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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> ruthless

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flagged]