Let's say you were China and wanted to undermine NVIDIA, this would certainly be one way to do it.. Initiate the affair, then make sure it blows up and the wife divorces and damages his reputation, business, etc.
At the same time, if you were the US and wanted to undermine Huang's opposition to the US blocking sales to China, this is would certainly be one way to do it... know of (or initiate) an affair, then paint the mistress as a Chinese spy to damage his reputation.
Not that I'm suggesting this is what happened, but in this situation, "both sides" have motivations both for/against Jenson/Nvidia, and it would be silly to blindly trust what _either side_ says.
Huang has been very (relatively) vocal against the administration that preventing Chinese organizations from having access to Nvidia chips will 1) not really work, because they'll get them anyways, and 2) lead to a surge in availability/popularity (and inter-operability) with Nvidia's functionality.
Whether you agree with his outlook or not, he was vocally against the current administrations' priorities/opinions. Undermining his opinions as "well he was convinced of that by a spy", or even just removing him from the position where he can have influence, helps the current US administration (which, notably, is not necessarily the same thing as helping the US)
The fact that everyone reporting this believe it's perfectly normal to know whether someone is a Chinese spy or not, is alarming. Right now I treat this as a plant, or something else deceptive: interesting to follow, but not worth spreading on.
On the other hand all the 3 letter agencies surely must have known about that for a long, long time. Given the timing of that leak, and the fact that he was actually quite fond of working with China, I think it's entirely possible that the "desire to undermine" him could also be coming from the US.
You can't blackmail someone when the information you'd leverage for blackmail becomes public knowledge. At least that's my take on it. They knew, the risk escalated (or the political landscape shifted since the midterms), and so the information was leaked. I'm still surprised given the type of person he seems to be in public, but there you go.
Jensen is a friend to China and has been relentless in promoting the interests of China - why would Chairman Xi want to undermine the man who advocates strongly to sell him GPUs and chips?
There are so many actors with interests relevant to something this potentially impactful, that any simple framing is unlikely to reflect reality.
But it is still a great point.
Xi and Huang appear to be strongly and consistently aligned with respect to Chinese access to SOTA nVidia, each with their own natural motivations (no need for any conspiracy here).
Strong strategic alignment, even without conspiracy, is highly likely to result in independent uncoordinated acts of cooperation. Interesting dynamics can result. Any actor (national, international or "smaller") with interests in the technology competition will be watching this space closely. And some will act, for their own reasons.
Thinking about it, that could be one of the big reason why the Nvidia stock crashed at the announcement.
If Jensen's wife got half of his share, that's a significant amount, enough to fuck with the company if she wants to. She could decide to sell it all and buy AMD, interfere with the decision process, etc... It could make a serious dent in her fortune, but there are still going do be some billions left, that's fuck you money at the orgy level.
Should it happen, I don't think she will get crazy, but she is certainly a risk compared to Jensen, and the market adjusts.
How can people like this fall for the honey trap, an intelligence trick as old as civilization. Probably older. Hominid tribes probably did this on the African Savannah 100k+ years ago.
Human impulses are what they are. But that said, it’s a clear argument for why this level of power and control shouldn’t be concentrated in one person: they’re too fallible.
I look at Gates, post-divorce Bezos and Musk and see a lot of insecurities projecting outwards. The isolated nerd becomes the uber-CEO and has more money and power than people can even comprehend.
> has more money and power than people can even comprehend.
Musk spent $445 million in Texas, and Talireco still won. Hillary outspent Trump 3:1 and lost. Harris outspent Trump 2:1 and lost. Bloomberg's expensive campaign sank without a trace.
The notion that money buys elections doesn't hold up well.
Money can get one's message out. But if the voters don't like it, they won't vote for it.
Money can't outright buy a result, but it does tend to move the needle. The same money Musk spent in 2026 probably would have changed the outcome of 2020. 2026 just had too big of a swing for the ads to make a difference.
But for what it’s worth I think your analysis needs more depth. Harris outspent Trump but how much did Republican/Democrat aligned organisations spend? What about all the local news stations that have been bought up and now play biased pieces dictated from out of market? etc etc. It’s an area you could write a dissertation on and I’m sure many have.
I do have a feeling that they are still, after all those years, just shy, creepy nerds, but with money. See Bezos' new wife, or Gates with the russian prostitutes (I'm not even going to bring up Musk).
They are all just deeply psychologically damaged people with a lot of money to cover all that up.
Add to that the level of constant temptation coming from every way, women literally throwing themselves at them either for their own gain, or as in this example for their country.
I don't think we should be feeling pity for them, but they live in a very, very, VERY different world than the normal person.
Yeah, however they started I think having billions really does a number on the vast majority of people - from a mental health POV it's not a good idea, let alone for the rest of society.
Agreed, especially for those who aren’t from money but hit the jackpot very young with a tech IPO.
I’m learning that Jensen Huang was middle class with a school teacher as a mother. Bezos was also a son of a teacher and his father was a unicyclist (!)
These guys hit it big and you just get the impression that they finally get to cash in on all those adolescent dreams of hot girls and gaudy extravaganza we all eventually grew out of
You know, at some point I just lost interest in the Lamborghini I used to have a poster of as an 8 year old boy
Looking around Silicon Valley I see many people did not and good for them. My tastes changed as I grew up. I still know full grown adults who eat chicken nuggets and that’s not for me either
But the money trap here is the wife and the marriage, not the affair. If for example you swap him with Elon Musk, no claimant would get much of anything, because he is wise to such money traps.
I'm not super wealthy, and on a personal level I'm very happy for my partner to have an equal claim to my wealth, but I do resent that I have to think about this and that this has been a topic of conversation I've had with my dad and friends over the years. If I didn't love and trust my partner as much as I do I'd probably need to get prenuptial agreement or avoid marriage altogether. To not hold this position is just poor risk management, and you have to get very lucky with your partner to not need to worry about this stuff.
I worry the more of these cases there are the more people are going to avoid marriage or sign agreements which are even more unfavourable. I've already seen people on some parts of the internet commenting on this story and using it as a reason for men to not commit or to sign prenuptial agreements so they aren't financially harmed from marriage.
Don't get me wrong, I think she deserves a ton of money here, but 50% of everything? Common... There is a reasonable amount that she's entitled to here, and it's in both men and women's best interest that that is what she gets.
Note: This is an opinion which I am only expressing because it's somewhat unpopular. If you don't like it consider putting another opinion forward rather than down voting it.
Marriage is best looked at as a societal entity for the creation and growth of a family. As such, entering one should be seen as a partnership, in many ways similar to a business partnership or startup.
Do not do either if you do not have a high level of trust in your partner! The possible downsides are immense!
It then falls to the state to figure out what to do when things go wrong. Not only like this, but with other important things like what happens to your stuff when you die. Here be dragons.
So the 50/50 thing is an obvious starting default given this lens. Especially when things get complicated (children get involved), tracking "how much" each person contributed to the partnership is an impossible task.
Contributions in terms of time and other resources will be seen in a highly variable way. Traditionally men have completely undervalued what women bring in terms of time and opportunity cost (lost career progress).
So: it is best to leave that valuation to the people in the partnership, and start with the presumption that both will contribute equally in their own ways.
You can attempt to change this default with prenups and other legal tooling. Your mileage may vary, legal enforceability of these arrangements is a complex per-state issue.
> I'm not super wealthy, and on a personal level I'm very happy for my partner to have an equal claim to my wealth
1) sounds like you don't have much to be concerned about, and 2) this cuts both ways (you have an equal claim to her wealth).
> on a personal level I'm very happy for my partner to have an equal claim to my wealth, but I do resent that I have to think about this
It's not clear to me what there is to think about: if you ever get divorced, you have legal certainty about how the assets will be split. If the rule didn't exist, courts would have to try and figure it out for each and every case (more so than they already do).
Unless you're advocating for "you take what you brought in", in which case historical precedent has shown this has been immeasurably unfavourable to women.
Jensen Huang has not done tens of billions of dollars worth of hard work; he mainly got really, really lucky. If he only gets to cash out half of that extreme fortune for whatever reason, let alone not keeping it in his pants, I don't think there's any serious discussion to be had about what's "fair" for him.
> Jensen Huang Scandal Sparks Speculation–Jensen's Wife Could Get Half
Cool.
Maybe some of his billions would then actually be meaningfully channeled into worthy causes ala what MacKenzie Scott has been doing, instead of being tied up in his current foundation which appears to be primarily for tax avoidance and for funneling money to companies like CoreWeave for nebulous educational initiatives.
Ex-wives are our best hope for meaningful giving from our current oligarchs as the men are all self-absorbed narcissists who can't stand to see number go down because of the gamification aspect of modern wealth.
Is helping solve AI not a worthy cause? If it ends up helping every intellectual problem asked by people, wouldn’t it help more than charity? Charity reaches a point of diminishing returns if you just dump it on an organization that doesn’t know how to spend it properly.
> If it ends up helping every intellectual problem asked by people
IMO if you think this results in more actual improvements than drawbacks for the common person then you haven't been paying attention to how wealth inequality has been fracturing society and leaving the majority behind.
Lori Huang deserves half. I really hope she takes it.
Mackenzie Scott only took 25% and I thought that was really stupid. Imagine all the good she could have done with that extra 25%, she's already the most philanthropic billionaire of all time in the sense she didn't just dump her money into her own foundation, she's been giving it away directly which is awesome.
That 25% is a pretty typical "very high end" divorce number, I was told at the time. There are likely a lot of practical considerations to work through that could slow this down for years - consent decrees, liquidity of the underlying stock, the board's willingness to have a non-employee owning so much, etc. etc. All can definitely be worked through. But, life is short. And the numbers are already, you know, pretty big.
Yet another tech Lord who failed to have a proper prenup with his wife ? - - - and like Bezos and Gates, a HUGE transfer of wealth, unfortunately, a significant portion get's shoveled off into liberal causes.
3.5% is just a blip on the screen for Wall street, nothing to short Nvidia over.
It appears after Musk divorced his 1st wife, he had learned. Now he has a half dozen or more concubines, most with signed agreements so they get serious support for his multiple kids, the 1 or 2 who refused get nothing but a team of lawyers fighting them tooth and nail. You can be sure he had his lawyers arrange his affairs to show he owns almost nothing, trusts and all. Good luck getting anything off him, concubine "refusniks" - - goldiggers.
Not only is he the richest person in the world -- but arguably the smartest in arranging his "relationships with women affairs" to give him the lowest potential risk.
> You can be sure he had his lawyers arrange his affairs to show he owns almost nothing, trusts and all.
All the Musk-stans, "He doesn't even own a house, you guys!!!"
Meanwhile, Musk is busy doing ketamine in his friend's $45M home that he just ... lives in ... whenever he wants.
> Not only is he the richest person in the world -- but arguably the smartest in arranging his "relationships with women affairs" to give him the lowest potential risk.
This comes off kinda more than a little incel red pill-y.
Let's say you were China and wanted to undermine NVIDIA, this would certainly be one way to do it.. Initiate the affair, then make sure it blows up and the wife divorces and damages his reputation, business, etc.
At the same time, if you were the US and wanted to undermine Huang's opposition to the US blocking sales to China, this is would certainly be one way to do it... know of (or initiate) an affair, then paint the mistress as a Chinese spy to damage his reputation.
Not that I'm suggesting this is what happened, but in this situation, "both sides" have motivations both for/against Jenson/Nvidia, and it would be silly to blindly trust what _either side_ says.
How does removing Huang help the US??
Huang has been very (relatively) vocal against the administration that preventing Chinese organizations from having access to Nvidia chips will 1) not really work, because they'll get them anyways, and 2) lead to a surge in availability/popularity (and inter-operability) with Nvidia's functionality.
Whether you agree with his outlook or not, he was vocally against the current administrations' priorities/opinions. Undermining his opinions as "well he was convinced of that by a spy", or even just removing him from the position where he can have influence, helps the current US administration (which, notably, is not necessarily the same thing as helping the US)
He didn't say remove, he said undermine, i.e. put him in a position of weakness. Jensen holds a lot of power.
Same way that starting a trade war and destabilizing the global economy helps the US.
As in it doesn't?
The fact that everyone reporting this believe it's perfectly normal to know whether someone is a Chinese spy or not, is alarming. Right now I treat this as a plant, or something else deceptive: interesting to follow, but not worth spreading on.
On the other hand all the 3 letter agencies surely must have known about that for a long, long time. Given the timing of that leak, and the fact that he was actually quite fond of working with China, I think it's entirely possible that the "desire to undermine" him could also be coming from the US.
You can't blackmail someone when the information you'd leverage for blackmail becomes public knowledge. At least that's my take on it. They knew, the risk escalated (or the political landscape shifted since the midterms), and so the information was leaked. I'm still surprised given the type of person he seems to be in public, but there you go.
Yeah the timing of all this is Sus. Right before Trump visit to China next week.
And the story was broken by noted Trump kayfabe promoter Maggie Haberman.
Nahh, it was far from broken by Haberman...
https://x.com/CulperResearch/status/2054624514193928695?a=_7...
It just got national attention after the NYT picked it up.
>> China and wanted to undermine NVIDIA
Jensen is a friend to China and has been relentless in promoting the interests of China - why would Chairman Xi want to undermine the man who advocates strongly to sell him GPUs and chips?
There are so many actors with interests relevant to something this potentially impactful, that any simple framing is unlikely to reflect reality.
But it is still a great point.
Xi and Huang appear to be strongly and consistently aligned with respect to Chinese access to SOTA nVidia, each with their own natural motivations (no need for any conspiracy here).
Strong strategic alignment, even without conspiracy, is highly likely to result in independent uncoordinated acts of cooperation. Interesting dynamics can result. Any actor (national, international or "smaller") with interests in the technology competition will be watching this space closely. And some will act, for their own reasons.
Some of the only meaningful wealth redistribution the system offers these days.
Is this not 1.875% of Nvidia or something?
I don’t think the divorce is the real story here.
Thinking about it, that could be one of the big reason why the Nvidia stock crashed at the announcement.
If Jensen's wife got half of his share, that's a significant amount, enough to fuck with the company if she wants to. She could decide to sell it all and buy AMD, interfere with the decision process, etc... It could make a serious dent in her fortune, but there are still going do be some billions left, that's fuck you money at the orgy level.
Should it happen, I don't think she will get crazy, but she is certainly a risk compared to Jensen, and the market adjusts.
Jensen owns 3.5% of Nvidia. Half of that isn’t anywhere near enough to cause that kind of havoc.
> ...but there are still going do be some billions left, that's fuck you money at the orgy level.
AI's Wide Shut
How can people like this fall for the honey trap, an intelligence trick as old as civilization. Probably older. Hominid tribes probably did this on the African Savannah 100k+ years ago.
Human impulses are what they are. But that said, it’s a clear argument for why this level of power and control shouldn’t be concentrated in one person: they’re too fallible.
I look at Gates, post-divorce Bezos and Musk and see a lot of insecurities projecting outwards. The isolated nerd becomes the uber-CEO and has more money and power than people can even comprehend.
> has more money and power than people can even comprehend.
Musk spent $445 million in Texas, and Talireco still won. Hillary outspent Trump 3:1 and lost. Harris outspent Trump 2:1 and lost. Bloomberg's expensive campaign sank without a trace.
The notion that money buys elections doesn't hold up well.
Money can get one's message out. But if the voters don't like it, they won't vote for it.
Money can't outright buy a result, but it does tend to move the needle. The same money Musk spent in 2026 probably would have changed the outcome of 2020. 2026 just had too big of a swing for the ads to make a difference.
I didn’t even mention elections did I?
But for what it’s worth I think your analysis needs more depth. Harris outspent Trump but how much did Republican/Democrat aligned organisations spend? What about all the local news stations that have been bought up and now play biased pieces dictated from out of market? etc etc. It’s an area you could write a dissertation on and I’m sure many have.
Strategies don't stop being effective just because they were first employed many years ago.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln.
Not spies, but it is not surprising: Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Tiger Woods, etc.
Note: Watch Lioness season 3, premise is spy honeypotting: coincidence it came out just before this scandal
Are you asking how an extremely powerful but aging heterosexual man was tricked by an attractive young woman using her sexuality and good looks?
because we are still monkeys with iPhones
Yeah it was a rhetorical question.
I think you answered your own question.
I do have a feeling that they are still, after all those years, just shy, creepy nerds, but with money. See Bezos' new wife, or Gates with the russian prostitutes (I'm not even going to bring up Musk).
They are all just deeply psychologically damaged people with a lot of money to cover all that up.
Add to that the level of constant temptation coming from every way, women literally throwing themselves at them either for their own gain, or as in this example for their country.
I don't think we should be feeling pity for them, but they live in a very, very, VERY different world than the normal person.
Yeah, however they started I think having billions really does a number on the vast majority of people - from a mental health POV it's not a good idea, let alone for the rest of society.
Same thing happens with fame (celebrities) and huge awards (Nobel prize disease).
Whom the gods wish to destroy…
Agreed, especially for those who aren’t from money but hit the jackpot very young with a tech IPO.
I’m learning that Jensen Huang was middle class with a school teacher as a mother. Bezos was also a son of a teacher and his father was a unicyclist (!)
These guys hit it big and you just get the impression that they finally get to cash in on all those adolescent dreams of hot girls and gaudy extravaganza we all eventually grew out of
Grew out of or gave up on?
You know, at some point I just lost interest in the Lamborghini I used to have a poster of as an 8 year old boy
Looking around Silicon Valley I see many people did not and good for them. My tastes changed as I grew up. I still know full grown adults who eat chicken nuggets and that’s not for me either
I like this sort of analysis because it often sounds like it came from a shy, creepy nerd, but without money
A shy, creepy nerd without money is quite a bit less dangerous though.
But the money trap here is the wife and the marriage, not the affair. If for example you swap him with Elon Musk, no claimant would get much of anything, because he is wise to such money traps.
I find the 50/50 thing is so silly.
I'm not super wealthy, and on a personal level I'm very happy for my partner to have an equal claim to my wealth, but I do resent that I have to think about this and that this has been a topic of conversation I've had with my dad and friends over the years. If I didn't love and trust my partner as much as I do I'd probably need to get prenuptial agreement or avoid marriage altogether. To not hold this position is just poor risk management, and you have to get very lucky with your partner to not need to worry about this stuff.
I worry the more of these cases there are the more people are going to avoid marriage or sign agreements which are even more unfavourable. I've already seen people on some parts of the internet commenting on this story and using it as a reason for men to not commit or to sign prenuptial agreements so they aren't financially harmed from marriage.
Don't get me wrong, I think she deserves a ton of money here, but 50% of everything? Common... There is a reasonable amount that she's entitled to here, and it's in both men and women's best interest that that is what she gets.
Note: This is an opinion which I am only expressing because it's somewhat unpopular. If you don't like it consider putting another opinion forward rather than down voting it.
Ok, against my better judgement here goes.
Marriage is best looked at as a societal entity for the creation and growth of a family. As such, entering one should be seen as a partnership, in many ways similar to a business partnership or startup.
Do not do either if you do not have a high level of trust in your partner! The possible downsides are immense!
It then falls to the state to figure out what to do when things go wrong. Not only like this, but with other important things like what happens to your stuff when you die. Here be dragons.
So the 50/50 thing is an obvious starting default given this lens. Especially when things get complicated (children get involved), tracking "how much" each person contributed to the partnership is an impossible task.
Contributions in terms of time and other resources will be seen in a highly variable way. Traditionally men have completely undervalued what women bring in terms of time and opportunity cost (lost career progress).
So: it is best to leave that valuation to the people in the partnership, and start with the presumption that both will contribute equally in their own ways.
You can attempt to change this default with prenups and other legal tooling. Your mileage may vary, legal enforceability of these arrangements is a complex per-state issue.
> I'm not super wealthy, and on a personal level I'm very happy for my partner to have an equal claim to my wealth
1) sounds like you don't have much to be concerned about, and 2) this cuts both ways (you have an equal claim to her wealth).
> on a personal level I'm very happy for my partner to have an equal claim to my wealth, but I do resent that I have to think about this
It's not clear to me what there is to think about: if you ever get divorced, you have legal certainty about how the assets will be split. If the rule didn't exist, courts would have to try and figure it out for each and every case (more so than they already do).
Unless you're advocating for "you take what you brought in", in which case historical precedent has shown this has been immeasurably unfavourable to women.
Jensen Huang has not done tens of billions of dollars worth of hard work; he mainly got really, really lucky. If he only gets to cash out half of that extreme fortune for whatever reason, let alone not keeping it in his pants, I don't think there's any serious discussion to be had about what's "fair" for him.
She isn’t “entitled” to the money, it is hers already. That’s how marital property works.
[dead]
Is this site Hacker Tabloid now?
They met on the same college course, maybe she could take over as CEO.
Mr. President, a second Huang has hit the Forbes 400
> Jensen Huang Scandal Sparks Speculation–Jensen's Wife Could Get Half
Cool.
Maybe some of his billions would then actually be meaningfully channeled into worthy causes ala what MacKenzie Scott has been doing, instead of being tied up in his current foundation which appears to be primarily for tax avoidance and for funneling money to companies like CoreWeave for nebulous educational initiatives.
Ex-wives are our best hope for meaningful giving from our current oligarchs as the men are all self-absorbed narcissists who can't stand to see number go down because of the gamification aspect of modern wealth.
Is helping solve AI not a worthy cause? If it ends up helping every intellectual problem asked by people, wouldn’t it help more than charity? Charity reaches a point of diminishing returns if you just dump it on an organization that doesn’t know how to spend it properly.
> If it ends up helping every intellectual problem asked by people
IMO if you think this results in more actual improvements than drawbacks for the common person then you haven't been paying attention to how wealth inequality has been fracturing society and leaving the majority behind.
It's not just the majority being left behind.
It's almost everybody.
Superintelligence will accelerate stratification, in the society we live in
AI ... diminishing returns. I have heard this somewhere.
I guess that's one way to tax billionaires.
Lori Huang deserves half. I really hope she takes it.
Mackenzie Scott only took 25% and I thought that was really stupid. Imagine all the good she could have done with that extra 25%, she's already the most philanthropic billionaire of all time in the sense she didn't just dump her money into her own foundation, she's been giving it away directly which is awesome.
You have fallen for her headlines
What is inaccurate?
That 25% is a pretty typical "very high end" divorce number, I was told at the time. There are likely a lot of practical considerations to work through that could slow this down for years - consent decrees, liquidity of the underlying stock, the board's willingness to have a non-employee owning so much, etc. etc. All can definitely be worked through. But, life is short. And the numbers are already, you know, pretty big.
Why does Lori Huang deserve half of Nvidia?
She has jointly owned it for 41 years. Where does “deserve” even enter the picture? It is already hers.
California is a 50/50 state when it comes to splitting marital assets for a divorce.
Well they were married for 8 years before Nvidia was founded.
Yet another tech Lord who failed to have a proper prenup with his wife ? - - - and like Bezos and Gates, a HUGE transfer of wealth, unfortunately, a significant portion get's shoveled off into liberal causes.
3.5% is just a blip on the screen for Wall street, nothing to short Nvidia over.
It appears after Musk divorced his 1st wife, he had learned. Now he has a half dozen or more concubines, most with signed agreements so they get serious support for his multiple kids, the 1 or 2 who refused get nothing but a team of lawyers fighting them tooth and nail. You can be sure he had his lawyers arrange his affairs to show he owns almost nothing, trusts and all. Good luck getting anything off him, concubine "refusniks" - - goldiggers.
Not only is he the richest person in the world -- but arguably the smartest in arranging his "relationships with women affairs" to give him the lowest potential risk.
> You can be sure he had his lawyers arrange his affairs to show he owns almost nothing, trusts and all.
All the Musk-stans, "He doesn't even own a house, you guys!!!"
Meanwhile, Musk is busy doing ketamine in his friend's $45M home that he just ... lives in ... whenever he wants.
> Not only is he the richest person in the world -- but arguably the smartest in arranging his "relationships with women affairs" to give him the lowest potential risk.
This comes off kinda more than a little incel red pill-y.