The Fall of NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang

erek said:
yeah it does and you even questioned the interest of investors.. (shareholders)
Click to expand...
I mentioned the interest of investors as one of multiple possible disadvantages being put at risk, following the logic of innovation and business smarts under Jensen driving Nvidia's commercial success. And it will take years to see what the impact of Jensen's removal will be on Nvidia's performance.

Whereas in the context of my comment about Jobs and Apple, it was Jobs that put Apple into the position where his successor could exploit its market position for services-based profits. While the shift in Apple's strategy from breakthrough, innovative products and design under Jobs to exploiting its market position with a services-based business model is a loss for people who want to see things move forward. It would likewise be a loss for the average person if Nvidia makes a similar shift after Jensen, and not something I'd happily to point to and say 'see, Nvidia is fine' about.


1794675732762.png
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
I mentioned the interest of investors as one of multiple possible disadvantages being put at risk, following the logic of innovation and business smarts under Jensen driving Nvidia's commercial success. And it will take years to see what the impact of Jensen's removal will be on Nvidia's performance.

Whereas in the context of my comment about Jobs and Apple, it was Jobs that put Apple into the position where his successor could exploit its market position for services-based profits. While the shift in Apple's strategy from breakthrough, innovative products and design under Jobs to exploiting its market position with a services-based business model is a loss for people who want to see things move forward. It would likewise be a loss for the average person if Nvidia makes a similar shift after Jensen, and not something I'd happily to point to and say 'see, Nvidia is fine' about.
Click to expand...
I think you're conflating several different arguments here.

The Steve Jobs analogy doesn't really work. Apple's shift toward services doesn't establish that Nvidia will follow the same path without Jensen. Nvidia has an established engineering organization, executive team, technology roadmap, and institutional capabilities. A CEO matters, but a company isn't a one-man operation.

More importantly, Jensen's business accomplishments don't make him immune to legitimate scrutiny. You keep framing this as though the issue is simply his private affairs. It isn't. Private infidelity is one thing; potentially misleading company leadership about relationships involving employees, customers, and possible conflicts of interest is another. Those are legitimate corporate governance concerns.

And there's a contradiction in your reasoning: you dismiss the allegations as irrelevant or fabricated while simultaneously arguing that removing Jensen puts Nvidia's investors and future at risk. But investors have an interest in competent governance, risk management, and executive accountability just as much as they have an interest in innovation.

The Chinese espionage angle also needs to be treated carefully. There's no established proof that Alice Huang was a spy or that Nvidia's secrets were compromised. But the absence of proof of espionage doesn't establish that the reporting was a hit job. Nvidia's own independent directors considered the matter serious enough to commission an investigation.

Likewise, pointing to prominent people supporting Jensen, employee petitions, or people who might benefit from his departure doesn't establish that the allegations were orchestrated or false. That's speculation about motives, not evidence.

Ultimately, you're making a leap from Jensen was an exceptional CEO to removing him was necessarily a mistake and the reasons for doing so were illegitimate. Those are not equivalent propositions.

He can have been instrumental in building Nvidia into an extraordinary company and still have created governance problems serious enough to warrant his departure. Both things can be true.
 
erek said:
I think you're conflating several different arguments here.

The Steve Jobs analogy doesn't really work. Apple's shift toward services doesn't establish that Nvidia will follow the same path without Jensen. Nvidia has an established engineering organization, executive team, technology roadmap, and institutional capabilities. A CEO matters, but a company isn't a one-man operation.

More importantly, Jensen's business accomplishments don't make him immune to legitimate scrutiny. You keep framing this as though the issue is simply his private affairs. It isn't. Private infidelity is one thing; potentially misleading company leadership about relationships involving employees, customers, and possible conflicts of interest is another. Those are legitimate corporate governance concerns.

And there's a contradiction in your reasoning: you dismiss the allegations as irrelevant or fabricated while simultaneously arguing that removing Jensen puts Nvidia's investors and future at risk. But investors have an interest in competent governance, risk management, and executive accountability just as much as they have an interest in innovation.

The Chinese espionage angle also needs to be treated carefully. There's no established proof that Alice Huang was a spy or that Nvidia's secrets were compromised. But the absence of proof of espionage doesn't establish that the reporting was a hit job. Nvidia's own independent directors considered the matter serious enough to commission an investigation.

Likewise, pointing to prominent people supporting Jensen, employee petitions, or people who might benefit from his departure doesn't establish that the allegations were orchestrated or false. That's speculation about motives, not evidence.

Ultimately, you're making a leap from Jensen was an exceptional CEO to removing him was necessarily a mistake and the reasons for doing so were illegitimate. Those are not equivalent propositions.

He can have been instrumental in building Nvidia into an extraordinary company and still have created governance problems serious enough to warrant his departure. Both things can be true.
Click to expand...
When you have an AI completely create a slop response, that's kind of saying that you don't have a legitimate challenge to what you're replying to. And when the slop response the AI creates for you doesn't even particularly comprehend the text you asked it to respond to, reading into and addressing things that weren't said, it suggests that neither have you comprehended it - otherwise, you should've noticed that the AI's response isn't usable (unless your goal is to fake a response instead of actually have one).

No, I'm not conflating anything. Nor have I suggested that Nvidia would follow Apple's path in focusing on a sevices-oriented business model - I noted Apple's shift after Jobs isn't a case of no loss, and that the same shift certainly wouldn't be regarded as a positive result for Nvidia. And I haven't suggested a CEO makes a company a one-man operation - just like noting a captain steers a large ship doesn't make sailing the ship a one-man operation.

Nor is there a contradiction in saying whether Jensen had affairs is irrelevant to his job as Nvidia's CEO - nor do hypotheticals and generalities about the idea of someone having an affair creating a risk make good arguments about a particular CEO having particular affairs. There is a tremendous gap of unexplained logic in your AI's claim that Jensen having affairs puts Nvidia's investors and Nvidia's future at risk.

And I haven't dismissed the allegations againsts Jensen, but have noted their lack of established relevance to his job as CEO, as well as the unproven and dubious sourcing of the particular Chinese-spy allegation.

Treating the suspcion of Alice being a Chinese spy seriously doesn't justify acting as if it's a confirmed fact before it is. And nothing I've said has called for the suspicion to be rejected and the allegation to not be investigated. I've noted the genuinely-dubious source and interests behind the allegation.

Pointing-out all the personal testimonies about the importance of Jensen to Nvidia's innovation and character isn't meant to establish that allegations against him are orchestrated or false. Why would you and your AI have thought otherwise? You're presenting another strawman and red herring.

And, predictably, no, I haven't leaped from saying Jensen was an exceptional CEO to concluding that removing him was necessarily a mistake and that the reasons for doing so are illegitimate. And it is a false conclusion to claim that that's what I'm arguing. It's just another strawman argument the AI you used made-up out of a lack of comprehension for what I've been showing and saying - probably because you injected your own incorrect assumptions into the prompts you gave it while asking it to create an argumentative reply.

You could really have skiped that AI slop reply which gets everything wrong. It just shows a desperation which I don't know why you even have in the first place. Why does the fact of the issues of the allegations against Jensen and what they're being used for get you defensive to the point you feel a need to get AI to naysay recognition of them?
 
Delicieuxz said:
When you get to an AI to create a slop response, that's kind of saying that you don't have a legitimate challenge to what you're replying to. And when the slop response the AI creates for you doesn't even particularly comprehend the text you asked it to respond to, reading into and addressing things that weren't said, it suggests that neither have you comprehended it - otherwise, you should've noticed that the AI's response isn't usable (unless your goal is to fake a response instead of actually have one).

No, I'm not conflating anything. Nor have I suggested that Nvidia would follow Apple's path in focusing on a sevices-oriented business model. And I haven't suggested a CEO makes a company a one-man operation - just like noting a captain steers a large ship doesn't make sailing the ship a one-man operation.

Nor is there a contradiction in saying whether Jensen had affairs is irrelevant to his job as Nvidia's CEO - nor do hypotheticals and generalities about the idea of someone having an affair creating a risk make good arguments about a particular CEO having particular affairs. There is a tremendous gap of unexplained logic in your AI's claim that Jensen having affairs puts Nvidia's investors and Nvidia's future at risk.

And I haven't dismissed the allegations againsts Jensen, but have noted their lack of established relevance to his job as CEO, as well as the unproven and dubious sourcing of the particular Chinese-spy allegation.

Treating the suspcion of Alice being a Chinese spy seriously doesn't justify acting as if it's a confirmed fact before it is. And nothing I've said has called for the suspicion to be rejected and the allegation to not be investigated. I've noted the genuinely-dubious source and interests behind the allegation.

Pointing-out all the personal testimonies about the importance of Jensen to Nvidia's innovation and character isn't meant to establish that allegations against him are orchestrated or false. Why would you and your AI have thought otherwise? You're presenting another strawman and red herring.

And, predictably, no, I haven't leaped from saying Jensen was an exceptional CEO to concluding that removing him was necessarily a mistake and that the reasons for doing so are illegitimate. And it is a false conclusion to claim that that's what I'm arguing. It's just another strawman argument the AI you used made-up out of a lack of comprehension for what I've been showing and saying - probably because you injected your own incorrect assumptions into the prompts you gave it while asking it to create an argumentative reply.

You could really have skiped that AI slop reply which gets everything wrong. It just shows a desperation which I don't know why you even have in the first place. Why does the fact of the issues of the allegations against Jensen and what they're being used for get you defensive to the point you feel a need to get AI to naysay recognition of them?
Click to expand...
You're essentially making an argument based on a hypothetical: Nvidia might become less innovative after Jensen, therefore removing him is potentially bad for everyone.

But that's not evidence that keeping him is the right decision. Nvidia could maintain its innovation culture under different leadership. That's precisely why companies build engineering organizations, management teams, and institutional capabilities rather than relying entirely on one individual.

Your Apple analogy is also overly simplistic. Apple didn't stop innovating after Jobs. It continued developing its own silicon, hardware, software, and new product categories while expanding services. You can dislike its services strategy without pretending the company ceased innovating.

More importantly, you're still conflating Jensen's business achievements with whether his conduct raises legitimate governance concerns.

Nobody needs to argue that Jensen hasn't been enormously successful to recognize that a CEO's commercial achievements don't exempt him from accountability.

And there's a fundamental distinction you're overlooking: questioning whether replacing Jensen might hurt Nvidia is not the same as demonstrating that retaining him is worth whatever governance risks his conduct might represent.

You're defending the potential cost of replacing him without actually addressing the potential cost of keeping him.

A great CEO can build an extraordinary company and still become a liability to it. Those propositions aren't mutually exclusive.
 
erek said:
You're essentially making an argument based on a hypothetical: Nvidia might become less innovative after Jensen, therefore removing him is potentially bad for everyone.

But that's not evidence that keeping him is the right decision. Nvidia could maintain its innovation culture under different leadership. That's precisely why companies build engineering organizations, management teams, and institutional capabilities rather than relying entirely on one individual.

Your Apple analogy is also overly simplistic. Apple didn't stop innovating after Jobs. It continued developing its own silicon, hardware, software, and new product categories while expanding services. You can dislike its services strategy without pretending the company ceased innovating.

More importantly, you're still conflating Jensen's business achievements with whether his conduct raises legitimate governance concerns.

Nobody needs to argue that Jensen hasn't been enormously successful to recognize that a CEO's commercial achievements don't exempt him from accountability.

And there's a fundamental distinction you're overlooking: questioning whether replacing Jensen might hurt Nvidia is not the same as demonstrating that retaining him is worth whatever governance risks his conduct might represent.

You're defending the potential cost of replacing him without actually addressing the potential cost of keeping him.

A great CEO can build an extraordinary company and still become a liability to it. Those propositions aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
great founders like Steve Jobs have this Reality Distortion Field (RDF) effect
like Jobs, Jensen managed to run a multi-trillion company like a small start-up

however as his reality distortion field started growing in size, Nvidia became too large for the industry. so Rubio cut him down to size & gave him the Jack Ma treatment


Jensun Huang warned that the wafers & memory he had committed to buy were coming at Nvidia like an "avalanche".​
​
Some of these deals were pushed by Jensen's son-in-law 🤔​
​
Now Jensen's gone;​
the CFO who questioned these deals is running Nvidia​

https://x.com/BullTheoryio/status/2121166572647772461?a=IFqcJa9WrXd50nsnYV4&s=20


the Bank of Nvdia has closed its tap​
​
While companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, & AMD may back mature startups, to drive adoption of their chips & clouds, its doubtful, if they will pour hundreds of millions into pre-revenue infrastructure startups the way Nvidia did.​

https://x.com/TechCrunch/status/2121373320469782869?a=kmUT6DNZXqxtimLtqhI&s=20
 
Marees said:
great founders like Steve Jobs have this Reality Distortion Field (RDF) effect
like Jobs, Jensen managed to run a multi-trillion company like a small start-up

however as his reality distortion field started growing in size, Nvidia became too large for the industry. so Rubio cut him down to size & gave him the Jack Ma treatment


Jensun Huang warned that the wafers & memory he had committed to buy were coming at Nvidia like an "avalanche".​
​
Some of these deals were pushed by Jensen's son-in-law 🤔​
​
Now Jensen's gone;​
the CFO who questioned these deals is running Nvidia​

https://x.com/BullTheoryio/status/2121166572647772461?a=IFqcJa9WrXd50nsnYV4&s=20


the Bank of Nvdia has closed its tap​
​
While companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, & AMD may back mature startups, to drive adoption of their chips & clouds, its doubtful, if they will pour hundreds of millions into pre-revenue infrastructure startups the way Nvidia did.​

https://x.com/TechCrunch/status/2121373320469782869?a=kmUT6DNZXqxtimLtqhI&s=20
Click to expand...
yea i remember when Jack Ma disappeared for awhile from the spotlight

and do recall that Reality Distortion Field (RDF) effect

maybe things will get corrected if the books were cooked before real harm happens and the bubble pops in a spectacular way like the 2008 financial crisis, dotcom, or great depression
 
erek said:
yea i remember when Jack Ma disappeared for awhile from the spotlight

and do recall that Reality Distortion Field (RDF) effect

maybe things will get corrected if the books were cooked before real harm happens and the bubble pops in a spectacular way like the 2008 financial crisis, dotcom, or great depression
Click to expand...
one more:

Jen Hsun Huang pushed customers to buy chips they didn’t need yet by threatening to cut their future allocations

https://x.com/burrytracker/status/2121016994736574873?a=iZAbVtozFvkpM1I2UsQ&s=20
 
erek said:
You're essentially making an argument based on a hypothetical: Nvidia might become less innovative after Jensen, therefore removing him is potentially bad for everyone.

But that's not evidence that keeping him is the right decision. Nvidia could maintain its innovation culture under different leadership. That's precisely why companies build engineering organizations, management teams, and institutional capabilities rather than relying entirely on one individual.

Your Apple analogy is also overly simplistic. Apple didn't stop innovating after Jobs. It continued developing its own silicon, hardware, software, and new product categories while expanding services. You can dislike its services strategy without pretending the company ceased innovating.

More importantly, you're still conflating Jensen's business achievements with whether his conduct raises legitimate governance concerns.

Nobody needs to argue that Jensen hasn't been enormously successful to recognize that a CEO's commercial achievements don't exempt him from accountability.

And there's a fundamental distinction you're overlooking: questioning whether replacing Jensen might hurt Nvidia is not the same as demonstrating that retaining him is worth whatever governance risks his conduct might represent.

You're defending the potential cost of replacing him without actually addressing the potential cost of keeping him.

A great CEO can build an extraordinary company and still become a liability to it. Those propositions aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Dude just accused you of using AI to respond to him, that's all you need to know about how well his argument is going. Really no reason engaging him at this point.
 
erek said:
You're essentially making an argument based on a hypothetical: Nvidia might become less innovative after Jensen, therefore removing him is potentially bad for everyone.

But that's not evidence that keeping him is the right decision. Nvidia could maintain its innovation culture under different leadership. That's precisely why companies build engineering organizations, management teams, and institutional capabilities rather than relying entirely on one individual.

Your Apple analogy is also overly simplistic. Apple didn't stop innovating after Jobs. It continued developing its own silicon, hardware, software, and new product categories while expanding services. You can dislike its services strategy without pretending the company ceased innovating.

More importantly, you're still conflating Jensen's business achievements with whether his conduct raises legitimate governance concerns.

Nobody needs to argue that Jensen hasn't been enormously successful to recognize that a CEO's commercial achievements don't exempt him from accountability.

And there's a fundamental distinction you're overlooking: questioning whether replacing Jensen might hurt Nvidia is not the same as demonstrating that retaining him is worth whatever governance risks his conduct might represent.

You're defending the potential cost of replacing him without actually addressing the potential cost of keeping him.

A great CEO can build an extraordinary company and still become a liability to it. Those propositions aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Another AI slop response.

The future consequence of Jensen's removal as Nvidia's CEO is literally a hypothetical. And it is potentially bad. That isn't my argument, it's a fact.

That fact hasn't been presented as proof that keeping him as CEO is the right decision. And given the exceptional nature of Jensen, it is highly unlikely Nvidia wouldn't be affected by his removal. And Nvidia's engineering organizations, management teams, and institutional capabilities were built as they are, to serve the goals they do, under Jensen's leadership. A new CEO with their own priorities and goals, as well as business sense and intelligence, would shape the company's priorities differently, and over time result in a different company constitution.

Your AI is going after another strawman to claim my Apple analogy is simplisitc - I didn't say that Apple stopped innovating after Jobs. In fact, I already noted the things your AI listed as examples of Apple shifting its focus after Jobs.

And, again, I'm not conflating Jensen's achievements with whether concernse should be raised over his leadership. Concerns and conclusions are different things. The removal of Jensen isn't a concern, it's a conclusion that skips investigating the concern.

Nobody needs to not argue that Jensen hasn't been enormously successful to recognize that a CEO's commercial achievements don't exempt him from accountability - this is a completely meaningless pseudo-point from your AI slop response.

It hasn't been established that Jensen remaining Nvidia's CEO entails risks - your AI completely missed that point.

I'm not defending the potential risks of replacing him... I've stated what some of them are. And contrary to your AI's claim, I actually have addressed some of the alleged risk of him remaining. While you haven't established there to be any tangible risk to him remaining as CEO after having some affairs.

It hasn't been established that Jensen has become a liability to Nvidia. Stating the hypothetical that someone could be successful in their role while still becoming a liability to the company is a vapid platitude that is neither here nor there to the topic or anything said.


How come the things I showed, and the facts I explained, have bothered you to the point that you're repeatedly copy-pasting AI slop responses that doesn't even comprehend what it is I've shown and said? It suggests that either you don't have any thoughts of your own on the topic, or you don't think they're worth presenting. And the AI outputs you're posting are, themselves, not worth posting, as they lack basic understanding of what it is I've even said and shown, and the points I've made.
 
Teenk9 said:
Dude just accused you of using AI to respond to him, that's all you need to know about how well his argument is going. Really no reason engaging him at this point.
Click to expand...
Have you not used AI much then, and aren't familiar with its obvious response structure? :rolleyes:

He's literally copy-pasting AI responses that he prompted it to make, to form rebuttals. De facto, literally. He might even confirm it for you if you ask him, since it'd be pretty silly that he'd think it wouldn't be noticed.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Have you not used AI much then, and aren't familiar with its obvious response structure? :rolleyes:

He's literally copy-pasting AI responses that he prompted it to make, to form rebuttals. De facto, literally. He might even confirm it for you if you ask him, since it'd be pretty silly that he'd think it wouldn't be noticed.
Click to expand...
you still haven't made a valid point, there's no reason to worship any CEO ever

and these companies are surviving transitions just fine
 
erek said:
you still haven't made a valid point, there's no reason to worship any CEO ever

and these companies are surviving transitions just fine
Click to expand...
That comment is incorrect on two points: I've made plenty of valid points, and I haven't suggested worshiping Jensen. The fact you posted AI slop outputs that completely missed the points I'd said, and essentially just hallucinated things I hadn't claimed to attack them as strawman arguments, suggests that you aren't aware of the points I made... because the alternative would be that you were knowingly, disingenuously posting AI replies that took what I wrote entirely out of context to incorrectly characterize and concoct false arguments against them.
 
Delicieuxz said:
That comment is false on two points: I've made plenty of valid points, and I haven't suggested worshiping Jensen. The fact you posted AI slop outputs that completely missed the points I'd said, and essentially just hallucinated things I hadn't claimed to attack them as strawman arguments, suggests that you aren't aware of the points I made... because the alternative would be that you were knowingly, disingenuously posting AI replies that took what I wrote entirely out of context to incorrectly characterize and concoct false arguments against them.
Click to expand...
break down every single premise of your argument and prove that they are leading to valid conclusions, because so far i haven't seen a single set of premises that literally logically follow to any valid conclusions or arguments. there's no logic operations being performed whatsoever

you're just spouting off statements. that is not forming an actual argument
 
erek said:
break down every single premise of your argument and prove that they are leading to valid conclusions, because so far i haven't seen a single set of premises that literally logically follow to any valid conclusions or arguments. there's no logic operations being performed whatsoever

you're just spouting off statements. that is not forming an actual argument
Click to expand...
When I've just reported news, I haven't had need to include any arguments. When I've responded to your accusations and assertions directed at me, I've given clear responses and arguments where needed. I even addressed and rebuked the false assertions of your copy-pasted AI slop responses. And all of those things are clearly documented on this and the previous page. You are free to actually read and try to understand them. Pasting them into an AI prompt and asking it to generate an argumentative reply, which ends-up being a complete non sequitur to what I'd actually been saying, isn't the same thing as reading them.
 
Delicieuxz said:
When I've just reported news, I haven't had need to include any arguments. When I've responded to your accusations and assertions directed at me, I've given clear responses and arguments where needed. I even addressed and rebuked the false assertions of your copy-pasted AI slop responses. And all of those things are clearly documented on this and the previous page. You are free to actually read and try to understand them. Pasting them into an AI prompt and asking it to generate an argumentative reply, which ends-up being a complete non sequitur to what I'd actually been saying, isn't the same thing as reading them.
Click to expand...
i still stand by not worshipping a CEO of any kind, just seems ridiculous... simping for a CEO

what's next a GoFundMe for Jensen's Sorrows because he made the decision to resign?

---

NVIDIA Allegedly Engineered Scarcity By Funding AI Startups To Buy Its GPUs​



1794680812373.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology...dia_allegedly_engineered_scarcity_by_funding/
 
erek said:
i still stand by not worshipping a CEO of any kind, just seems ridiculous... simping for a CEO

what's next a GoFundMe for Jensen's Sorrows because he made the decision to resign?
Click to expand...
I don't see how this has any relevance to the things I've shown and said. If you define acknowleding facts that don't appear to suit or serve your preferred outcome as CEO worship, and so resent their representation, then you'd pre-emptively invalidated your ability to form a reality-based conclusion. It's a good skill to have, to not read into things stuff that isn't there.
 
Delicieuxz said:
I don't see how this has any relevance to the things I've shown and said. If you define acknowleding facts that don't appear to suit or serve your preferred outcome as CEO worship, and so resent their representation, then you'd pre-emptively invalidated your ability to form a reality-based conclusion. It's a good skill to have, to not read into things stuff that isn't there.
Click to expand...
isn't that what the CEOs like Jensen are able to do with their Reality Distortion Fields anyhow? facts don't matter, right?
 
Marees said:
guy kept blowing the bubble with all his might but might yet end-up bursting it with his sloppy dick
Click to expand...
You need some soap on there to get it in and out without popping the bubble, you see. Maybe soap is the ONLY thing he didn't like putting his little Huang inside?

Randall Stephens said:
The whole thing with the circular financing felt like a great big circle jerk. Who knew the Huang was the cracker?
Click to expand...
I've had two financial types try to explain this shit to me, and I still only manage to get "Deliberately misleading, but technically legal." as the way most of these Ai companies are shuffling cash, debt, and assets around. Corporate finance just looks like a bunch of crimes to me, especially once they get big enough to lobby. Jensen is a dirt bag, always has been, he's always been right at the edge (or over) of what nVidia could get away with and as soon as nVidia reached 'too big to care' status he's been trying to see how many laws nVidia can break before their size matters less than their crimes.
 
more on the Reality Distortion Field (RDF) of Jensen

Now that Huang is gone, can this Nvidia machine still keep running? SemiAnalysis founder Dylan Patel just laid it all out.​
​
He dropped an industry insider secret: in the past, even fixing a bug in open-source software, SemiAnalysis had to write directly to Jensen Huang himself to get anything done. Patel himself finds it absurd—they’re not even a big player in the industry, yet the teams below them couldn’t get anything moving through normal channels. They had to escalate all the way to the CEO’s inbox before anything would get resolved.​
​
This has long been an open secret across the AI ecosystem. Even when Elon Musk runs into a problem, he goes straight to Jensen Huang himself. Only after Old Huang turns around and gives the order do the engineering teams below him spring into action. Because if they go through the usual process of coordinating between teams, progress gets stuck every time.​
​
Now that Jensen Huang has officially left, this “the boss personally puts out fires” operating model is gone. Patel points out the most immediate risk: if anything goes wrong with the manufacturing of the next-generation Rubin chip, with Huang no longer at the helm, everyone will be pulling in different directions. Problems can no longer be escalated directly to the top for a decision. Everything will have to go through committees slowly meeting and arguing, and the pace of resolution will slow dramatically. Even progress on the later Feynman architecture could become more cautious as a result.​
​
Without the driving force who could step in at any time to check progress and push teams to deliver, Nvidia’s real test is only just beginning.​

https://x.com/charles12388/status/2121460618536587475?a=D11tHCT46OuOaoD_Yr0&s=20
 
erek said:
isn't that what the CEOs like Jensen are able to do with their Reality Distortion Fields anyhow? facts don't matter, right?
Click to expand...
I just said the opposite.

I really don't know what's gotten you worked-up over the things I reported. They're factual aspects of the situation and the dubious pretext for his removal. It's like you can't tolerate people simply not knee-jerk celebrating Jensen's downfall, which by no means assures a positive outcome for everyone else.
 
Delicieuxz said:
I just said the opposite.

I really don't know what's gotten you worked-up over the things I reported. They're factual aspects of the situation and the dubious pretext for his removal. It's like you can't tolerate people simply not knee-jerk celebrating Jensen's downfall, which by no means assures a positive outcome for everyone else.
Click to expand...
"Companies love a ‘rockstar’ CEO. Until they depend on one"

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/14/nvidia-jensen-huang-ceo-succession-risk.html

"Jensen Huang and the decline of the visionary showman founder CEO"

https://www.theverge.com/tech/1033781/nvidia-jensen-huang-last-visionary-showman-founder-ceo

1794681463568.png
 
erek said:
"Companies love a ‘rockstar’ CEO. Until they depend on one"

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/14/nvidia-jensen-huang-ceo-succession-risk.html

"Jensen Huang and the decline of the visionary showman founder CEO"

https://www.theverge.com/tech/1033781/nvidia-jensen-huang-last-visionary-showman-founder-ceo

View attachment 837100
Click to expand...
These articles, like this NYT report, emphasize how central Jensen was to Nvidia's direction and innovation as a company, and how difficult it will be to replace him. That seems to run counter to what you've been arguing, while affirming what I've been saying about the risk in removing him as CEO. So, I'm not sure what point you're intending to make.

Elevating someone to rockstar status doesn't mean they'll be a good leader and produce good results. Look at Todd Howard and the crappy games Bethesda have been making for the past decade+. Jensen had the rockstar persona put on him (apparently, as I never viewed him as such, and thought the leather jacket man thing was lame) because of his actual accomplishments. The Verge article you posted extensively makes that point:

What I didn’t know back then: Huang was a visionary founder. He took Nvidia to fame and fortune through a series of tremendous bets.

In 1996, three years after he cofounded the company at a Denny’s diner, Nvidia nearly went out of business while working on a failed graphics chip for the Sega Dreamcast game console. But even though he didn’t deliver that chip, Huang personally convinced Sega to invest $5 million afterward, The Wall Street Journal reported in 2024.

He then turned around and bet the company again on the Riva 128 PC graphics accelerator, an effort so ambitious he had to lay off over half of Nvidia’s roughly 100 staffers, skip the prototyping stage, and rush it straight to production, and he still only had one month of payroll left by the time it shipped, The New Yorker wrote in 2023. Thankfully, it was a success, selling a million units in just four months and paving the way for both the GeForce GPU and a long-term relationship with chip fabricator TSMC.

Roughly eight years later, Huang decided it wasn’t enough to be the leader in PC gaming graphics alone. He bet the company’s entire gross profit, he told podcaster Lex Fridman, on shipping a new feature inside those graphics cards that no one had asked for: CUDA. It was the ability to use a GPU for other kinds of computing tasks beyond graphics, and Huang said it increased the cost of every GeForce graphics card by 50 percent.

“Originally there was no market or market demand for it. It was almost as if they built it because they could,” says Peddie. “Jensen had the vision for what it could be and the courage to pursue it in spite of the opinions of others.”

“NVIDIA was effectively investing in a computing platform that extended far beyond graphics, with no guarantee of a near-term return,” says HotTech analyst Dave Altavilla.

“Huang saw that a GPU was really a parallel computer that happened to render graphics. CUDA turned that insight into a platform, and it’s why NVIDIA was ready when AI arrived,” Mainelli tells me.
...
“Every time competitors got close, he moved the fight up a level: the chip, then the server, then networking with the $6.9 billion Mellanox deal, then the full rack, all tied together by CUDA,” says Moorhead. “The speed came from how he ran the company,” he adds. “Decisions that took other companies four weeks took Nvidia four days.”

As Nvidia’s fortunes and profit ballooned — thousands of dollars in pure profit every single second! — and as it became clearer that AI would reshape the world in one way or another, something strange happened. Huang became a celebrity. In summer 2024, The Wall Street Journal and social media chronicled that he received a hero’s welcome in his birthplace of Taiwan. He stopped over and over to sign autographs, including one on a woman’s chest.
Click to expand...

These articles say he was genuinely the visionary at Nvidia, that he constantly made bets on things others didn't see, and that those bets usually paid-off huge. Not that he was a vapid persona. Him being Jensen is what made Nvidia what it is today. Replacing him is a huge gamble, and one that I think is very unlikely to deliver the same level of results. But as the Verge article notes, the next several generations of Nvidia's roadmap are already set and locked-in. It will be a while before a new CEO's direction manifests - Nvidia's product performance for the coming years will still be Jensen's direction.


1794683262240.png
1794682242747.png
1794682325141.png
1794683733929.png
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
These articles, like this NYT report, emphasize how central Jensen was to Nvidia's direction and innovation as a company, and how difficult it will be to replace him. That seems to run counter to what you've been arguing, while affirming what I've been saying about the risk in removing him as CEO. So, I'm not sure what point you're intending to make.

Elevating someone to rockstar status doesn't mean they'll be a good leader and produce good results. Look at Todd Howard and the crappy games Bethesda have been making for the past decade+. Jensen had the rockstar persona put on him (apparently, as I never viewed him as such, and thought the leather jacket man thing was lame) because of his actual accomplishments. The Verge article you posted extensively makes that point:



These articles say he was genuinely the visionary at Nvidia, that he constantly made bets on things others didn't see, and that those bets usually paid-off huge. Not that he was a vapid persona. Him being Jensen is what made Nvidia what it is today. Replacing him is a huge gamble, and one that I think is very unlikely to deliver the same level of results. But as the Verge article notes, the next several generations of Nvidia's roadmap are already set and locked-in. It will be a while before a new CEO's direction manifests - Nvidia's product performance for the coming years will still be Jensen's direction.


View attachment 837114 View attachment 837102 View attachment 837103View attachment 837115
Click to expand...
scope this out, “microchips”

https://x.com/DearChuutoro/status/2121467958769889365

1794686295247.png
 
erek said:
scope this out, “microchips”

https://x.com/DearChuutoro/status/2121467958769889365

View attachment 837119
Click to expand...

“Hundreds of Fake Accounts Defended Jensen Huang On Social Media​

EditorDavid 43 minutes ago		0
The Washington Post reports on something peculiar about support for Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang online after he'd told the world he'd been unfaithful to his wife (before reports of his second extramarital affair): Joining the chorus online were voices of seemingly everyday people: a chef, a stock trader, a Hebrew teacher and several environmental activists. But at least 400 of them were fake, according to research from the nonprofit Midas Project, with links to a public relations firm involved in previous so-called "sockpuppet" campaigns... Many of the fake accounts, according to Midas Project executive director Tyler Johnston, replied to journalists, former U.S. officials and other prominent figures and backed not just Huang but Nvidia's push to sell its cutting-edge chips to Chinese firms.

Like other documented influence campaigns, the posts appeared to have limited reach; the most-viewed tweet garnered about 8,000 views and 32 likes. Still, some of the posts targeted lawmakers, including accounts for the [U.S.] House Select Committee on China, Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). "That's a place where you might not need a lot of views, but maybe the staffers who are running the lawmakers' account are paying attention to how their messages are received," said Johnston, whose group advocates for safe AI development...

There were other clues that helped identify accounts as being part of an apparently coordinated campaign, according to the Midas Project. Some of them were created minutes or hours apart, and had user names and profile photos refreshed at similar times. They also sometimes engaged on oddly specific issues ranging from Qatar to Nippon Steel's bid for U.S. Steel and a waste management plant in Oregon.... Any one one of the posts — often replies to other posts — might have not looked suspicious in isolation. But the various clues taken together, Johnston said, gave evidence that they were linked. Some of the accounts then rushed to delete posts after he posted his findings online, and at least 260 of them have been deactivated or suspended by X.”
 
I know this might upset some people BUT, seeing the world the way they think it should be instead of seeing the world for the way it IS.

Rich people have always gotten their way and always will, that is just life on Earth.

The golden rule, those who have to gold make the rules. YES is is not fair and corrupt, so is life.

And before you go but but but technically..... Yes there is always an exception to the rule.
 
Why is all of this happening now you ask?
The Tech sector needs a fall guy, Nvidia especially, Jensen is falling on his sword.

His wife, child, and board new all about his side pieces, they have for years, it’s no big deal.
The rumour one of them is a spy is just that, but it’s an explosive headline.


All of this is a smoke show to cover the fact there is an excess of memory and chips in the market.

Nvidia and Jensen are balls deep in a circular market they created to keep the prices of their chips high by buying startups and placing orders for their own hardware at quantities they can’t use so 3’rd party suppliers can keep things marked up inflating the value of Nvidia and their cards.
 
Lakados said:
Why is all of this happening now you ask?
The Tech sector needs a fall guy, Nvidia especially, Jensen is falling on his sword.

His wife, child, and board new all about his side pieces, they have for years, it’s no big deal.
The rumour one of them is a spy is just that, but it’s an explosive headline.


All of this is a smoke show to cover the fact there is an excess of memory and chips in the market.

Nvidia and Jensen are balls deep in a circular market they created to keep the prices of their chips high by buying startups and placing orders for their own hardware at quantities they can’t use so 3’rd party suppliers can keep things marked up inflating the value of Nvidia and their cards.
Click to expand...
Maybe...I'll believe it when I see prices drop.
 
How ex-Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang threw tantrums in the office, dressed down tech execs: ‘I hope you die’

Ousted Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was prone to wild temper tantrums at the office, according to company insiders — cruelly dressing down employees and even once hurling a water bottle at a top executive in a fit of rage, The Post has learned.

The 63-year-old chip magnate famously cultivated an affable, laid-back public persona, sporting black leather jackets and doling out TV interviews about his humble beginnings washing dishes and cleaning toilets...but as Huang pushed to relentlessly grow Nvidia’s business, employees lived in fear of their boss skewering them with vicious outbursts at marathon meetings in front of their peers, according to sources close to the company...

https://nypost.com/2026/11/14/busin...ffice-dressed-down-tech-execs-i-hope-you-die/
 
1_rick said:
Maybe...I'll believe it when I see prices drop.
Click to expand...
Right!

Faux scarcity or not, components' prices are still wildly elevated.

I'm far enough from retirement I'm not worried about a hit to my 401k, but I miss my main hobby on a day like today when the weather stinks and I just want to lurk in my workshop, haha.
 
mullet said:
I know this might upset some people BUT, seeing the world the way they think it should be instead of seeing the world for the way it IS.

Rich people have always gotten their way and always will, that is just life on Earth.

The golden rule, those who have to gold make the rules. YES is is not fair and corrupt, so is life.

And before you go but but but technically..... Yes there is always an exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

Not going to soapbox this, so I'll just say: Every dog has his day.
 
MaZa said:
This. When people say she is a Chinese spy, they do not necessarily mean that she is some professional Chinese KGB/MI6/CIA equivalent, but someone who hypothetically has been ordered by the governement to get those Nvidia chips into China that are illegal to import. That would make her a spy, pro or not. Although she could very well be acting on her own too because it is profitable. She would not technically be a spy then (except maybe corporate spy) BUT it would not help Jensen case either way. We need to know if Jensen played a willing part in the chip smuggling, which was most likely through her. Chinese governement direct involvement is entirely optional in the grand scheme of things, those chips would fall into their hands anyway.
Click to expand...
exactly, what i heard was she was getting him to ship them to singapore because she runs or works for some company there and from there they went to china.

the money they lost from not being able to ship to china (2 billion) was almost the exact amount of chips they suddenly started shipping to singapore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top