We should really stop with this "just think of the children" knee-jerk

From the horse's mouth:

>> My actions hurt her and our children.

Parents (or "equals") can hurt and and disappoint others at any age - including adults.

I don't know why you seem to be so against considering Jensen's children. Some people really value the commitments of marriage and see adultery as something very serious and damaging.

There are so many other children in the world that deserve consideration before his (grown adult, very rich) children.

Jensen should be apologizing to Americans for compromising NatSec.

Why? National Security is not in his job description.

If this is your attitude then you should just never get married in the first place. At the very least you owe it to a partner that expects a real commitment.

For one, there's no custody case. There's often also no child support (some jurisdictions extend it to college students) to speak of.

There's really mostly the sorrow of the parent who was cheated on.

I notice quite a few people worry more about the financial implications (nVidia's stock price) than the ethical ones.

So, they are not allowed to be upset if daddy decided to cheat on their mommy after long marriage with some chinese honeypot? I hope you are not planning on start your own family any time soon

"Think of the children" is a rhetorical appeal to pathos.

There's plenty to talk about here that doesn't require assuming how an adult is going to feel about another adult's behavior.

To play devil's advocate here.. If she's a spy trained in psychological manipulation and seduction we'd be right to call him a victim instead of a participant since he'd be a target of those techniques applied to him. Maybe?

At a deeper level we do get to choose our overall environment and what kinds of things we are exposed to frequently, the recurring patterns of life can be consciously managed and shaped. But in the moment, we are more like an LLM doing a forward pass on next token. If a specific weight relating to refusal has been abliterated, it's not realistic to expect the next token to somehow still come out to refusal.

We can control our training better than we can control our inference. We have ego-ideals and specific mental makeup that can be exploited if identified.

I kind of see where you're coming from, but people are still responsible for their actions. McDonald's employs psychologists and spends millions if not billions of dollars per year to abliterate my weights in regards to their restaurant, and yet I still refuse. And it would be my choice if I gave in. As pointed out elsewhere in the comments, Huang had to make many decisions to end up in his current situation, and each one is a failure for someone leading a company of that size and influence.

Also, other reporting has well established that extramarital activity is the relative norm for ultrawealthy men in business. Are we to believe that every time one of these guys enters a sexual relationship with a younger woman, it was an attack leveled by some psy-witch harpy on a hapless CEO? It seems more likely to me that Huang was participating in normal behavior for men in his position, and in this case it may have actually had consequences.

So, no, he’s not a victim, his existing personal potential for infidelity was exploited. It worked because he would have done the same thing if the right non-spy were to arrive on the scene. The spy takes advantage of that.

Its clear his wealth generated a level of narcissism here that rose to a level that permitted him to invalidate the feelings of his wife, who, again, he made a vow to.

It does not matter if some hot chinese spy tried to get into his pants. He still let it. For a loooooong time.

I'm personally so tired of excusing infidelity. He is a big boy. He can make big boy decisions.