it's a public company, he's ceo, large implications for stock movements, corporate strategy, volatility if it goes to us govt intervention, divorce court, etc

In this instance the two have become linked due to his choices, hence the need to explain.

Mainly because the person he was having the affair with was a customer of the company and because they are reported to have possibly been a spy for the Chinese government. All of these things have a direct impact on the confidence of employees.

I’d imagine as with most big companies having a relationship with a customer is a big HR violation. So at least that aspect would have to be addressed.

I’ve seen founders fired and their equity forefeit for such conduct. This being a 20M / ARR firm.

Perhaps this is a too big to fail scenario?

I don't think it's too big to fail. Jensen is a billionaire who doesn't really need to work. This gives him a lot of leverage. He isn't desperate to make a living.

Imagine he is fired, unloads all stocks, and starts a new company. This would cause NVIDIA a bigger issue.

Also, this means Jensen would get to unload the stock at the peak.... Democrats won and is about to be way more responsible than Trump. Cue Luo Pei from Enron... the luckiest guy on the planet.

Dating a customer who isn't a big customer isn't really a big deal. Her being a Chinese spy isn't Jensen's fault. If anything, he is a victim.

> This gives him a lot of leverage. He isn't desperate to make a living.

He cofounded the company over 30 years ago. He isn't just a rich person with a desk job he doesn't care about.

Which makes it even more likely he’d start a competitor.

How would that even work?

Because there's a question whether this woman is working covertly for a country that's known to do a lot of industrial espionage.

Because he got honey potted by a CCP spy which specifically puts himself and Nvidia at risk.

It's being reported that the girl he was involved with was spying for China and this was some kind of honey pot operation.

*woman

To be clear, she is an adult woman.

That should already be clear. Otherwise "was involved with" would not be an appropriate/applicable term.

It's not at all given that it would be appropriate.

> given that it would be appropriate.

Uh... no... it would not be considered appropriate for Jensen to be having an affair with a child, which is the current subtext.

Not exactly subtext but yes, it would be inappropriate. This does not mean it is impossible.

Unlike some other Americans Huang seems to at least have a preference for people who are no longer minors, also, using 'girl' robs the woman of agency.

> using 'girl' robs the woman of agency

... only if she hates the word 'girl', I guess. Which we don't know. Personally, I know many grown women (30's, 40's+) who are perfectly alright with the word "girl". It is contextual, and often times cultural (i.e. your background).

No offense, but this is why it can often be pernicious to do drive-by virtue-signaling online.

> Unlike some other Americans Huang seems to at least have a preference for people who are no longer minors

What does this even mean?... do you think what you're implying is exclusive to Americans? Honestly that's what it sounds like.

Most women who are okay with being called a girl are okay with it only in certain contexts. For example I don’t know any woman who is in her 30s or 40s who would be okay with being referred to as a girl in a professional context.

> professional context.

But this isn't the workplace slack. And again, correcting is one thing, but only if you're unequivocally correct, which the above poster is not.

To be honest, it seems what they've mainly accomplished is cause a distraction from the substance of what the person was trying to convey.

Yeah, workplace slack isn’t what I am talking about.

You are also not “unequivocally correct” so perhaps you are applying a standard to others you can’t live up to yourself.

I might be mistaken about this, but your point isn't clear.

And instead of a clarification, you replied with a straw-man:

> perhaps you are applying a standard to others you can’t live up to yourself.

I never claimed to be "unequivocally correct”.

No, but you did seem to imply that unless one is unequivocally correct, one should not be issuing corrections. Perhaps I misread.

The person he has an affair with turned out to be a Chinese spy and he's being investigated by the government for this.

Generally speaking, it's normal to keep it private.

Unless the CEO happens to be the CEO of what is considered one of the most important company for national security and future, and his private life involves somebody who appears to be a spy for the biggest competitor for world hegemony. Then it's kind of big deal for everybody.

>for the biggest competitor for world hegemony.

thank you for maintining the WW1->Cold War era great-game / hegemonic frame. Nation-states love you for it.

Because the purpose was to get leverage, and Intel. Once she couldn't gather passive Intel, they would use the affair as blackmail, ole school is the best school.

It seems to be a combination of things First off, hhe person he was having an affair with has ties to Chinese Spy agencies (not sure the ties, but either way, not a great look for someone trying to be deeply involved with America's government)

It also sounds like it was known something was going on with foreign agencies and Jensen, do this puts it out in the open and clears the air.

Lastly, if anyone was trying to use the affair as leverage over him, the best way to break the leverage is to just come out and spill the tea yourself (so to speak)

Hasn’t that shipped with Trump’s ties to Putin?

There are some things shareholders have to legitimately reckon with, that warrant a statement:

- Is this person susceptible to blackmail from the secrets they're keeping?

- Has this person performed a notable breach of trust?

- Has this person displayed a notable lack of judgement?

Even when the alleged misconduct is private, #1 is of particular concern. Airing it out is an obvious way to lessen that specific concern. The allegations here raise the other concerns too, however.

I wrote in another thread here, this is extremely serious:

Bedding an adversarial entity's agent in a regulated field is a serious matter (for the company) with potentially serious consequences. It can lead to executive decapitation, it can even lead to / criminal investigations if the operative bypassed export controls using executive proximity.. the fallout can be great and widespread.

It can also be a nothingburger and an amusing page six divorce story in the end where we all read how rich cry as well. Time will tell. What's telling of where this might lead and how serious it is, is that it was US federal government that warned about this.

I could see how it’s rude for a CEO to be bringing up his affairs, but how is it rude to address public revelations?

I agree that cheating or not their private life is theirs, I'm not interested in their family drama.

However if he cheated with a chinese spy then he was targeted by China and that raises this to a national security risk.

He's forced to - he would not make the statement unless he had to come clean with it.

Indeed, he lied and said he only had a normal business relationship until further media and government scrutiny forced him to admit it.

> “Our relationship, our interactions, have been related to Megaspeed, and it was all completely normal and not unusual,” [1]

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-29/nvidia-ce... => https://archive.li/ljGPF#selection-1731.0-1731.119

He's kicking off a redemption tour. The world will now decide if his tone is sincere enough, and how long it should take to forgive him.

Not long I suspect, we don't expect much from tech CEOs. Nobody even remembers when Bezos cheated on his wife.

I guess no one noticed because they all looked the same. I imagine Bezos in the wife store like "Oh yeah, I like exactly that look. Gimme another one of these!"

Umm, the particular android Bezos picked is quite unique. His ex-wife actually looked human.

We'll get a kind of a "Gone Girl" moment but with geopolitics.

So that no one can extort him in private. Same happened with Bezos when his phone was hacked. He was the one who came forward to speak about what was shared by his phone.

If I remember, the perpetrators were determined to be the Saudis. I don't remember the reason, but they had an axe to grind.

I never got to (or wanted to) see the images, but, by all reports, he ... er ... had nothing to be ashamed of.

> "I don't remember the reason, but they had an axe to grind."

Technically, it was a saw. The Saudi King was mad at Bezos because of a column in the Washington Post (which Bezos had purchased).

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/21/amazon-bo...

> "Saudi experts – dissidents and analysts – told the Guardian they believed Bezos was probably targeted because of his ownership of the Post and its coverage of Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi’s critical columns about Mohammed bin Salman and his campaign of repression against activists and intellectuals rankled the crown prince and his inner circle."

That's right. Khashoggi wrote for the WP.

When we give individuals the same power as people in highest legal positions of power - they deserve immense scrutiny.

Jensen is as powerful as any politician, if not more so. Same with Elon, etc.

If you don't want that then get rid of the ability for such individuals to amass so much power outside of publicly voted anointed positions.

I swear this is a bot. I refuse to believe it's not a bot. It has to be a bot.

lol

To cut off the possibility of blackmail. At personal great cost, of course.

That's the real reason that this affair is a problem. It made him blackmailable.

No one here is getting it right.

It's because the woman is a member of the PRC, and it's being made into a national security issue, regardless of whether he announces it or not.

The strategic thing is for him to come forward first.

> why would a CEO talk about his private life publically?

Because it's already public. This is called "getting ahead of/seizing the narrative"

there are indications that he continued the affair even after being tipped off by the US intelligence agencies -- which would constitute treason. An apology would just be a first step to ward off serious charges, if there are serious charges levied. Not that anything would happen in the large scheme of things, given JH has bought off the orange turd.

What actions would constitute treason?

Because its already public information. In your culture would you pretend like it ever happened even tough everybody else knows about it and are making their own narratives.