If the woman involved turns out to really be a Chinese spy, then it will definitely ruin his life.

AI and chips are, for better or worse, considered a national security matter.

Being a “Chinese spy” has very little to do with reality, much like being a terrorist. It’s a matter of what the State Department decides.

He is the the tech CEO most aligned with the current government’s optimism towards the AI build out and also its key orchestrator. What are the odds he will be held to any real punishment ?

I would not bet on punishment that is meaningful unless he screwed over other big capitalists. That's the one law you cannot break.

Being a state of national security, yes.

Spy is rather easy to define though, and it hardly depends on what the State Department decides (although of course, they can call anybody a spy, for political or other reasons, I agree on that).

I don't know why this is being downvoted. The federal government has never really prevented a terrorist attack that they themselves have not recruited. It is entrapment, and it is legal in most cases. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but even mainstream media has covered this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment...

It is perfectly reasonable to suspect similar claims of catching "spies".

Your article doesn't support your claim that the 'federal government has never really prevented a terrorist attack'. And a lot of that was highly motivated reporting itself by people like Glenn Greenwald who was basically denying that things like ISIS were real threats at all in 2014 and then went full victim blaming for things like Charlie Hebdo the year after (it was harder after the Bataclan).

Will you next claim that the police have never really prevented a murder?

I gave a link as a reference of how the Federal government operates. I did not think that I needed a whole bibliography to prove something that is very easily verifiable.

Not only that you think the reporting is not reliable because of the reporter without pointing out what is wrong with the actual report.

But I'll humor you.

- Here is the judge calling the US government the co-conspirator in the same case: https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2023/07/27/judge-quest...

- The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot:

- https://www.rawstory.com/plot-to-kidnap-michigan-governor/

- https://reason.com/2022/04/08/gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-pl...

- The liberty city seven: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22249838

- The cleveland bomb plot: https://truthout.org/articles/cleveland-anarchist-bomb-plot-...

- Sami Osmakac: https://archive.is/NINN0

---

These are all the cases that had some investigative reporter poking, or the jury/judge seeing through the bullshit. Here is initial reporting on recent cases. The "Iranian Agent" sent to "Assassinate Donald Trump"(emphasis mine):

>Asif Merchant traveled to New York in June for the purpose of meeting with men he thought he was recruiting to carry out the killings, even paying a $5,000 advance to two would-be assassins who were actually undercover law enforcement officers, federal officials said

https://www.ksat.com/news/politics/2024/08/06/pakistani-man-...

The woman arrested for "plotting to bomb the NY state capital":

>According to the criminal complaint, an FBI confidential source drove Bowie to the Home Depot in Rensselaer and gave her $200 to buy bomb parts. It’s not clear if they told her what items to buy.

https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/feds-say-capital-bombing-t...

---

This is not some fringe idea even here on HN. Here is a clear fed trying incite people to commit violence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49629430

This common in most internet forums. It is called fedposting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fedpost

I hope all of these sources are of sound character by your standards. Now I would ask you; can you give me an example of the FBI catching a terrorist that:

a) They did not recruit, or b) Did not provide materials, or c) did not provide the target

AS for the police in the US, they are indeed very bad at preventing crime. Though that is due to multiple reasons, mostly policy related, rather than institutional malfeasance like the FBI.

> It's not going to ruin his life.

It might if he loves his wife.

If he loved his wife he wouldn't have cheated on her, and then humiliated her and his children in front of the entire world.

That is not an automatic fact. Humans are complex creatures. Jensen didn't call his secretary and say "can you pencil in 'humiliating my wife and kids around 4PM'? You can? Great, thanks".

He has full agency over his actions, so yes, it's an automatic fact. He knew what he was doing and he knew what the effects would be on his wife. He knew what would happen when this came out. If you're saying he DIDN'T know what would happen, then you're saying he's extremely stupid. I haven't seen any evidence that he is even a little bit stupid.

Are you saying this was an accident and he didn't have control over himself?

If he doesn't have control over himself and he isn't accountable for his actions, then how does that factor into him being the CEO of the most important globally strategic company in the world? Are you saying that he is capable of making actions that he isn't in full control over? Does Nvidia need to have a CEO that doesn't accidentally make mistakes like potentially giving secret information to Chinese spies?

People, especially men, are not robots.

> especially men

meaning that women are more likely to be robots? wasn't aware of this, gotta try doing turing tests on women around me.

This seems like an emotionally compromised perspective (which is very, very normal, and I am not insulting you).

It is, of course, not an automatic fact. The context here is emotions, so it makes no sense to point only to agency as proof of an emotional "fact". Such a thing doesn't even exist.

[delayed]

This is not complicated if you define “love” as “wouldn’t cheat”. Which plenty of people do.

Well, yes, nothing is complicated if you always just agree with your audience.

Humans are complex creatures. Plenty of men and women who have loving families and genuinely love their spouses cheat on them and destroy their lives/families. It just takes a moment of weakness. Stay vigilant.

Love and sexual attraction is totally different thing. As long as you get married Male usually lose interest and sexual attraction on female and want to try new things. That happens to me too and its like both biological and mental.

It's not really a moment when the moment is stretched over months and years, but yes we are all human and all make mistakes. That does not absolve us of the consequences.

Way to minimize cheating. Describing it as a “moment of weakness” makes it sounds like it’s a minute of lapse of judgement, meanwhile we’re talking about pre-mediated, long-term cheating.

A "moment of weakness" leads to a one-night stand, not to however long a fling needs to be to be dubbed an "extramarital affair."

I have zero sympathy for this guy, generally speaking. But this is one of those very few things where what you have said is the socially "correct" thing, and actually is probably healthy to believe, but is factually wrong.

Lamentably, people don't have cartoon emotions. Life would be so much easier if they did.

Sometimes, it's the humiliation that comes from the public finding out and putting a spotlight on it that is the kicker; not the random side piece(s) (ex: Bill & Melinda Gate).

I agree, though.

> "The reporter? ... What does she offer us?"

Exactly

If he loses his family over it, it will ruin his life. There’s more to life than money. I hope for your sake that you don’t really believe this morally bankrupt concept.

The man was cheating on his wife. He already wasn’t thinking of his family.

Allegedly he was assaulted by a spy and wasn't able to deflect that assault. Who knows what techniques they use, wouldn't be surprised if they can sprinkle something in a drink that switches off half the frontal cortex.

[delayed]

Dopamine agonist are known to ruin impulse control: pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine.

That’s just conspiracy talk. It’s called honeypots for a reason. It requires willingness.

I think it's common enough for people to have regrets after the fact. Not all do, but enough that you can't rule it out entirely.

Men are known to think with their penises every now and then. His wife knows that too. It's cheating, but cheating is often repaired.

And there is more to life than family too, there is any amount of people who lived great lives without any family.

$100 bil? You say that like there aren't trillionaires going around in their "flying" cars... /s