Musk is also very "out" about it. Kinda like how it's okay to be gay in the CIA, as long as you're out. Being in the closet gets you fired because it makes you blackmailable.
Is it worse or does it dilute the bad if there are a ton of baby mammas not just a "girlfriend who is also the mother of a couple of children"? I don't like the guy but it kind of feels like it somehow isn't as bad when it's just open, repeat behavior and nobody thinks he is even trying to be exclusively "with" these women. I have no idea what their shared understanding is but it might not be as bad as your framing makes it sound if that is openly known between them.
Not a lifestyle I could ever be proud of living personally but ymmv and elon seems to be enjoying himself.
In principle I agree. But at some point there were many enough of them that anyone who gets involved with Musk has very little legitimate basis for claiming to believe there won't be others.
If by "this" you mean the affair with Powell, probably not much difference between Jensen Huang's affair with Powell and affairs that Gates, Bezos, and Brin have reportedly had.
But the extramarital affair with Alice Huang is quite different. NYTimes reports that Alice Huang is a Chinese spy, with whom Jensen Huang may have conspired to break the law, selling advanced NVIDIA chips to China. That affair puts the whole company at extreme legal risk. Gates, Bezos, and Brin have nothing like this on their records that I'm aware of.
As I write this, the top post on HN speculates that this is "the tip of the iceberg," indicating that there at least may be more affairs yet to be uncovered, and, plausibly, Jensen Huang may have committed even more enormous mistakes with serious consequences for NVIDIA.
In the case of Musk, the amount of equity they own in the company. In the case of Gates, the fact that it didn't come out when he was still an executive.
I would think so. We can probably expect more to keep trickling out until he has no other choice but to resign. The spy thing was already bad enough. Now we find out he's hooking up with one of his direct reports? Seems like he runs a toxic workplace.
If there are ants in your kitchen they might be coming in due to rain outside.
You can leave sugar water in strategic places and then follow the ant trail to track where they are coming in.
Probably there will be an entire trail of ants in the morning - not just two. You can then track the place where they are coming in and block up the entrance point.
Once the entrance point is blocked, you have the ants trapped, and can begin reeducating them to fight their own kind. Then, after months of work, you unblock the entrances and let them all duke it out, thus solving the problem once and for all.
I like how the OP specified the "average" number of ants in the kitch, as though the distinction is meaningful. Like, yeah, I guess that's technically not wrong? Actually, I'm not even sure of that, because an average here implies that time matters, so... it could be wrong!
As for the above, well, let's just call it art. How should I interpret it? The analogy is that ants are affair partners, and so if I put some sugar water out, they'll all come out of the woodwork. Is this some kind of journalistic or legal exercise for building a body of evidence against Jensen? A mating strategy? I don't know! It could be both of these, either, or none! The limits of my own imagination are laid bare.
On the actual topic, though, anyone who doesn't see why this is a problem needs to think a bit harder. If the CEO puts on the show of being a family man, but is secretly getting hands-on with coworkers and spies, he's a liability to the company. It would be a stretch to say this would be acceptable behaviour even if he were above board about it, because it calls his overall judgement into question, but it would be marginally better. Remember, this is a guy who runs a multi-trillion dollar company that has limits on what it can sell to whom, because the product is a strategic asset. He can cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage (and did!) just through his own personal behaviour. He doesn't get to have lapses like this, and if he does, is he making bad judgement calls elsewhere? It's not like it's hard to not sleep with your coworkers and clients. Billions of us do it every day.
Of course, this could just be the jealous ramblings of someone who doesn't have a sweet leather jacket...
Uno was highly criticized in public not for having a Geisha mistress, as it was a traditional leisure practice expected of politicians and wealthy men but instead due to relating his poor financial habits in the Japanese Diet as compared and paralleled to the ungenerosity towards his former Geisha mistress.
Oh good, I thought it was just me. I had to ask an LLM to break it down for me, despite being a native English speaker. Turns out it's trying to communicate something completely orthogonal to my initial interpretation.
Not surprising at all. Many tech CEOs are like this; Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt and so on. People don’t stop idolizing these people, they don’t even think that this is a problem.
“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.
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.
It’s an odd phenomenon alright. South Park covered it in the episode “Sexual Healing” where famous 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 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.
Lots of animals engages in non consensual rape; humans need to get on a level?
We should kill on sight like a lot of animals do to each other; it's natural to behave like an animal.
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; 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"
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
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. This somehow reminds me of the Churchill joke:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for $1 million?
Woman: Why Winston, yes I would.
Churchill: How about $10?
Woman: What sort of woman do you think I am?
Churchill: We've already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price.
Or Nvidia comes out of this damaged but not nearly as much as if they were glued to Jensen. "Superstar" CEOs that have complete control over a company are only benefits until they become enormous risks.
There is no way that would have been possible. And as I saw another commenter mention, even if NVidia were founded much more recently when dual share structures became much more common, you rarely (or maybe never, I can't think of any cases) see that dual share structure in very capital intensive industries like hardware where you have to sink a ton of money into the enterprise before you even see any revenue. Software is a whole different ball game.
You are correct, and I was wrong. I originally thought SpaceX was a bit of a special case because the board (pretty much Musk loyalists) gave Musk a ton of restricted stock right before the IPO, but the voting rights vested immediately. But the part I was wrong about is thinking that was just an IPO thing. All the many billions that SpaceX got pre-IPO was done with investors being fine having Musk alone having majority voting control.
We have become a permissive society in regard to sex and extramarital affairs. What’s so wrong about having an affair with another employee in the company? I think they are making a big deal about this.
The Chinese spy who he was having sex with and probably helping break export controls and smuggle Nvidia tech into China through singapore is probably a bigger deal than this one
Looks to me like he has a target on his back, and people are just throwing stuff at it now. This could have come out years ago, if it is true. No reason not to. None, not in this day and age.
It's just the feminine of "mister". By this reasoning, "mister" is also a loaded word, given it's even more directly related to "master". Not everyone who has ever been called a "master" of something owned slaves. Most were just the master of a house.
I always thought that it was Mrs. = missus, Ms. = miz, at least that’s how I would say them, but I now realize that a) that’s plainly incorrect and b) I’ve never actually ever seen them non-abbreviated.
If an abbreviation is never expanded, is it still an abbreviation? Personally I think it isn’t; I advocate for condensing i.e./e.g. to simply ie and eg, though this is a minority opinion.
> It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known. This is especially true in written communication, as dictated by professional etiquette.[1]
> [Ms. is] intended as a default form of address for women regardless of marital status. [2]
You didn’t know, because it started with Gloria Steinem in the 70s.
Wikipedia tries to make it sound like it’s some old tradition, but it’s actually fairly new, with the prior historical references being obscure until it was resurrected.
Cant read it, but the title literally says “1986, ‘Ms’ joins the Times vocabulary”, so I’m guessing that, you know…1986 is when it became the Times’ standard. This likely corresponds to the campaign of Geraldine Ferraro, which is what I personally remember as the point where the term became widespread.
I don’t understand this need to rewrite history. Nobody in this thread is objecting to the use of the term. Even the wikipedia article says the term was resurrected in the 80s.
“It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known. This is especially true in written communication, as dictated by professional etiquette. […] It is normally considered correct to address a woman as Ms. [Lastname], regardless of her marital status.”
This applies mostly to the US, to a lesser extent to the UK, and to a much lesser extent (or not at all) to the dozen or so other Anglosphere countries.
But as we all know, the US is all that matters, so you may as well state outright that it “is so”, and move on.
I looked at guardian's style guide (british) and some australian style guide I found and they both default to "Ms". Which specific anglosphere country did you have in mind?
>It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known.
Hm. Weird. Never seen that before. Let's check the source, emilypost.com:
>Mx. Is the universal title that can be used by anyone. It is gender non-identifying. Even if you identify specifically with a gender you may still use Mx. and you may see Mx. used when the sender is unaware of your title.
No. He's out because he works in a professional environment and knows that the statement that Mx is a universal title that can be used with anyone is untrue. In the vast majority of workplaces in the world, you'd get a weird look for calling somebody with an obvious gender identity Mx.
Yes, I work in a workplace, so I've experienced people using personal titles first-hand. I've also read some studies about neo-pronouns and neo-titles, yes. Their prevalence is generally measured as being quite low.
I‘m sorry, but I don‘t believe you. The claim that “neo-pronouns and neo-titles [...] prevalence is generally measured as being quite low” is a completely different claim then your initial “you'd get a weird look for calling somebody with an obvious gender identity Mx.”
I think you have never called somebody Mx. to their face, and I don‘t think you have witnessed it either, and I don‘t think you have read any peer reviewed paper which explores people reactions to this title.
I don't think so. In the UK the default is also Ms unless a preference has been expressed for Miss/Mrs.
Especially in a business context, it would be unprofessional to ask if a woman is married or not merely for determining which title to use. Unless you want to have an affair with her, of course.
For a different regional reference point, my personal experience in California[1] has been to always use Ms. in a professional context, but this thread is the first time I've become aware that some portion of people default to Ms. for known-married women in other contexts. I understand the motive, it's just news to me as well.
[1] >25 years in San Diego, >10 years in SF. I'm 40.
I semi seriously suggest we come up with neologisms to avoid gendered forms of address. We could take from Morrowind and replace Mr/Ms/sir/ma’am with “muthsera”.
Oh my God are native English speakers okay?? Ms. is not miss it's pronounced like "miz" and it's always been a convention to refer to women with their full or last name regardless of marriage state. Mx is just a gender neutral honorific for full or last names.
Look, if you want to learn about social cues you’re going to have to draw from experience instead of links from the internet. Experience interacting with women will quickly teach you that Ms. is the safest option, if not preferred.
Obligatory reference to Douglas Hofstsdter’s parody about gendered pronouns where he imagines an alternate reality in which English pronouns are race-based instead of gender-based, and they have the Miss/Mrs. distinction, but only non-whites have to use it, and it’s based on whether you have a job — because obviously only non-whites need to advertise this.
Considering "Mrs." just means "mistress" (the feminine form of "mister"), I don't see how it implies that.
While I'm at it, I don't see how "miss" can be more respectful than "mistress" when the former is a clipping of the latter, so a miss is less than a mistress.
Because Ms. Powell is an Nvidia employee who is not suspected of being a Chinese spy. You're thinking of Alice Huang (turns out Jensen was having multiple different affairs!)
Ms. vs Miss vs Mrs. "Ms." is kinda considered professional, if I can say so – and is used for either Miss (unmarried) or Mrs. (married). It's more like calling everyone a firefighter (instead of fireman and firewoman), or bartender instead of barman and barmaid – well, kinda.
But if someone prefers Dr, Prof etc then yeah that's what takes precedence.
I have always felt that Ms. is just the short form for Miss or even Mrs, but I suspect that's incorrect.
My personal style is using frist names – in personal and professional emails, and in rare sccenarios both first and last name. I almost never use Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss etc. So obviously I never head to write for a newspaper.
My friend once told me she saw Mx in UK in some Govt forms. Gender netural apparently. I have personally never seen this use. I guess that x is for "crossing off" the S's from other titles :)
Also use of "Master" for male children. I have seen in my country (even now) and of course in the good old England (or UK/Britain/GB? Sorry, not in the mood to check Wikipedia for these distinctions).
He's kind of like 'scum bag lite' and now barely qualifies to join the rest of the mega wealthy and powerfull in there conspicuos imunity from censure.
If his personal security detained the person videoing them and offered them money to sign an NDA, it feels like something they had experience with. Could this just be the tip of the iceberg?
Slightly pedantic but I think in most US jurisdiction private security can detain you for theft under the doctrine of shopkeepers privilege but only long enough for law enforcement to get there.
Obviously not super relevant to this but that's where people get the idea at least.
I knew this was going to happen. It's highly unlikely that a man cheats on his wife for the first time after age 60. This was just the first time he was outed for it.
I hated the misogynistic narrative that Huang was somehow helpless against a super-spy-seductress. Men can in fact control themselves, and it takes a lot of effort, you might even say willpower, to turn a business meeting into a bedroom encounter, especially when you're in the public eye. If Huang was targeted, it was because he was an easy target, a philanderer.
> This was just the first time he was outed for it
For good reason. The level of fuck-up in sleeping with a Chinese spy and then having the gall to try and corruptly quash the investigations into it, coming clean only after Congress flips, is nuts.
I’m not convinced a good CEO can’t have affairs. I am convinced a liar and corrupter can’t.
Yeah but then what's the point of working your whole life 60+h/week to become one of the wealthiest and most influential men in the world, if you can't 'slay some puss' when the mood hits you?
This is in fact very mild and tame behavior for someone who's a famous influential billionaire. Because the other ones went to an island where they ... you know ... did things to kids. So banging some milfy cougars while married is very milk toast by comparison.
> Yeah but then what's the point of busting your ass your whole life to become one of the wealthiest and most influential men in the world, if you can't have an affair when the mood hits you?
Perhaps don't get married then, or have a consensual open relationship.
I love all these comments that are basically like "what's the point of being a billionaire if you can't stick your dick wherever you want when the mood strikes you and lie about it to your wife."
I think the unspoken implication is that being a billionaire means having an inordinate amount of power, such that immoral behavior like this becomes almost a given, because you can literally buy your way out of consequences (if only up to a point). Maybe the pertinent question is less, "How do we stop there being billionaires who succumb to the temptations of their unfathomable amounts of power?" and more, "How do we stop there being billionaires?".
You don't need to be a billionaire to cheat on your wife and have affairs. Average and poor dudes do that all the time.
The point I was making was, that what's the point of becoming a powerful billionaire if your life now has more restrictions than the lower classes? People amass wealth and power to gain more freedoms from societal rules, not less.
>Perhaps don't get married then, or have a consensual open relationship.
Clearly you don't understand that sexual desires and human constructed morality are different things, often in opposition with each other.
Surely he didn't know when he got married that 2 decades later, he'd become a billionaire surrounded by women more attractive than he could score before, otherwise he probably wouldn't have gotten married in the first place, if he knew a p**sy tsunami would await him.
On nearly every post online about his affair, one of the most visible comments always ended up being about how one must "understand" that this just sort of "happens" when you're this rich and powerful. Poor thing, couldn't keep it in his pants. "Oh, just think of how hard it would be to resist! Would you?"
I pity whomever is in a relationship with someone who actually thinks that way. I'm disgusted, to be honest.
Purely accident that the news dribbles out like that. Nothing to see, moving on.
(If he's done this without his wife's full consent, he's certainly a despicable human, but that doesn't change that this looks like a really nicely orchestrated PR hit job)
I agree with you. I also find it “interesting” that this all really started appearing a few days after DOJ made angry noises about nVidia buying Hugging Face.
Can someone explain how the CEO sex life is relevant? Is it because of the risk of a messy divorce that can both distract the CEO and eventually force voting share transfer since he’s also a shareholder?
> Can someone explain how the CEO sex life is relevant?
If it's true that he had the affair with the CCP spy or otherwise was encouraged to sell GPUs using loopholes that violate export bans, that would put him and NVDA into some hot water.
Investors do not like that and the implications for any rapid change in NVDA valuation would be immense.
Yes, his actions carry potential shareholder risk and the board has a fiduciary duty to treat it as such. Nvidia (and Jensen) carry extra risk given their corporate structure which is flatter than most companies. Jensen has dozens of direct reports and is a cornerstone of the company. The recent changes to the stock price exemplify all of this.
Potential for blackmailing, messy divorce, corporate liability with regards to potential sexual harassment lawsuits, overall negative PR/image... and a dozen other reasons.
Yes, no one questions what he does with his wife (or used to...). That's sex life. Promiscuity and risky behaviors are that and have nothing to do with his sex life.
Most companies have policies prohibiting employees from having relationships with subordinates. If he's going to violate company policy in this way, what's to say he isn't doing other shady things inside the business?
Regardless, the saying, "don't shit where you eat" exists for a reason. Huang engaging in this relationship shows profound poor judgment. Is it wise to have someone with such poor judgment running a company of Nvidia's scale and importance?
1. Legally this is highly problematic as it exposed Nvidia in a bunch of different ways.
2. A CEO who is so unconcerned about 1. may be engaging in other risky activities.
Morals are important. He could have used his position of power to do this. If you don't care about morals that's fine but don't get all tetchy when people who do have ideals care.
Let's say that we discover that he didnt use his position of power to advantage himself with Ms Powell. According to your reasoning, then it should be fine, right?
1. having sex with CEO of the company your are doing business with may affect the business itself, so you are not delivering best results for your own company
2. having sex with your own subordinate employee seems like potential abuse of power for starters and it is just calling for lawsuit, because while she can say today it was consensual, tomorrow she can say the other way
if he would be having sex with random girls he found in bars it would be certainly less problematic than having sex with people who are directly related to his company
btw. it also shows his character, if he was unfaithful once, he was unfaithful twice, do you really think these are only two cases and it ends just with his sex life?
Because sleeping with someone at your company in secret while you are married can be incredibly destabilizing. Also, she reports to him. There is an inherent consent issue.
How is the CEO having a secret affair with somebody at his company not relevant to the company?
All of this also reflects incredibly poor judgment.
I'm not condoning cheating at all, but if you're a billionaire with endless connections around the world, why wouldn't you just go to an escort if you can't keep it in your pants.
I know things are different when you're only thinking with your johnson but jeez, showing up with the same woman in front of the media many times and even displaying affection in front of a camera (there is pictures of them with light body contact afaik), what did he think was going to happen?
it's a power thing - yeah he could go to an escort, but then it becomes only about money. He wants these relationships as a proof of his power; then walking around in public is to flaunt the power, the 'you can't do me nothing, look at me'. Power is the drug.
350 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 89.9 ms ] threadMusk is also very "out" about it. Kinda like how it's okay to be gay in the CIA, as long as you're out. Being in the closet gets you fired because it makes you blackmailable.
Not a lifestyle I could ever be proud of living personally but ymmv and elon seems to be enjoying himself.
morally I don't really disagree with you, but practically I do.
This? Honestly nothing. It’s bad, but as you point out, precedented among this Epstein cohort.
But the extramarital affair with Alice Huang is quite different. NYTimes reports that Alice Huang is a Chinese spy, with whom Jensen Huang may have conspired to break the law, selling advanced NVIDIA chips to China. That affair puts the whole company at extreme legal risk. Gates, Bezos, and Brin have nothing like this on their records that I'm aware of.
As I write this, the top post on HN speculates that this is "the tip of the iceberg," indicating that there at least may be more affairs yet to be uncovered, and, plausibly, Jensen Huang may have committed even more enormous mistakes with serious consequences for NVIDIA.
Troy 2.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd
Rest in peace.
You can leave sugar water in strategic places and then follow the ant trail to track where they are coming in.
Probably there will be an entire trail of ants in the morning - not just two. You can then track the place where they are coming in and block up the entrance point.
As for the above, well, let's just call it art. How should I interpret it? The analogy is that ants are affair partners, and so if I put some sugar water out, they'll all come out of the woodwork. Is this some kind of journalistic or legal exercise for building a body of evidence against Jensen? A mating strategy? I don't know! It could be both of these, either, or none! The limits of my own imagination are laid bare.
On the actual topic, though, anyone who doesn't see why this is a problem needs to think a bit harder. If the CEO puts on the show of being a family man, but is secretly getting hands-on with coworkers and spies, he's a liability to the company. It would be a stretch to say this would be acceptable behaviour even if he were above board about it, because it calls his overall judgement into question, but it would be marginally better. Remember, this is a guy who runs a multi-trillion dollar company that has limits on what it can sell to whom, because the product is a strategic asset. He can cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage (and did!) just through his own personal behaviour. He doesn't get to have lapses like this, and if he does, is he making bad judgement calls elsewhere? It's not like it's hard to not sleep with your coworkers and clients. Billions of us do it every day.
Of course, this could just be the jealous ramblings of someone who doesn't have a sweet leather jacket...
> Everything that happens once can never happen again. But everything that happens twice will surely happen a third time.
I've found that to be a very useful heuristic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dsuke_Uno#Economics
What even is the problem with that really?
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.
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.
https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/intel-ceo-resigns...
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.
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 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/...
Source: dude trust me
Tell that to all the animals that exhibit long-term, often life-long coupling.
Lots of animals engages in non consensual rape; humans need to get on a level?
We should kill on sight like a lot of animals do to each other; it's natural to behave like an animal.
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; 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"
my wife and I date other people, you'd be surprised how big the ENM/Poly community is when you start looking
every argument that attempts to humanize and 'us too' these types of folks (billionaires that own islands and ultra-yachts) totally bewilders me.
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
For this conclusion to be valid, you have to provide the proportion of tech ceos who cheat.
Which catch-22 removes the power imbalance.
So it's all opportunistic, at this point.
Then Investor lawsuit kick off, more allegations, a big drop, profit. Then "oh well", "can't prove it".
This was all immensely quick, putting together an investor's lawsuit this fast, other allegations waiting...
It's almost as if someone had the lawsuit ready to go.
Dumb language question: if Powell is married, why isn’t she referred to as Mrs. Powell in this article?
Many people find it demeaning to address women differently depending on whether or not they are married, especially when we don't do the same for men.
I was always taught it was 'Master' for unmarried and young men.
I remember when I was a kid, bank correspondence would address me as MASTER. I found it amusing.
I don’t think they do that anymore though??? I think our son has always been MR to them, even when he was a 5 year old
But when Mrs first stood for Mistress, the word Mistress wasn't "loaded" at all.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/mistress
Only in English.
If an abbreviation is never expanded, is it still an abbreviation? Personally I think it isn’t; I advocate for condensing i.e./e.g. to simply ie and eg, though this is a minority opinion.
> [Ms. is] intended as a default form of address for women regardless of marital status. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.
Wikipedia tries to make it sound like it’s some old tradition, but it’s actually fairly new, with the prior historical references being obscure until it was resurrected.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/insider/1986-ms-joins-the...
I don’t understand this need to rewrite history. Nobody in this thread is objecting to the use of the term. Even the wikipedia article says the term was resurrected in the 80s.
Gloria Steinem cofounded Ms. Magazine in the early 70s which helped popularize it further.
Anyway, how old are you that well over half a century is “fairly new” to you? Do you still wear galoshes and use a mimeograph?
“It is generally considered polite to address a woman by Ms. rather than Mrs., unless the preference of the woman in question is clearly known. This is especially true in written communication, as dictated by professional etiquette. […] It is normally considered correct to address a woman as Ms. [Lastname], regardless of her marital status.”
There was such a huge push to convert all `master` branches to `main`[1], yet feminists have no issues addressing each other as master/mistress.
I'm not a native speaker, but in my experience, people don't even talk like that anyway. Newspapers may write "Mr Trump" but people just say Trump.
[1]: Not me, I still use `master`.
But as we all know, the US is all that matters, so you may as well state outright that it “is so”, and move on.
Hm. Weird. Never seen that before. Let's check the source, emilypost.com:
>Mx. Is the universal title that can be used by anyone. It is gender non-identifying. Even if you identify specifically with a gender you may still use Mx. and you may see Mx. used when the sender is unaware of your title.
https://emilypost.com/advice/guide-to-addressing-corresponde...
OK, im out. I'm immediately out.
Have you experienced this first hand? Have you done any research? Have you read any peer reviewed papers on the matter that concluded this as a trend?
I think you have never called somebody Mx. to their face, and I don‘t think you have witnessed it either, and I don‘t think you have read any peer reviewed paper which explores people reactions to this title.
there is woman,
and there is Klinefelter's.
(worth the karma hit)
Miss indicated that a woman was unmarried. Mrs indicated that she was. Ms was added to behave like Mr in that it doesn't indicate marital status.
Especially in a business context, it would be unprofessional to ask if a woman is married or not merely for determining which title to use. Unless you want to have an affair with her, of course.
[1] >25 years in San Diego, >10 years in SF. I'm 40.
Edit: Huh, I just learned after some searching that having a period after "Ms" and "Mr" is not a universal practice!
Once that's in place, I would feel better about the use of Mrs.
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.htm...
While I'm at it, I don't see how "miss" can be more respectful than "mistress" when the former is a clipping of the latter, so a miss is less than a mistress.
Because she is about to be single?
But if someone prefers Dr, Prof etc then yeah that's what takes precedence.
I have always felt that Ms. is just the short form for Miss or even Mrs, but I suspect that's incorrect.
My personal style is using frist names – in personal and professional emails, and in rare sccenarios both first and last name. I almost never use Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss etc. So obviously I never head to write for a newspaper.
My friend once told me she saw Mx in UK in some Govt forms. Gender netural apparently. I have personally never seen this use. I guess that x is for "crossing off" the S's from other titles :)
Also use of "Master" for male children. I have seen in my country (even now) and of course in the good old England (or UK/Britain/GB? Sorry, not in the mood to check Wikipedia for these distinctions).
Obviously not super relevant to this but that's where people get the idea at least.
I hated the misogynistic narrative that Huang was somehow helpless against a super-spy-seductress. Men can in fact control themselves, and it takes a lot of effort, you might even say willpower, to turn a business meeting into a bedroom encounter, especially when you're in the public eye. If Huang was targeted, it was because he was an easy target, a philanderer.
For good reason. The level of fuck-up in sleeping with a Chinese spy and then having the gall to try and corruptly quash the investigations into it, coming clean only after Congress flips, is nuts.
I’m not convinced a good CEO can’t have affairs. I am convinced a liar and corrupter can’t.
Yeah but then what's the point of working your whole life 60+h/week to become one of the wealthiest and most influential men in the world, if you can't 'slay some puss' when the mood hits you?
This is in fact very mild and tame behavior for someone who's a famous influential billionaire. Because the other ones went to an island where they ... you know ... did things to kids. So banging some milfy cougars while married is very milk toast by comparison.
Perhaps don't get married then, or have a consensual open relationship.
I love all these comments that are basically like "what's the point of being a billionaire if you can't stick your dick wherever you want when the mood strikes you and lie about it to your wife."
The point I was making was, that what's the point of becoming a powerful billionaire if your life now has more restrictions than the lower classes? People amass wealth and power to gain more freedoms from societal rules, not less.
Clearly you don't understand that sexual desires and human constructed morality are different things, often in opposition with each other.
Surely he didn't know when he got married that 2 decades later, he'd become a billionaire surrounded by women more attractive than he could score before, otherwise he probably wouldn't have gotten married in the first place, if he knew a p**sy tsunami would await him.
Maybe his autographing that women's bra (boob?) at a trade show was a red flag…
I pity whomever is in a relationship with someone who actually thinks that way. I'm disgusted, to be honest.
(If he's done this without his wife's full consent, he's certainly a despicable human, but that doesn't change that this looks like a really nicely orchestrated PR hit job)
If it's true that he had the affair with the CCP spy or otherwise was encouraged to sell GPUs using loopholes that violate export bans, that would put him and NVDA into some hot water.
Investors do not like that and the implications for any rapid change in NVDA valuation would be immense.
https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-16-states-where-its-illeg...
Regardless, the saying, "don't shit where you eat" exists for a reason. Huang engaging in this relationship shows profound poor judgment. Is it wise to have someone with such poor judgment running a company of Nvidia's scale and importance?
2. having sex with your own subordinate employee seems like potential abuse of power for starters and it is just calling for lawsuit, because while she can say today it was consensual, tomorrow she can say the other way
if he would be having sex with random girls he found in bars it would be certainly less problematic than having sex with people who are directly related to his company
btw. it also shows his character, if he was unfaithful once, he was unfaithful twice, do you really think these are only two cases and it ends just with his sex life?
How is the CEO having a secret affair with somebody at his company not relevant to the company?
All of this also reflects incredibly poor judgment.
I know things are different when you're only thinking with your johnson but jeez, showing up with the same woman in front of the media many times and even displaying affection in front of a camera (there is pictures of them with light body contact afaik), what did he think was going to happen?
He should have retired and done a handover last month and left at his peak to a beach villa on Maui...