The apologists probably hold NVDA stock. Same thing happens with other popular companies and their voices are very loud online.

I have NVDA stock, I think this is neutral at worst. Obviously bad short term, but the fundamentals are what they are. They are gonna print money for at least the next 5 years no matter what happens.

I would invest but my concern is nvidia getting dragged through investigations, who knows how deep this goes.

The reality of the situation is they can be guilty as fuck, but they are so important to the world and us economy, that any sanctions they have will be symbolic. Nobody wants to kill the golden goose, even democrats.

There will be a lot of noise, it will be embarrassing, but I just can't imagine a situation where it significantly impacts their bottom line.

I bought more this morning, it's just on sale.

To quote a fictional president: "That's the problem with the american dream, it makes everyone concerned for the day they're going to be rich..."

To which kind of morality are you referring to? The extramarital affair, the puritan angle, or something else?

The sleeping with a spy and selling chips to china part.

And having an affair with a subordinate. That alone should be grounds for being instantly fired.

In order to see this as a bad thing you have to first agree with the export controls. Like Jensen, HN loves chinese models, that's why the outrage does not resonate.

No, you only need to agree that the rule of law is important to uphold, whether you agree with all the laws or not.

I personally could care less if he sells chips to china, morally, but they do have to follow the law.

Not sure if the second part qualifies as morality, even if I think it's the real cause of this.

I wonder if people haven't seen his interviews or public appearances in the past 1-2 years, especially when anything to do with Trump came up. I don't find CEO interviews particularly interesting to begin with, because they're performing a role and can't give honest answers. Jensen took that dishonesty to a pretty high level.

Ezra Klein interviewed Jensen about 1.5 months ago and I had an off-putting feeling from it, and thought a lot of his answers were laughable. He sounded like he was obviously lying. A few days later, Klein interviewed Bill Gates and sort of anonymously brought up the arguments that Jensen made. You could see a visible disbelief of the arguments in Gates' face and posture, even saying "I almost can't believe you're asking that". (Not that Bill Gates is some paragon, but it wasn't close to a respectful disagreement.)

You could tell Ezra was frustrated in that interview. I thought his first two questions were pushing for a real answer from Jensen and he just sort of let it go because it was clear he wasn't going to get one. The notion that societal shifts were going to be fine and we were just ignoring human ambition, end of answer, was intellectually pretty wild. I also thought the subsequent Bill Gates interview was the perfect follow up.

Can't speak for everyone else but for me it's because:

1. The whole spy / compromising national security thing are as far as I know unproven.

2. Affairs by themselves, while not ethical, are fairly tame compare to other prominent tech figures like Musk.

If it comes out that he did indeed compromise national security knowingly, then that's a different matter of course.

unproven?! https://culperresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Culper...

The most importance sentence from your report is this one from the top of page 6:

> We believe that despite essentially no direct compute sales into China after April 2025, Nvidia continued to service Chinese demand via sales to non-restricted intermediaries and diversion.

That’s not at all breaking export control laws. In fact it is the government’s responsibility to identify these non-restricted intermediaries and make them restricted. The government has done this plenty of times in the past and it should again do so here. It is not a company’s job to infer what the government wants it to do. The difference between selling to China and servicing China-originated demand is huge.

And then in a massive game of telephone many people on this thread actually believes that Nvidia allowed direct sales to China, which is how they conclude Huang is breaking the law.

Its a 40 page report. There is no 'most important sentence' that justifies hand waving nuance in evaluating the veracity of claims.

I did skim all 40 pages. None of the remaining nuance is as important as this sentence in the context of this thread. I made this importance judgement myself. You are of course free to read the whole thing too and point out which other nuances are pertinent to the current discussion.

Yes unproven, hence the word “alleged” in all the articles. Your link provided no evidence evidence she’s a spy for China.

[delayed]

Whether or not there's proprietary information espionage going on, there are no other explanations on the table for Megaspeed being able to buy billions of dollars of Nvidia chips other than that they are cut out and smuggling channel.

I'm not even that bothered about those chips going to China. But, like a lot of other aspects that leave us wondering how big and how fragile an AI bubble exists, the fact that billions of dollars of Nvidia revenue is from a reportedly priority customer that isn't actually using the chips is the problem.

What did he do that lacks “moral fiber”? Men have had multiple wives and concubines for as long as marriage has been an institution.

It’s important to not confuse your own feelings with morality.

What you’re saying is that (some) men have lacked morals for a long, long time.

No I’m saying that your conception of morality is wrong, but to understand this you have to have humility/not be narcissistic.

Particular notions of right and wrong that you may have because of prevailing norms in the particular era and location which you live don’t necessarily have any bearing on what is moral or not.

> No I’m saying that your conception of morality is wrong, but to understand this you have to have humility/not be narcissistic.

"I'm actually really humble and high IQ when I imply men have an ancient responsibility to cheat on their wives."

Good God man get over yourself

There was no responsibility in antiquity to have more than one wife.

No, you're saying they lacked your morals.

Is your claim that cheating on your wife is a moral thing to do?

The concept that a man can even “cheat” on his wife is a modern idea.

It violates the agreement he had with his wife. Modern expectations are that you do not commit infidelity.

He created a stable environment to have and raise his children and to provide for them and to contribute to his society. It’s not his fault he happens to live in a particular era where it’s otherwise not possible to do that unless you enter into some contrived modern notion of marriage where otherwise in previous eras there would be no issue.

Just to be clear, fertility rates in the developed world are nearly universally below replacement so there are various norms in place that are clearly not compatible with life.

Fertility is very well studied and the causes of low/high fertility are well known throughout the modern era. Sub-replacement is a very modern concept, coming with the normalization of contraception and dual income households, not with moving from polygamy to monogamy.

Likewise you keep stating elsewhere some "modern notion" of infidelity. There is nothing modern about it. Men came under the same classification with the spread of Christianity through Europe and those societies didn't all crumble and wither away. Even among the elite, the bastard children had very significant challenges in their rights and were not seen as coequals to their peers borne from the monogamous unions.

I don't know if you are an LLM or a bot, but even a cursory look at history would really help, instead of your flat-earther like approach throughout these threads.

No, the cause of low fertility is not “well known”. We can safely entirely dismiss what you’re saying because of this statement.

You know what else is a "modern idea"? That you can't sleep with a 12 year old and that you can't own slaves. Both were considered normal for most of human history. So I guess they're ok too, by your logic?

`monideas` is a bot. You're wasting your time and mental energy even paying attention to this.

I think the moral question is unrelated to the legal matter (which is why he's stepping down), but I'll take the bait on the moral question.

Polygamy is not concubinage is not having extramarital affairs

Making a promise to someone of exclusive sexual intimacy and then breaking that promise is recognized near universally as a moral failing. He knew such an affair would hurt not just shareholders financially but people emotionally.

Maybe the guy isn't totally morally fiberless, but I think most people would agree that such behavior is a (non-trivial) moral failing.

Historically speaking marriage did not mean a man agreed to be sexually exclusive with a particular woman.

It meant a woman agreed to be sexually exclusive with a particular man + various legal entitlements. The particular legal entitlements were what distinguished it from concubinage (which was also a woman agreeing to be sexually exclusive with a particular man).

Now that is not what it means in a modern context, but also in a modern context nearly every developed country has below replacement birth rates I.e these countries are dying so any particular claims of moral superiority or fitness of the marital/family structure norms of modern societies can basically be entirely disregarded.

So your excuse for cheating in marriage is declining birth rates? Absolutely hilarious.

The idea that a man can even “cheat” on his wife is a modern idea. It doesn’t need to be “excused”. I don’t think you’re intelligent enough to really follow the discussion.

Stop ignoring the part of the argument in which there was a promise made that was later broken. That is why it is immoral. Respond to that part.

I did elsewhere

Well he lied, for one:

“Our relationship, our interactions, have been related to Megaspeed, and it was all completely normal and not unusual.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-29/nvidia-ce...

Is lying to the public and his shareholders moral?

Someone please frame this comment for the HN hall of fame

It's insane. I bet none of the commenters here would spare a thought for a manager at a 7-11 who got fired for having sex with one of his subordinates and ended up on the streets because he couldn't pay his rent.

But one of the wealthiest people on the planet gets fired, suffering zero personal hardship as a result, and everybody's up in arms. How could you do this! They all do this, how dare you single him out!

I think that there's a pervasive idea, especially in the tech/startup space, that making money is a moral good. Not merely that making money is compatible with being a good person, but that it makes you a good person, and the more you make the more good you are. Firing an ultra-rich person is therefore basically an affront to a saint. Never mind that it doesn't put them under any hardship, that they and their heirs will still be wealthier than any of us can even conceive of. It's morally wrong to do anything bad to such a good person.

In other contexts we expect some transparency if you have a stake in what is happening. This thread is full of tech workers, and would look very different if each comment was prefaced with some sort of 'Hello, I am John Doe. Nvidia represents 35% of my retirement portfolio, and the semiconductor industry overall represents over 70%. This is why I do not care to rock the boat, and think he did nothing wrong...'

What kind of investment strategy would have 70% in semiconductors? We all need to diversify more again, huh.

> ruthless

Really now. Let's get some examples of his being ruthless.

You're asking why posters in a VC forum, in an industry that is despised by the public for its wanton greed, societal destruction, and complete disdain towards humanity would want to protect one of their own?

Bro, this is what the tech industry is all about: fucking over society to make a dollar.

He sucks but even if I take the worst interpretation of what it looks like this guy did and assume there's a bunch of other affairs I just don't have enough energy to get worked up about something so comparatively small potatoes. I don't idolize or feel sorry for him, but he was a competent leader of his company. Nvidia will be a weaker company without him and I think the fears of an inference lock on GPUs to prop up slime ball American AI companies is more likely to come true with him gone. The next CEO is more likely to accept a bride to make it happen.

[delayed]