| ▲ | comrade1234 a day ago |
| Why? Seriously why would you take part in this? This shows bad judgement. |
|
| ▲ | ozgrakkurt a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't like him or Nvidia but you can't deny he was the CEO while they achieved exraordinary things. He is just very successful no matter which way you put it. I don't just mean making money successful like polymarket etc. but he was the head of a company that created multiple huge technical achievements in past decades. He made huge bets on multiple things and the bets actually worked in the end. And they will very likely replace him with a bunch of accountants. It is not hard to understand why someone would want to have him as a leader instead of an accountant. |
| |
| ▲ | lavendermon a day ago | parent [-] | | His ability to make huge bets and stick with them was very impressive. Unfortunately his risk taking in personal measures wasn't so good. |
|
|
| ▲ | x-complexity a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Seriously why would you take part in this? Because no one else can fill the shoes. The best that the next CEO can do is either: a) make improvements on what exists, and thus effectively stagnate in a moving hardware industry, or b) cut staff (which Nvidia has only done twice in its history: 1996 (near-bankruptcy), and around 2008 (360 / 6.5%), right in the middle of ironing out the Tesla architecture). The moment their CFO took over, they already announced layoffs. https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaTalk/comments/1xu5wzy/nvidia... The CFO is almost never one that makes unique product decisions. |
| |
| ▲ | jltsiren a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Because no one else can fill the shoes. Alexander the Great was an extraordinary warlord and a mediocre king. He died unexpectedly, and his empire collapsed immediately. Securing succession is a huge part of leadership in any organization that is supposed to outlast its leader. Because unexpected things can happen at any time, a leader must keep the organization in a shape, where a plausible successor can take over and continue leading it successfully. If no such successors exist, the leader has not done their job properly. | | |
| ▲ | x-complexity a day ago | parent [-] | | > If no such successors exist, the leader has not done their job properly. This presupposes that there are successors that can fill the roles. Even after curation, what's left will very rarely match what's required, doubly so with tech-centric companies. The CFO now in charge is the perfect example of this. A regression to the mean more often than not happens as a result. |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | ram1500natrluvr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The top reply in that thread is someone saying that there are no layoffs. Who to believe? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | asadotzler a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're losing money. It's always money. Denting the company they work for or invest in is a surefire way to get the money-grubbers to raise their hands. These are the people who care more about their personal stake in Nvidia than they do Nvidia as a whole. Good candidates for sacking. |
|
| ▲ | MattTheRealOne a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unfortunately, greed often makes people willing to look the other way. |
|
| ▲ | kats a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | dghlsakjg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Money. Nvidia hands out a lot of RSUs. I’m guessing that a lot of these employees just watched their retirement take a 30% hit. It’s easy to say you don’t have a price when no one is offering to buy you. |
| |
| ▲ | atq2119 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If anybody has 100% of their retirement in Nvidia stock, then quite frankly they're idiots and doing it wrong. This is basic financial common sense. | |
| ▲ | salawat a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would you take an RSU from a company that "licenses" hardware they design from the ground up to lock you out of doing what you want with it? You're rewarding the parasite. Don't reward parasites. | | |
| ▲ | happyopossum a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why would you take an RSU At the point you've accepted RSUs you're already working for the company. If you hate your employer enough to turn down a significant portion of your total comp package, you really need to question how you got in that position. | |
| ▲ | komali2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a pretty subtle and uncommon critique of Nvidia. Reminds me of this YouTube comment I saw on a Valve video once where someone made a huge post about how half life: alyx isn't a real videogame you can own because it isn't available as a physical disc. Like you aren't technically wrong but, idk, are you expecting anyone to agree? The forces at work answer your question. Why would someone take RSUs from Nvidia? Obviously because that means they're getting hired at Nvidia which is one of the highest valued companies in the world, and the RSUs represent a lot of more money on top of your high salary and permanent resume clout. In Taiwan, Nvidia and tsmc are the two highest salary payers in the country. It's frankly funny to think of a Taiwanese engineer hesitating at a Nvidia offer letter because of niche FOSS/right to repair/IP liberation ideological qualms when the alternative is sweatshopping it at some no name chip industry side company that pays 30k/year at the high end. | | |
| ▲ | fercircularbuf a day ago | parent [-] | | There's truth to the comments both salawat and you are making. The market forces and incentives are undeniably strong. It can also be true at the same time that vendor lock-in like this is also undesirable. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 1970-01-01 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Obviously to 'shoot your shot' and see if he is up for yet another affair with the entire group. Why should he stop now? |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | differentView a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why do people support Trump or Clinton? Cheating just isn't a big deal for most people who aren't being cheated on. |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | yolo1897 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I saw the picture of his actual wife so i pardon him and i don't support gpu sanctions so what's the problem? |
| |
| ▲ | plandis a day ago | parent [-] | | Infidelity, possibly violating US law, and Nvidia’s own HR policies that open the company up to huge liability is okay because you took a look at a photo of his wife? Really? I really hope you take some time to reevaluate this extremely misogynist take. |
|
