| ▲ | torginus 9 hours ago |
| Which is exactly the right attitude to have. He's not a hollywood celeb, nor is he even a politician. He was involved in a private scandal, that doesn't compromise his ability to lead a company to profitability, no matter what I think of him a a person. The market has reacted this way for a reason - Nvidia share prices fell a lot over the past few days. If the espionage probe was serious (and it was known about in intelligence circles going back as much as a year), it would be handle much differently, with charges brought agains him or his company being sanctioned. |
|
| ▲ | drakythe 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Person A having an affair with Person B when Person B is a direct report or directly within Person A's power in the company is a disqualification for leadership. Full stop. It is an abuse and shows that Person A is willing to abuse their position for personal gain. They cannot be trusted any longer. |
| |
| ▲ | csallen 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying I disagree, but you should be aware that it's just an opinion. You're stating it as if it's some sort of objective fact. Many people could just say the exact opposite of your sentence, i.e. "not a disqualification" and "can still be trusted". Furthermore, These people could supply many historical examples of leaders who did similar things and went on to remain great/effective leaders of the things they were charged to lead. | | |
| ▲ | enraged_camel 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying I disagree, but you should be aware that it's just an opinion. You're stating it as if it's some sort of objective fact. It may not be a fact per se, but in the United States it is widely agreed upon that romantic relationships with subordinates is a big no-no from an ethics perspective (due to power dynamics and high potential for abuse), in addition to being a serious liability for the company. | | |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Exactly how would this constitute a “serious liability” for the company? | | |
| ▲ | drakythe 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | When a manager has a romantic relationship with a subordinate they could, theoretically, show that employee favortism and/or make their work life miserable. Now any promotion or raise or privilege or punishment the employee receives is under scrutiny. Did the Manager have any say in it? Was another employee dismissed out of hand for the position because they passed on the manager's advances? All of this is a problem when the romantic relationship is known and on the level, when its an affair it is VERY problematic. The employees involved in the affair may sue for retaliation due to some circumstance, or another employee may sue because they feel they were passed over for a promotion or position. Others might have suspected something and been made to feel their job was in danger if they asked questions. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | torginus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've seen people date their bosses and/or subordinates, and it was not an abuse of power, they just happened to like each other. | |
| ▲ | voxl 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is moral grandstanding with no substance. | | | |
| ▲ | Panoramix 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh, like Bill Clinton? | | |
| ▲ | drakythe 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, like Bill Clinton. Also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Another powerful person wasn't punished while the woman he took advantage of was. That doesn't make this okay. It is a thing that happened and that we should strive to eliminate. | |
| ▲ | LetsGetTechnicl 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The one who was impeached? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | afavour 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If the espionage probe was serious (and it was known about in intelligence circles going back as much as a year), it would be handle much differently, with charges brought agains him or his company being sanctioned. My pet theory about why it was leaked is because the very serious reports were sent to the White House and they then did absolutely nothing about it. Just because this, wildly corrupt, current administration has not brought charges does not mean it won't happen in the future. |
|
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | mcmcmc 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The current DOJ is not a serious organization, so them not pursuing charges doesn’t really say anything It’s also absurd that you’d think this is totally fine when the smart shareholders will be suing Nvidia for their malfeasance in evading export controls and incompetence in making sure their CEO doesn’t violate sexual harassment laws |
| |
| ▲ | torginus 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't get it; why would shareholders sue for evading export controls? That was a profit-chasing move, that lead to a higher share price. It was not illegal either. Also dating your coworker is not sexual harassment - sexual harassment is when you make unwelcome advances |
|
|
| ▲ | robrain 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > with charges brought agains him or his company being sanctioned. With a sane administration that hadn't possibly looked the other way due to emoluments (allegedly), maybe. Who knows what the response will be from the current mob (gentle pun intended). |
|
| ▲ | eatsyourtacos 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Spoken like someone who puts all his eggs in something he has no control over. It's crazy how oblivious you are to this insane situation "investing" has become in this country. It's gambling. You don't control anything. You just hope for the best. It's all a house of cards. |
