I wonder if you'd still think the same after you read Defoe's Roxana and Dumas fils's Lady of the Camellias.
No one is calling him a sinner.
Now that I know where you're coming from, yeah, that is interesting.
I say this as a Brit and we are the same, only we are just as perfidious (maybe worse) but hide it from are selves and others so we are easy to blackmail.
Notably, it does get folks incensed, and it’s a good way to take out a senior leader if all other leverage fails.
It’s clearly some kind of hit piece. Dumb of Huang to have stepped on whatever landmine he did, let alone allow himself to get this exposed, but whatever.
I wonder if it’s someone trying to short Nvidia?
Is it that hard to keep your wiener out of people who report to you? Why is the reaction "this is really common and it's unfair to target this guy" and not "at least one of them is finally seeing some consequences, now let's hope there's more to follow"? Apparently having and expecting basic ethics is "pearl clutching." Fuck that. If powerful people are commonly awful and I expect better from them, that's a problem with them, not with me.
Of course he should be fired for this.
The reality - at these levels - is that to rise to these levels typically requires that others involved feel comfortable they have enough leverage on you that they can force you out ‘quietly’ if they need to do so.
Which is what is happening.
I’ve seen some wild things that were allowed to continue because the math was paying out at the time.
Somewhere the math changed, and this is the consequence.
Post election ‘cleanup’ in approach?
Change in expectations on future growth trajectory?
Someone with their own interests (shorting the stock) got too much leverage?
This is already costing individual folks billions, and shareholders hundreds of billions. that kind of thing often involves someone’s ‘chess moves’, even if it’s just them blowing up in their faces.
Part of the point of all this is that he's supposed to be in control of his emotions and able to make the best decisions without letting his emotions interfere.
If he can't even make the very simple decision to keep his dick in his pants in this very clear breach of commitments he has publicly made, then what other terrible decisions is he making? What other commitments will he break because it feels good and he can't control himself?
It's a sign of a really bad leader that they do this.
Maybe eventually. After they have been doing it for decades. When it’s inconvenient for folks now.
Notably, every senior woman leader I worked for had something similar going on too.
I agree but that ship sailed a long time ago and this action is being blown out of proportion.
Look at the president of the US that is a guy who has to go (and all the people around him) and is still in office.
Quite frankly he has had an affair with consenting adult women not trafficked children why are the knives out for him when this is all he has done?
Because he made commitments to people to not do this.
If you promise to do (or not do) something, and then you break that promise, you should be held to account for it. It should be obvious that you cannot be trusted to keep promises in future. Nothing you say should be believed, because you are clearly an untrustworthy person. You should not be trusted to make decisions that involve other people's money.
And, in addition. If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room. If your idea of managing people includes having sex with them, then that is an indication that you are unable to manage people.
This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand. This is about Huang not living up to the professional standards that we expect from people in authority. It's about being a good, trustworthy, custodian of other people's money, and about being a good choice as CEO of this business. Not having enough self-control to avoid these situations is a really good indicator that he is not a good choice for this role, because of that lack of self-control. If he can't control himself, how can he be relied on to control the organisation?
> This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand.
My point was the president who has brought about an expensive war is an example of this times 1000. I think all we can infer from this is he is unfaithful to his wife, the inference you make about his commitment to his fiduciary responsibility is incorrect to me. They are different things and he has not shown he has been a highly effective CEO who actually has technical knowledge.
Perhaps I am overly cynical but I think a lot of CEO's (and other's for that matter) will engage in dishonesty.
Consider Aquinas on merchants (possibly quoting Chrysostom possibly mistaken)
> “He that buys a thing in order that he may sell it, entire and unchanged, at a profit, is the trader who is cast out of God’s temple.”
My claim is not that this practice is wrong per-say but even in this kind of business of arbitrage you can see at guile and cunning, that is hard to deny. Maybe he only lacked the ability to hide it.
I would ask you who would run a business better a man who is unable to use cunning, guile and manipulation (marketing) or one who does not. Their is times when the sort of morality you talk about is important and times where it is a hindrance and most people are evil, if you want the good Aristocratic souls you would do well not to look for it in the world of commerce.
He’s already proven himself to be untrustworthy… what else is he lying about, hmm?
More like 20% admit to it.