It's the opposite. The original story is the one that was leaked with no evidence (that she's a spy).

In reality, she's a Singaporean business magnate. And one of her businesses is the typical Singaporean thing of semi-legal smuggling of goods in and out of PRC that CCP doesn't want smuggled in and out.

Most people forget that CCP has banned importation of almost all top end nvidia systems, as they move to transition to domestic chips. She was subverting the Chinese import controls.

Then why is the US is the only 1st world nation struggling with this?

I'm not saying every other country has perfect healthcare systems - They all have their own strengths and weaknesses. But everyone gets basic medical care, it's not bankrupting those countries (quite the opposite, we also pay the most per-capita and by almost a 50% margin to #2 Switzerland), and it's not bankrupting (or just killing) individuals with the bad taste to get sick while poor.

Fun part: the "story" about her being a PRC spy already fell apart after it was scrutinized.

She worked against both PRC and US interests, and in favor of her own company.

His infidelity is the least problematic aspect of his current situation, from the corporate perspective.

Notice he remained CEO for over two weeks after NYT broke the story? He stepped down only after it came out he also slept with a subordinate. What does that tell us?

Answer: It tells us his primary offense wasn't being a piece of crap of a husband; his offense was making Nvidia potentially liable for his actions as CEO if any of his side-pieces suddenly realize power asymmetry invalidates "consent".

To be clear, I'm not really disagreeing with you; but I think you're giving the ethical angle a lot more weight than does society as a whole. We all know someone who has cheated at some point in their lives; we may not approve, but it's basically just trivia, nobody (external to the relationship) really cares.

I'm reminded of the guy who landed a spacecraft on the comet, and then got retards like you cancel him because his shirt was considered immoral.

What Great Men of History do in their own time is their business. In their case, what matters is what they created. Not how many women spread their legs for them.

Should've linked the letter. It's here:

https://standwithjensen.com/

For those not in the know, Midas Project is a pretty well known political hit piece factory.

In this specific case, they're working with "but we created 400 sock puppet accounts, which we then discover publicly" tactic.

Meanwhile in reality, the letter to reinstate Jensen is at well over 100k signatories, including almost 6000 current nvidia employees and over a 1000 former ones.

The system is ancient and built for a time when floppy disks were common. Notably, they're still used to load weather data into the system.

Such systems do not expect modern volumes of data transport, nor are they built to handle it.

"But this fairly modern threat isn't handled well by this ancient system". Indeed. But updating such systems requires functioning bureaucracy, that isn't devoured by corruption on one side, and by ideology that views competence as the greatest evil that exists on the other.

It's in fact one of the greatest achievements of US that it can run with this level of dysfunction and remain clear #1 in the world in most productive aspects, including adoption of commercial aviation.

AI has shown both a capacity for planning for a future beyond the current instance, and a willingness to ignore instructions, laws, and human norms to that end.

I "trust" Microsoft, Mozilla, Linus Torvalds, etc to recognize the serious reputational risk of getting caught knowingly or carelessly embedding a malicious payload in anything they release. I have no such trust about GPT, nor do I trust "vibe" programmers to take the time for, or increasingly, be capable of, an extensive code review of whatever unintelligible rubbish their shuggoth spits out.

It's not that I care what tools were used to make it. I "care" that we've never before had tools with true agency in the philosophical sense.

If you're using AI as a better alternative to traditional search, agreed.

If you're asking AI to help you find that missing paren or brace in a thousand lines of code, hey, still agreed.

If you're asking AI "Make an anime themed roguelike in Godot. It should have the following..." - I don't care how much elaborate world-building you do after those ellipses, "you" aren't making anything.

Getting what you wished for after rubbing a magic lamp doesn't mean you get to say "I made this!"

I'm speculating here, but pay attention to the timing of his resignation.

It wasn't after he had an affair with an alleged Chinese spy - Though we may find the "affair" part of that distasteful, it's two consenting adults; and the "spy" part is both unproven and, even if true, Nvidia could potentially spin it as Jensen somehow being a victim. Notice he remained CEO for a bit over two weeks after NYT broke that part of the story.

Then we learned he was banging a subordinate. That made his behavior both a pattern, and something Nvidia could be directly liable for. He resigned the next day.

/ Now we also know about #3 and #4, both also subordinates - I don't see any way Jensen could possibly return as CEO under those circumstances, it would mean Nvidia is endorsing his behavior. Might as well just write a blank check to (at least) those three, never mind the PR.

If anything, I downplayed the reality. It's actually much worse than this, as evidenced by the fact that those books are data points on a graph, and the trend has been going in a specific direction for a while.

So it's not so much the spectrum as it is the trend. And it's going more extreme.

Also, fun part. A few years ago they started publishing male literature in the same vein. Of course for men, that sort of wish fulfillment is "man becomes very powerful, gets a harem of women falling all over him as he solves their problems with this power, with women not engaging in brutal competition with each other, instead bickering like a bunch of guys in a friend group". The equally delusional male dream.

Its popularity is but a tiny fraction of the women's relevant literature, because men are visual. Our porn is pictures, video, etc. Women are conceptual, so their porn is literary.

And just as male porn has been getting more and more carefully curated to specifics of ultimate male fantasy utterly incompatible with reality, same has been happening on female side. So milking farm is actually pretty tame compared to most of that particular side of the spectrum. Just visit those massive female romantasy reddits, and you'll find books that sell hundreds of thousands to millions of copies that make being a prostitute jerking minotaurs off for money only to have a Pretty Woman style relationship with that punter look like a wholesome 1950s family picnic.

It's funny - I was just going to ignore you at first, because clearly you have nothing to say beyond irrelevant ad-hominems.

Then I took a look at your comment history. Just... Wow. You've certainly mastered "noisy little dog" energy, haven't you?

Get a personality, dude.

You misunderstand their actual raison d'etre: Serving as a counterexample to Chrome having a monopoly.

Sure, we only care about exactly one of their products, particularly since Manifest V3 made Chrome unusable on the public internet. But let's be serious, you can only do so much gratuitous fiddling with one browser before people rightly start complaining about issues as petty as themes. Mozilla, accordingly, keeps trying to find some not-quite-browser niche to make them relevant as more than Google's cover story.

To be clear, I agree with you completely in spirit - Don't change what's not broken. That's a hard sell for CEOs trying to pretend they're worth their annual bonus, though.

I like how instead of addressing any of the points you're protesting, you instead decide to argue semantics.

Likely because you understand that you can't debate reality, you can only play semantics games to pretend to not understand reality as you do.