They need to fire him outright. The company needs to set the example that misconduct won’t be tolerated at any level. Keeping him on in anything but a transition capacity would be a mistake.
The no-going-back issue is the corruption. Jensen corruptly quashed an investigation into Megaspeed. He then quite clearly expected Republicans in Congress to back him, which is why he only came clean when forced to.
I agree the corruption and conflict of interest stuff is the real issue here and is serious. I’m just criticising the hand-wringing over him banging some random woman (or women, as it apparently turns out), as if that is some unprecedented or shocking behaviour or worthy of a reprimand on its own. Most of the world left that prudish shit behind in the ‘90s.
I think marital infidelity is shitty behaviour but I also think the main issue here is that this man in this job with this global significance thought this woman was safe to be involved with.
His board must think he's a lunatic. They have every right to know if he's having an affair with anyone (because marital infidelity is a personal corruption issue that is rarely not a problem when it's a CEO, since carrying off an affair usually involves suborning staff in some way). But this? Madness.
> the hand-wringing over him banging some random woman
I don't care about it. But I do understand folks who are dismayed to see someone who many of us–myself included–saw as a bit of a paragon until a few weeks ago turning out to be a total shithead.
Not a paragon but definitely a very capable entrepreneur.
I'm disappointed in him as a business person, not in a some moralistic sense but because he's clearly very smart and capable yet made himself vulnerable with these two dumb mistakes. In his position there are a lot of external interests who want leverage or control over you.
I’ll give you a shortcut for the future, and I will be downvoted for doing so.
Don’t look to billionaires if you’re looking for paragons. They all fail basic ethical checks. It’s very easy and convenient to not look for these failures. But, inevitably, when somebody starts looking hard, they find them.
I don’t think it’s necessarily prudish, but in order to accurately judge it you need to know if someone’s ENM or not, and that’s more than most people make known about their personal lives.
Stepping outside of your marriage behind your spouse’s back is still scummy behavior.
AFAICT, (b.) isn't correct? The alleged spy works for a Singaporean company called "Megaspeed"[1], and while there is a conflict of interest argument, perhaps, "direct report" seems incorrect.
Regardless of that, the comment above still seems correct, and a sibling comment points out that (as a rather new development), that they are separate women.
Considering the current administration and the amount of corruption by trump and co, I feel like not following the rules is too simplistic an explanation for being targeted like this.
Not familiar with the details, I asked the ai overlords to gather up public evidence and give me a summary and... this feels like a very premature accusation. Unless you know something that isn't public, seems like we need to wait and see.
The misconduct presents as a pattern of interrelated poor decisions and erodes trust. Just the basis of what we know already has serious economic consequences for the company and its stakeholders because it creates the appearance of impropriety which is what makes it fireable.
It’s not just the affair(s), it’s with who, and the subsequent appearance of conflict of interest, and the appearance of national security implications, and the appearance of lobbying the government on behalf of a foreign agent, and the appearance of enabling smuggling to get around trade sanctions, and the implications for employee morale in an unfair workplace, and and and…
As people said about the Huggingface incident: if you see one ant in your kitchen, the best estimate for the total number of ants actually present is well above one.
One affair was a mistake. Two, with a spy and an employee, are a real failure of responsibility -- and those are just the ones we know about.
I don’t understand you Americans; you live in a disproportionately violent society, tolerate all sort of abuse and manipulation, then will scream hysterically at anyone having an unconventional sex life.
They were shipped to a sketchy Singaporean company that his Chinese spy-mistress worked at, and IIRC he tried to prevent investigations into whether those chips were being redirected to China.
The whole “Chinese operative” reeks of a grossly cobbled together smear campaign, spoken with the voice of a BW cinema newsreel from the McCarthyist era
Engaging in a relationship of any sort with a direct report (the second woman he reportedly had an affair with) is typically prohibited behavior. The imbalance of power between a boss and a subordinate in their report line just screams sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.
It's nothing to do with prudishness about his sex life and everything to do with his actions endangering the company.
Typically prohibited because it comes with the *risk* of sexual harassment accusations.
But so does walking around in public without covering all body head to toe, indeed some countries ban women from doing so, just to avoid having to deal with aroused strangers.
Simple risk aversion or trespassing on personal freedom?
Walking around in public isn't carrying the same power imbalance between a boss and subordinate that I'd mentioned.
It is simple risk aversion. A CEO has a whole world of people to have an affair with outside of his or her direct reports, and indeed company. Everyone has equal access to walk around in public. Surely this difference is obvious?
To use an example where we aren't talking about lawsuits, teachers are typically prohibited, by policy and / or law, from relations with their students before they graduate from highschool, even if the student is of legal age. There's both the power difference as well as an implicit duty of care where, even if the relationship is nominally consensual, the teacher is abusing their role as a trusted adult in power. Once the student graduates, there's no longer any official prohibition.
Reducing this to “an unconventional sex life” is a weird and sort of stupid take when matters of global trade and export sanctions policy are concerned, but sure, we’re all a bunch of violent prudes over here.
Personally I run in to it in the workplace now constantly. I work with pseudo tech types that we used to call BAs but now glorify as “product”. Now about 95% of their content is made by AI.
Most of the time it’s just material I actually created then they regurgitated through Claude with errors introduced to make it worse.
It definitely isn't. I'm in a half dozen online spaces where no one posts LLM content, either because it's explicitly against the rules or implicitly against the culture, or simply because no one is interested in it.
I expected the article to address that. Maybe it's obvious?:
Disable the daemons, delete the directory, lock down permissions to the database files / directory, lock down the daemons' permissions, delete the daemons, ...
I'm not recommending those things - I don't know what the consequence is for the system - but that's where I'd start.
"It's for you own good. It would be harmful to disable it. And you don't understand it so you shouldn't have an opinion. I trust Apple to do this safely, even if I don't want whatever this is."
Is how I'm generally greeted when I ask this sort of question.
Turn off your Mac and use a different operating system. Because it doesn't matter how you disable this feature in isolation. It is merely the current projection of Apple's opinion of its relationship with you. It's a hydra and you are going to lose the fight.
exactly, a $100B public company can have new business units that are low revenue but are treated differently than VC funded seed startups with the same revenue.
I'm not seeing how that would be a violation. Youtube has never been a "download files to my device" service. It has always been a "stream video from our servers" service. I don't see how the fact that they added the ability to save a file and gated it by a subscription would be a violation.
This isn’t about downloading videos for offline use but about background playback.
YouTube recently blocked the ability to play a video in the background (or with the screen turned off) unless you pay for premium. It just turns off the video if you leave the app, unlike other media on my iPhone.
I haven’t been able to do background play in YouTube without Premium for at least 4 years. I also recall finding Reddit threads of people having the same issue.
Yep, and I'm saying that those four years ago (or whatever time it was) I was convinced that it is against this specific App Store guideline, but alas Apple has approved it.
Just because someone broke the rule in the past, persisted in breaking the rule and is still breaking the rule today doesn't mean they get a free pass to break the rule.
AFAIK you can open the video in Firefox, which allows you to stream in the background. of course not that seamless, but at least there's still a work-around.
Did you know that it's technically against the Apple TOS to use push notifications for advertising without allowing end users to opt out of the advertising part without removing functionality, even though it's never enforced and massive companies do it all the time?
Even Apple themselves do it, I see apple send me push notifications that are ads for Apple Arcade all the time.
reply