" has been launched if for no other purpose than to rule that out.

This is false and basically slander.

The statement from Nvidia indicates no such thing.

They are investigating the fact that Jensen was the target of a Foreign Intelligence Operation - literally those are the words.

The target of the government's investigation is her (Alice Huang) not him.

They are not 'investigating Jensen', it's an unfair misrepresentation.

No - this is not true.

They are not 'investigating the CEO' - they are investigating the situation.

In the press release they are investigating the fat that Jensen 'was the target of an operation'.

I think the misrepresentative nature of your comment proves my point.

> board of directors have no jurisdiction to investigate an "influence operation on their CEO", and even if they did, they have no power to do anything about it

They don't need to, but of course they can. You hire investigators and an outside law firm to dig stuff up.

It is literally not straight from the source.

Source:

"initiating an independent investigation in light of recent reporting that founder and CEO Jensen Huang has been the target of a foreign intelligence effort."

They are investigating a situation where their CEO was the target of an Op - that's totally reasonable and doesn't remotely hint that he has done something wrong.

This is the right thing for the board to do: "We are investigating the situation because we have been informed that foreign actors may have targeted our staff".

Please use the whole quote:

> I, as a shareholder, do not care if the CEO is having an affair so long as the business is not affected. If you can establish the latter, then his personal conduct is between him and his partner.

If you read the second sentence then you and I agree. I care if the business is affected, I don't if it is not and then the rest of this is a personal matter that doesn't need to be a news story because it is gossip.

Yes. For one, it makes them vulnerable to blackmail, so their decisions can no longer be trusted.

Right. Nothing much that can be done here, though she might not want to visit relatives on holiday.

Yup treason is the correct term if Alice Huang were a US Citizen. But they're not.

That is a quid pro quo, that is not the same as simply having an affair with another powerful executive.

If nothing else, it's a distraction. And it tarnishes the street's golden image of NVIDIA.

What is wrong with these VIPs? I always thought when you become a big, important CEO or politician, they gave you The Book and the first chapter says "Just bang your hot Chinese mistress. Don't tell her any secrets." Jeez, how dumb are these guys?

I think you'll be rather disappointed. This is a view I've held since college that's stayed with me to this day. The same logic I see on display in this thread is what I heard when Republicans were going after Bill Clinton. The fact that he lied was the cherry on top, they were very eager to charge him with some kind of moral crime. The fact that the moral crime existed was a giant distraction to the actual risks, and the risks largely didn't exist if the moral crime did not exist.

Cheating employees is practically entry level stakes for being a CEO. Not only is it tolerated, it's celebrated(at least in the United States).

Cheating shareholders, esp large ones is a big no no since there are real consequences for CEOs engaging in such behaviour.

I certainly don't condone it but nonetheless the underlying motivations as well as the potential consequences of those behaviors seem almost entirely unrelated to me.

It speaks more to not having entered into a compatible relationship than anything else. I've been in a situationship where effectively if my state still had common law marriage, we'd be married, but there's no cheating in the relationship because frankly we're on the same page that these labels are a form of control to begin with. One can only get blackmailed by something one is embarrassed about. I don't believe in vice as a concept that anything but artificially created low-hanging fruit by authorities to create leverage out of normal human activities, so feel free to blackmail me on who I sleep with or not sleep with, I... don't care. Once the statute of limitation passes, same goes for drug use or other victimless crimes that are "against society". The state created the situation that opens one up to blackmail for no reason besides the enforcement of one particular set of perceived norms. As an individual, I call bullshit on the coercion. If societal pressure is all that is responsible to create the rationale and reason for deception, how can it not be fundamentally a crock of shit.

There's no indication that there's nonconsent involved, nor any actual espionage. this is a way to impress upon someone a set of moral code that is arbitrary and capricious with extreme social coercion. To judge by that standard is pretty close to the anti-gay hysteria of the McCarthyist era. Enough is enough.

40% is a pretty high percentage where they don't get removed.

Accurate literally, but misleading to anyone who speaks English.

> dangerous naïveté or a lack of discretion with respect to company secrets and devices is just as bad

It can be mitigated. Lying cannot.

> Nvidia Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang said the chipmaker’s dealings with Megaspeed International were “normal and not unusual”

https://archive.is/ljGPF

No lie here.

> if there was any evidence that he actually compromised US national security he would already be gone.

It's likely the story coming out like this is the best mitigation they can come up with, if AI is a national security interest of the US and he's granting a Chinese asset access to said interests. He's already conspiring with a foreign government against the interests of the US.

That he's extremely visible in his role is probably the only reason he's still around, until next week or whenever. The US doesn't vanish prominent CEOs like that, that's more a China thing.

Oh my, that’s quite the confident response. Do you have any particular info on this that I’m missing?

> if there was any evidence that he actually compromised US national security he would already be gone

Seriously? Our intelligence community and corporate governance is just operating in perfect shape right now?

> there isn't even any evidence that the woman is a Chinese asset

Lol got it.

>if there was any evidence that he actually compromised US national security he would already be gone

okay that's a joke in this administration right, the sitting American president is a threat to American national security and they made a woman who took private trips to Assad the Director of National Intelligence. If you're capable of selling out American national interests to foreign autocrats chances are that'll you'll be appointed special envoy and get a promotion rather than the opposite

It's public now - the concern is obviously regarding the period of time when it wasn't public.

They can go public with more information that we don't know yet, but the man does.