> People don’t stop idolizing these people, they don’t even think that this is a problem.

They'd go as far as to call it a virtue. Silicon Valley is the greatest domestic enemy this country has ever seen. They've built entire machines to protect, reward, and normalize antisocial activity.

Not much different from other industries, other than scale and reach. Took many decades to regulate out killing workers and customers for profit, some are still barely regulated.

Life expectancy went up under capitalism, not down.

The Jungle is famously about horrifying working conditions back in the day and was critical for gaining public support for legislation and regulations. "Capitalism" didn't improve the working conditions; regulations did.

The Jungle is a work of fiction.

It went up for a long while, then starter trending down.

Don't cherry pick.

Cherry picking nearly two centuries?

Drug abuse is the culprit for a decline.

You've basically just described capitalism.

Under communism, people starve.

For a time, Kansas was the "Breadbasket of the Soviet Union".

It’s called human behavior, and it has existed before any form of civilization and will exist long after it.

What's the point of being a billionaire if you can't sleep with whoever you want?

What even is the problem with that really?

Well one of them was a Chinese spy for starters. He's a compromised individual.

pretending to be a family man while doing it.

Did he make a promise to you about that?

I mean you can want to have a family and also get something on the side. It's basically fulfilling your biological imperative as a man.

Never have I thought Jensen was playing a family man.

Did you not see his leather jackets?

Yeah, signing a woman's bra at a tech conference really screams committed family man...

This is a great question, just not in the way you meant it

The being compromised part and bringing your decision making into question, if you're asking

“Billionaire” is largely a responsibility the market gives you: you have to command billions in capital. It’s actually a job a the end of the day.

We should have high standards for who is allowed to have this job. Huang should be replaced as easily and quickly as any mid-level executive who costs his company 340 billion in market cap.

Replaced by whom though? Think about him what you will, but he is not your typical ivy league MBA CEO. He built Nvidia from the ground up, while being very technical and involved, and has done a great job at that.

He is not that easy to replace.

> He is not that easy to replace.

Yes, because while he was managing (and on some occasions sleeping with) his dozens of direct reports he made no succession plan!

A typical Ivy League MBA would cover the basics, which would be an improvement.

Just shows you that being a billionaire doesn't make you happy I guess. Imagine having a billion and still being sad.

counter example: Brian Krzanich (intel).

https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/intel-ceo-resigns...

The difference is that Intel had a policy against it. Brian was having a relationship at the time they made the policy and it took months for him to wind it down

They used it against him 7 years later. He wasn't ousted because of his relationship. It's just the tool they used.

Also he wasn't CEO at the time of his relationship.

It also wasn't an affair. He was single at the time.

Thank you for clarifying. Nvidia has no such policy but discourage "personal relationship".

It’s an odd phenomenon alright. South Park covered it in the episode “Sexual Healing” where rich men kept cheating on their wives. We may never get to the bottom of it.

Marriage/long term coupling is not "natural" but normal in society

With the decline in religious attendance has come a decline in marriage; from 70%+ to 50%ish over the last couple generations

But divorce rate has declined so those that do marry seem to really want it; in the before times though it was how women survived

Coupling fits with biological imperative to have partners but longterm/for life is obviously not necessary since divorce is common too, partners die, etc

That and recent research shows long term married couples are 50% more likely to develop dementia; an imbalance in effort develops where one becomes codependent and forgets how to live and the partner in charge loses grip of themselves and taking care of their partner consumes them.

Being married reduces dementia risk. e.g. [0]

Being primary caregiver to a spouse who has dementia does substantially increase the caregiver's risk of cognitive decline due to caregiver burnout. [1]

I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to express.

[0] https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/89/3/231

[1] https://www.ovid.com/jnls/neurotodayonline/fulltext/10.1097/...

Dude I got my banjo too...

18 year study found unmarried more likely to not have dementia:

https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz...

Yes, and if you read that paper, they posit that a likely "cause" is that unmarried people tend to have cognitive impairments diagnosed later relative to when someone (i.e. a spouse) is living with them.

But less likely to have Alzheimer's or Lewy Body Dementia

So either way, like how if ya live long enough some kind of cancer would get ya, so will mental illness

No beating physics

Not less likely to _have_. Less likely to be _diagnosed_. It is unsurprisingly difficult to be diagnosed with progressive cognitive decline in most places regardless of source even if you have been referred once for MCI.

I think the easier way of looking at it is this: there is a Lancet commission that produces robust characterizations of the modifiable risk factors that lead to dementia. If you're in a marriage that promotes reducing those risk factors, you'll likely have a lower risk of dementia. Isolating one variate like this raises interesting questions, but isn't a "smoking gun'-- especially in this case since the authors themselves indicate this is a surprising result given other studies.

https://www.thelancet.com/infographics-do/dementia-risk

I think the easiest way is like I wrote "No beating physics."

Seems just as reasonable but less verbose; we appear to get cancer and mental illness with old age regardless of social conditions around us. Physics and entropy win again regardless of the care we put into our semantics.

Regardless my original point was about "long term".

"Marriage staves of mental health" and "a single, long term marriage improves mental health outcomes" are two different things.

Could just be a tight knit quasi-nuclear family social circle is sufficient too but social desirability biases lead is to lean into marriage tradition.

It is natural and normal

> long term coupling is not "natural"

Source: dude trust me

Tell that to all the animals that exhibit long-term, often life-long coupling.

Look at all the animals and humans that don't

Lots of animals engages in non consensual rape; humans need to get on a level?

Don't anthropomorphize ducks.

Codependency to survive altogether is different than "2 people stuck together by social pressure even if its not working for them" which happens a lot to marriage often becomes unnatural abuse.

Unlike ferrets we engineered around raw need to hunt rabbits; we have grocery stores to serve the codependency.

It came from the past so it's natural is a terrible argument. Just a "dude trust me; its how grandpa did it"

it's also possible the wife knew and was okay with it

my wife and I date other people, you'd be surprised how big the ENM/Poly community is when you start looking

[delayed]

Something like one in five married men has cheated on their spouse, approx one in eight women. It’s not that tech CEOs are “like this” it’s that they are not that different from other people, outside of their professional skills.

So you don't think the world's most powerful and richest people engage in infidelity more often than the guy that cleans the toilets at the local gas station?

every argument that attempts to humanize and 'us too' these types of folks (billionaires that own islands and ultra-yachts) totally bewilders me.

about 30-50% of people across cultures self-report infidelity. I grew up in a neighborhood where people had jobs like cleaning toilets and it's pretty difficult to cheat more than what I saw growing up. I can tell you from first hand that economically downward communities aren't known for their stable families

the thing that's stopping Joe from the gas station is that he lacks the yacht and the credit line, not any ethics. Jensen's no more or less human than anyone else. The issue with megacorporation's is structural, not some "these types of people' provincial nonsense

Anytime there's a place where there are women and men, sex is inevitable.

My dad cheated while working at a magnesium plant as a blue collar worker. Theory is one thing evidence another. Do you have any evidence?

> it’s that they are not that different from other people

For this conclusion to be valid, you have to provide the proportion of tech ceos who cheat.

That number would be dramatically higher in scenarios where men had desirable women basically throwing themselves at them, which is the case for the extremely wealthy.

Studies show percentages all the way up to 40-50%, depending on methodologies and definitions.

That doesn't mean its okay just because other people do

it's a bit stretch to compare poor Jensen having sex with 40yo+ women with Bill Gates visiting repeatedly Epstein pedophile island