Yep. Maybe the other parties thought they had a special thing with him and now realize they're just another body? That makes people vindictive and willing to talk.

His security detail is also no longer worried about retribution and are likely complying with an internal investigation.

It's very likely his affairs were simply open secrets within the C suite.

▲

raducu 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's very likely his affairs were simply open secrets within the C suite.

There's a lot of people who usually know.

People with power think their farts don't smell or that the rest are stupid and don't notice or some don't care that people know as long as they keep their moths shut, or they get careless over time -- but lots of people eventually know.

Early in my career I shared an office with the mistress of a General Manager, she was on good terms with everybody in the office (kind of odd she was placed in the same office with nerdy devs she had zero work contact with) -- but everybody else hated her guts, can't really rember their grievances. Anyway I used to catch glimpses of phisical contact between them and the guy divorced and they married.

Relationships with colleagues were encouraged with some limitations, perhaps that's why they were so non-chalant about it (though the guy being married back home was kind of gross even for our european open minds).

	▲	Merrill 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In the '70s a new manager transferred in. Some of the old hands pointed out that his wife was his second wife and former secretary. Back then, people talked, but there was no outrage.

▲

guax a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Not even. Credibility is one thing. If people wanted to out him but were afraid, the time to be believed is now. The other is just that everyone is looking now and with all this attention more things come out.

▲

DrScientist a day ago | parent | next [-]

The affairs he had ( revealed so far at least ) weren't with junior people - they were also exec's so I don't think there is any suggestion of abuse of power here.

It's much more likely that some people knew and journalists went around asking people.

It's surprising how far tittle-tattle can travel.

▲

wongarsu a day ago | parent | next [-]

Powell didn't join Nvidia as exec though. She originally joined Nvidia in a business development role, before being promoted to her current role in 2017

That's long enough ago that it seems likely that Huang got to know her in her current role. But if the affair started earlier than 2017, there is the suggestion of abuse of power. Not with Powell as victim, but everyone else who hoped to get that role instead of her

▲

DrScientist a day ago | parent [-]

Anything is possible. But in these scenarios I think it's wise to apply the following 2 principles.

1. Stick to the facts - speculation helps no-one.

2. Don't assume to fight on behalf of people you don't know.

For example there appears to be an assumption that his wife has been deeply wronged and she is the victim. This may well be the case. but it also might not be. That part of this story is a private matter for them and not helped by speculation and assumptions.

In fact I'd go further - you have in effect just accused Powell of being promoted by sleeping with the boss based entirely on speculation. Not sure that's helpful either.

▲

jimmydddd 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Regarding his wife, I agree. He and his wife are both smart capable people. They may have worked our certain relationship parameters that they are both fine with.

▲

neutronicus 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Shielding Powell from that implication is _why Huang has an obligation not to sleep with her._

Whether or not it’s the case, if the behavior is known to others in the company it also creates a hostile work environment for ambitious female employees who are not at Powell’s level but hope to reach it.

▲

wongarsu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I largely agree. At this stage we don't known enough to tell who is a victim here. We likely will never know for sure, nor do we have a right to demand to know

My speculation is purely for its explaining or predictive power on the question why all of this is coming out at once, and who's behind revealing all this. I favor the "conspiracy" version (someone wants him gone and exposes his real secrets in the most damaging way). But if we consider that this might all be organically triggered by the revelation of the spy affair we can't discount that the numerically largest group that feels wronged by his affairs might be employees that were disadvantaged whenever affair partners got special treatment

▲

neutronicus 20 hours ago | parent [-]

The affair partners don’t even have to actually get special treatment. The perception that it happened is enough.

	▲	K0balt 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Underlying this is that workplaces are supposed to be egalitarian, free of favouritism, and strict meritocracies? On what planet is this a reasonable expectation rather than a fever dream of idealistic naivety? I don’t think it is productive to pretend things are not as they actually are, any more than it is to pretend that how they are is how they ought to be in a perfect world.

▲

seunosewa a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Jensen named his wife and family as victims in his apology letter. I see no reason not to believe him. Under what circumstances might a person's spouse not be a victim of the person's extramarital affairs??

	▲	t-3 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If they knew and condoned it, for one. A public apology letter is a face-saving exercise and does not necessarily express the truth.
	▲	kergonath 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		She might be a victim following the publicity. Or many other reasons, really. I am not saying she is, but in some relationships, what you’re allowed to do and what you’re allowed to let the world know are different things. He might also feel he needed to do it for many reasons, some more self-serving than others.

▲

skeeter2020 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

he's the most powerful CEO in the world; you don't even need actual abuse of power when it's impossible to avoid the appearance of abuse. I know that as a coworker of the executive sleeping with the CEO I would completely discount her skills & accomplishments, and his impartiality & judgement, and so would everyone else.

▲

vkou 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It doesn't matter if there was an actual abuse of power, or if they were completely consenting adults.

When anyone in the company is fucking the boss and get a raise or promotion, or a good project, everyone in the company who isn't fucking the boss now have a legitimate grievance to sue the company over - that they are being passed over for these things because they aren't fucking the boss.

It doesn't even have to be true. The sheer possibility that it is true is cyanide.

This is part of every sexual harassment training 101 that any manager has ever gone through. (If you haven't gone through it, your employer's opening itself up to a lot of liability...)

▲

drtz 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> they were also exec's so I don't think there is any suggestion of abuse of power here.

Everyone reports to the CEO, directly or indirectly, and in this case the CEO is also a founder. The appearance of abuse of power here is plain-as-day.

There's so much coping going on in the comments here it's mind-boggling. Sleeping with your subordinates is enough to get fired just about anywhere.

	▲	DrScientist 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not condoning it - just saying I don't think it's my place to feel aggrieved on behalf of somebody else based on what's public. Also note that it's different from having an opinion about Jensen himself. So it's perfectly possible for me to simultaneously think he has done something wrong ( for the reasons you mentioned ), but also not decide on X or Y were 'wronged'. Not the same thing.

▲

stymaar a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> the time to be believed is now.

We're not talking about sexual violence or harassment though, it's not about “being believed”.

▲

estearum a day ago | parent [-]

You think people don't deny consensual affairs, and especially consensual affairs with subordinates?

... what?

▲

stymaar 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course they do, but they don't usually deny it against the other party in the affair, they deny it to their boss, their wife, whoever they have a liability to, so it's a different situation entirely.

▲

estearum 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sure what the relevance of that distinction is but… sure…

	▲	stymaar 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The distinction exists because why would the person need to “be believed” in such a case? If anything they are more likely to be in the same boat and deny the affair as well.