Meet In CommonNews

Local

Jensen Huang told Nvidia's (NVDA) top lawyer in October that his Alice Huang dealings were routine

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: AIStockWire

Key points Jensen Huang called his Alice Huang dealings routine His messages went to Nvidia's general counsel Tim Teter Huang discussed suing The New York Times Former Nvidia (NVDA) CEO Jensen Huang told several of the company's leaders in October that his interactions with Alice Huang were standard business dealings with customers, Reuters reported on the evening of Nov. 13 (ET). Those leaders included general counsel Tim Teter and chief marketing officer Alison Wagonfeld. Reuters, which reviewed several of the October messages, reported that Huang misled them about the nature of the relationship, which was an affair. Nvidia announced Huang's resignation on Nov. 12. The board had accepted it on Nov. 11, effective immediately. On Nov. 8, Huang had told employees he was unfaithful to his wife, without naming the woman.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at AIStockWire

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Sporting success should include character and contribution, not only winning.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Software says a student cheated with AI. Is that enough to fail the paper?

A teacher suspects several essays were written with AI. Detection software marks one student's work as highly likely to be generated, but the software is known to make mistakes and the student denies using it.

How should responsibility be assigned when evidence is powerful but unreliable?

Explore this quandary