show was a red flag…
I pity whomever is in a relationship with someone who actually thinks that way. I'm disgusted, to be honest.
Perhaps don't get married then, or have a consensual open relationship.
I love all these comments that are basically like "what's the point of being a billionaire if you can't stick your dick wherever you want when the mood strikes you and lie about it to your wife."
That's totally a joke people would make. Joking about nominative determinism happens all the time.
I joked that she was a PRC intelligence asset because of what a perfect partner she was and came out of nowhere, which doubled as a subtle dig at her family having been supporters of the cultural revolution.
> sexually obscene; pornographic
0: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/黃
https://hyperallergic.com/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huangs-situation...
Prostotution is legal there. I never availed myself in this, but I saw what was available in the Provenza.
Cartagena is accustomed to this, but Medellin is not so much.
I am a follower of Kant, a formulation of his categorical imperative is that "we never treat people as a means, but always as ends in themselves."
I try not to touch people, because that is a big ask.
Your comment would have been fine, and even appropriate, had you stopped at the first sentence. What you wrote after that is much worse than the comment you're criticizing, and obviously a bannable offense.
I don't want to ban you, so if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. We've had to ask you this more than once before.
This is not their first rodeo, is it? Wonder how much was offered? Did the person take it? ("hey, psst, we'll throw the latest GPU card on the table, how about now?")
Then, will Huang issue another, equally sincere, public apology to his wife about this other affair. He could have grouped them both into a batch for efficiency I guess.
People don't see the money, the global geopolitical issues at stake - they see the man - they see the jacket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6gHS-eJNCQ
> Everything that happens once can never happen again. But everything that happens twice will surely happen a third time.
I've found that to be a very useful heuristic.
You can leave sugar water in strategic places and then follow the ant trail to track where they are coming in.
Probably there will be an entire trail of ants in the morning - not just two. You can then track the place where they are coming in and block up the entrance point.
As for the above, well, let's just call it art. How should I interpret it? The analogy is that ants are affair partners, and so if I put some sugar water out, they'll all come out of the woodwork. Is this some kind of journalistic or legal exercise for building a body of evidence against Jensen? A mating strategy? I don't know! It could be both of these, either, or none! The limits of my own imagination are laid bare.
On the actual topic, though, anyone who doesn't see why this is a problem needs to think a bit harder. If the CEO puts on the show of being a family man, but is secretly getting hands-on with coworkers and spies, he's a liability to the company. It would be a stretch to say this would be acceptable behaviour even if he were above board about it, because it calls his overall judgement into question, but it would be marginally better. Remember, this is a guy who runs a multi-trillion dollar company that has limits on what it can sell to whom, because the product is a strategic asset. He can cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage (and did!) just through his own personal behaviour. He doesn't get to have lapses like this, and if he does, is he making bad judgement calls elsewhere? It's not like it's hard to not sleep with your coworkers and clients. Billions of us do it every day.
Of course, this could just be the jealous ramblings of someone who doesn't have a sweet leather jacket...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dsuke_Uno#Economics
It's one thing to say your boss cornered you in the office, it's a another thing to go through the entire IVF procedure and then pretend you had no chance of escaping or whistleblowing over the however many weeks it takes.
Would prefer if more like Elon tbh, don't cheat and just be open about your relationships with clear consent lines, causes investors far less grief. He's weird and thus when you are investing, you are absolutely clear what sort of person you are investing in.
Perhaps his cousin can help him get a new job at a chip firm.
I know things are different when you're only thinking with your johnson but jeez, showing up with the same woman in front of the media many times and even displaying affection in front of a camera (there is pictures of them with light body contact afaik), what did he think was going to happen?
Will NVDA board give Huang a no-confidence vote before end of year, and give him the golden parachute?
He should have retired and done a handover last month and left at his peak to a beach villa on Maui...
(If he's done this without his wife's full consent, he's certainly a despicable human, but that doesn't change that this looks like a really nicely orchestrated PR hit job)