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.

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.