We need to be careful not to equate the two affairs as being countable apples-to-apples. An affair with a customer executive that generates several billions dollars of revenue has a much different risk/reward profile for the board than an affair with a direct report employee within the company. The former also has much lower legal risk: bribery laws aren’t properly calibrated for this circumstance and sexual harassment laws are less applicable. As far as the board is concerned, I imagine they’re fine with him having an affair for every single $5B+ signature as long as he’s delivering the goods and doing so without getting caught so overtly that sales are impacted — thus the vote of confidence! — but that internal affair suggests bad judgment rather than greed-driven judgment, and exposes Nvidia to harassment discovery claims and/or exposes that he lied to the board about not having internal affairs, so he’s out.

▲

lazide a day ago | parent [-]

When the affair with the customer executive involves deals that directly violate federal law? Don’t bet on it.

▲

altairprime a day ago | parent [-]

Assuming that federal law is enforced neutrally and uniformly, your point is completely correct.

That assumption has not held to date in this presidential cycle, and Jensen Huang has openly had the backing of that president. From a financial perspective, that would considerably lower their financial risk estimate of either having to pay a fine and/or hand over one or two C-level executives for some rich person prison-vacation time. I would assume the board is competent and has verbally, off the record, discussed how many billions of dollars they expect to be fined in the worst case and accepted that as the cost of doing (corrupt) business, but we could get lucky and find they did so with a paper trail that’ll come out in court someday :D

▲

lazide a day ago | parent [-]

As long as the president has power….. current election makes him look like a lame duck.

Coincidence?

▲

altairprime a day ago | parent [-]

No, I’m assuming it’s not an applicable coincidence here in this specific instance, since the Board wouldn’t have made a statement of faith on November 8th if it was; they are likely an amoral entity but definitely neither an irrational nor oblivious one, and the elections outcomes were well understood by then.

▲

lazide a day ago | parent [-]

Uh huh.

▲

altairprime a day ago | parent [-]

You are, of course, welcome to present a counter-argument.

▲

lazide a day ago | parent [-]

Why, when you ignore it?

It’s like talking to the void.

▲

altairprime a day ago | parent [-]

Your two claims are that federal law will dissuade Nvidia’s board and execs from knowingly pursuing and profiting from illegal activity, and that Nvidia is throwing Jensen to the wolves to appease the populace after a failed AI election.

If I’ve misstated either of your claims, that’s unsurprising — given their paucity, no apology is due for that — but I’m still open to being corrected on understanding what you’re claiming. Or: If I’ve restated your two claims accurately, then I both haven’t ignored what you’ve said and I disagree with your claims as presented so far.

> Uh huh.

Note that I’ve disregarded this reply as either a claim or an argument, as I could discern neither when considering it under the ‘best possible interpretation’ site guidance. Perhaps a more plainspoken and less slang(?) reply would be more parseable.

	▲	lazide 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Those were not my claims. merely that they would be likely one element in a calculus, that also includes PR blowback from affairs - and likely change in control of ~ 4% of the companies shares in a divorce. and that an affair with a customer exec with apparent chinese spying connections, along with billions of dollars of sales to her company in likely violation of export controls isn’t as likely to be let slide with the president being in apparent lame duck mode - since you brought up his apparent friendliness with Trump.