So what mechanism do you propose?

Huang has served as CEO for a whopping 33 years - hard to argue he wasn't crucial to NVIDIA's success, and how many of the board members are the original from when he was first chosen-selected and continued to be hired as CEO over the crucial early decades?

What nuanced knowledge-understanding does he have that no one else can have?

Maybe sleeping with spies was a necessary part of survival, perhaps if he wasn't prone to that then he'd have been assassinated and potential replacement CEOs who are toeing certain lines may have been attempted to replace him after his murder?

> Maybe sleeping with spies was a necessary part of survival, perhaps if he wasn't prone to that then he'd have been assassinated and potential replacement CEOs who are toeing certain lines may have been attempted to replace him after his murder?

Respectfully, I don't engage with conspiracy theorists

[delayed]

Huang is known to literally respond to low-level e-mails between ICs. The idea that a CFO can take his place is ridiculous. People need to be real.

What's happening now with this situation is why communism and similar has historically been able to take hold.

You're really going to need to explain this crazy take. I can't even begin to see the parallels between Jensen Huang being ousted for sleeping with spies and subordinates and the rise of Communism.

> Highly successful businessman.

> Behaves like a fool, risks national security to get his dick wet.

> The problem is that people like this get held accountable for their misdeeds instead of being left to do what they want!

but think of the shareholders! think of the executives who have layoffs in the hopper but can't pull the trigger yet!

The company should have plans in place for what to do when something happens to the CEO. Situations like this, death, or just deciding to leave. I've read reports that Nvidia didn't have this, which would be irresponsible if true, but it's not the norm. The founder leaving is likely a bit different than some other CEO coming in later, but any good CEO should be thinking about what happens to the company when they're gone so people know the company is still in good hands.

But by not having one, the CEO has a lot more leverage over the company.

good leaver vs bad

Can you produce me a list of people who will be better for the job than him? You are asking the wrong questions.

Jensen might be the best person to lead NVidia at the moment, but that doesn't mean that NVidia dominating the market and being able to demand gigantic margins is a good thing for the overall economy.

It should not be a job - that's the whole point. Kings demonstrated how bonkers is having a single point of failure like this so it's insane people still don't get it today.

A single point of failure is also a single point of success. There’s real reasons run by committee is considered a joke.

This doesn't seem like the right question either. Can you provide a list of unique qualifications that make Jensen irreplicable?

He started the biggest GPU company and ran it successfully for three decades?

Right, but then he resigned. So the question on all our minds is if NVIDIA should be entirely written off since losing Jensen's irreplicable talent, or if some of those skills are transferable.

Since he apparently also arranged the company so it revolved around him and no one else was in a central position to know cross silo information, how would those skills transfer?

What skills, specifically? I can't imagine he's the only one who knows how to set up an incomprehensible corporate structure, nor do I think that's what people value about NVIDIA.

I feel like your argument is just "Jensen Huang was Nvidia, and without him the company is doomed", and that's a very strong claim that needs a lot more explanation, because it's certainly not an argument that any shareholder is interested in considering when the company continues to exist, its products remain important and in-demand, and there's a CEO vacancy to fill.

[delayed]

Might be, also very well might not be. His jacket was nice though.

You and I and many of the commenters would be on there. People think these CEOs are wizards performing black secret magic we'd fail to understand.

No. They have the same 24 hour day as you and I. They think at the same speed and talk at the same speed. Their "workload" whatever it may be, is finite, evidently finite enough to juggle several romatic relationships at the same time, with much actual work and decisionmaking delegated and informed by domain experts who will be there no matter the CEO.

So yes, you or I could in fact be CEO of NVIDIA. It would be easy. Reports would be made for us by the worlds experts in the fields on what is going on. Departments would be ran by the best available talent on earth. My emails are being read and written by a dozen plus secretaries. Every presser I make I have an ivy league grad writing me the speech making me look like Hemingway out there. Every decision I'd make informed by a team of experts. Every plan thought of already by a hundred people smarter than me. All we'd have to do in the role as NVIDIA CEO is smile, waive, and read the lines handed to us on the sheet of paper by someone else.

Really, that's all any of these guys are doing.

I cannot and that question is irrelevant to the situation. The dude is going to be getting investigated and spending the next couple of years doing interviews and legal stuff (there's already a securities lawsuit). He literally cannot run the company even if he wanted to. He's also no doubt going to be under congressional and DOJ and Department of Commerce investigation for sanctions violations.

> pin the fortunes of the stock market and potentially the entire economy on the behavior of one person?

"We" don't. Media narratives over-focus on individuals and personalities because that's what humans focus on.

Markets can overreact emotionally on daily headlines and weekly narratives but tend to correct quarter to quarter. There's lots of data and examples: Apple after Jobs, Microsoft after Gates, etc. Even after losing iconic, long-time leaders, most industry-leading companies continue to make even more money, more profitably than ever over the following decade.

> "We" don't.

> That's what humans focus on.

I struggle to understand what narrative you're correcting here. "We" in this context seems to collectively mean "humanity". Markets, media narratives, etc. are all run by humans. That's "us", whether or not you personally want any of the blame/credit.

That's a fairly hysterical reading. It's a company, no one is irreplaceable.

He has no magic, but he did make some good strategic decisions.

Everyone is a god and a genius (in retrospect) if they found a multi-trillion dollar company, but the causation seldom runs that way.

Jobs founded Apple to great success, left and failed then returned to Apple to great success, then he died and Apple was fine. The company is more important than the individual. Nvidia will also be fine.

And clearly the US economy doesn't rest on the shoulders of Nvidia or AI, no matter the level of hype.

Huang was also well know in industry for awful decisions, which is why most companies that ever worked with Nvidia, worked with them once (with some exceptions tbf).