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.