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.

Less stringent export controls are also what he would and should have been arguing for both as a business executive and, paradoxically, probably even even if he was lobbying for US interests. US leadership keeps making the same dumb mistake. When you restrict access to some advanced technology to another technologically advanced country, it's not like the other country just cries and beg you to give it back. Nothing is so advanced that it can't be replicated.

So you going from the other country being fully dependent upon you (putting you at an economic/geopolitical edge) to urgently incentivizing them to make their own advances in the restricted industry, which may eventually surpass your own achievements. For instance the Wolf Amendment [1] is the reason China was never allowed on the 'international' ISS. [1] The idea is that they'd just steal all of our tech or something. So it simply led to the Chinese creating their own space station while the ISS continues to deteriorate with no replacement in sight.

Same thing with chips. Come back to this post in ~15 years.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment

Do you think that's at competition with what I said? I don't think so. I simply stated that his affair either has the power to be demonstrably important here or not at all. I am responding to threads and threads full of people that seem to mostly care about the fact that he had an affair.

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.

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

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

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.