President Trump threatened to break up Nvidia, didn't even know what it was — 'What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before'
President Trump threatened to break up Nvidia, didn't even know what it was — 'What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before'
You're viewing a single thread.
This is a clickbait headline from Tom’s, as that’s not how the speech was worded. Per their own cherry picked quotes
Trump continued, "I said, 'Who the hell is he? What's his name?' 'His name is Jensen Huang, Nvidia, ' I said, 'What the hell is Nvidia?' I've never heard of it before.
The context being he had never really heard of Nvidia before they got so high profile, like most of the US population.
Tom's does this all the time; they’re notorious for it in the PC Hardware news community.
Yes Trump is an idiot and his speeches are stupid, but can we please not have ragebait stretching it even more?
I’m sorry to keep bringing this up and getting so sour, but I feel like Lemmy's information hygiene is deteriorating, and we're happily upvoting it away. Big community mods need to put their foots down and put up basic soft rules, like:
Trying to put Trump quotes into context is like trying to read a Pollock, it's not possible and it's not supposed to be. Your interpretation really didn't change any of the meaning for me, and it certainly didn't contradict the headline.
Here's the actual video source, skipped to the relevant context:
https://youtu.be/BrTT7dX0mcQ?t=851
And if you don't want that, a clip of the auto transcript I ripped from YouTube:
...And a very special thanks to some of the top industry leaders including somebody that's amazing. I said, "Look, we'll break this guy up." This is before I learned the facts of life. I said, "We'll break them up." They said, "No, sir. It's very hard." I said, "Why?" I said, "What percentages of the market does he have?" I said, "He has 100%." I said, "Who the hell is he? What's his name?" His name is Jensen Wong. Nvidia. I said, "What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before." He said, "You don't want to know about it, sir." I figured we could go in and we could sort of break them up a little bit, get them a little competition. And I found out it's not easy in that business. I said, "Supposing we put the greatest minds together. They work hand in hand for a couple of years." He said, "No, it would take at least 10 years to catch him if he ran Nvidia totally incompetently from now on." So, I said, "All right, let's go on to the next one." And then I got to know Jensen, and now I see why. Jensen, will you stand up? What a job. What a job you've done, man. Great. It's a great He's a great guy, too. Lisa...
Trump's clearly referencing learning about Nvidia in the past, and getting to know Jensen. He's telling a story about pondering breaking up Nvidia and putting together a government chip development effort before he learned the finer details on what they do. Tom's headline, on the other hand:
President Trump threatened to break up Nvidia, didn't even know what it was — 'What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before'
Is worded to imply Trump 'threatened' Nvidia blindly, or that he didn't know who Nvidia is during or just before the speech, cherry picking a quote with no context. It's technically plausibly deniable.
Call it what you want, but that is classic tabloid journalism from Tom's.
The headline contradicts what Trump was saying. It sort of contradicts their own article.
Thanks for all the info. He talks about learning about Nvidia in the past, and mentions talking about breaking it up. That doesn't sound like a business man talking about getting involved in the company, or competing against it, that sounds like a politician wanting to address a very strong company. Trump has only been a politician for the past 9 years. So Trump just found out about the largest chip designer in the world 9 years ago... That seems absurd to me.
That's just the same as the article. Same quotes.
If it was so clear, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I disagree. Like I said, even all that context doesn't actually give any context because nothing Trump says really has any meaning. When he says something happened "in the past", it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened, it could mean it never happened and never will. But even taking him at his word, nothing from that "context" makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage. And even if he did know what Nvidia was "in the past", he did try to break it up without knowing what it was, so where's the contradiction? I don't see how that headline is implying any kind of timeframe, inaccurate or otherwise.
It's not unreasonable to simply dismiss what Trump says entirely, but it's a different matter to assign it a meaning other than the meaning that can be inferred from context. You're just putting words in his mouth at that point.
Given all the possible context, I still don't see the headline as misleading 🤷♂️ idk what to tell y'all. Typically "breaking" news headlines are written in present tense "Trump threatens...", so any headline that starts "Trump threatened..." I just automatically assume to have happened sometime in the last 10 or 15 years, while bearing at least a semblance of relevance to current events. Like this one. It's definitely a nothingstory, but it doesn't read to me as a decrease in journalistic quality.
nothing Trump says really has any meaning.
This is reductive. Why report on anything he says then? But for the sake of argument let's go with that.
When he says something happened “in the past”, it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened
So how do you go from that to concluding:
othing from that “context” makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage
You're not making any sense. You're saying "nothing Trump says really has any meaning," effectively refuting his whole quote, while somehow holding up the conclusion that he "found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage" with, per your own standards you just emphasized, zero evidence, out of thin air.
So which is it? Is his whole quote invalid?
You very conveniently left out the "But taking him at his word" part of my comment, which kind of negates everything you're complaining about. See, that's a good example of taking a quote out of context and changing the meaning, unlike this headline. I do agree that we shouldn't report onanything he says though, just report on the administration's actions.
Navidia?
It powers a tesler
That must be it. No way OP spelled that right.
There might be typos from the auto-transcription.
No, that's how he pronounced it in the video (to my ear).
THANK YOU. I've said many times, lemmy will upvote anything they believe to be true without a second thought. Then we turn around and make fun of gullible Boomers on FaceBook.
Around 1999 I learned to fact check if a headline or meme sounded crazy. Still applies today y'all!
Totally. I remember this happening back when everyone was using forums. This is a "Social Media" problem, not just a Lemmy problem. I have no idea how to fix it, but it's been around longer than votes have been a thing.
Twitter did exactly one thing right, and it’s community notes. Lemmy could definitely use a feature like that where the users can provide context that corrects clickbait headlines. Other than comments of course.
On the backend, Twitter must use some kind of (pre-LLM) language model to aggregate the sentiment of comments? I've never used Twitter before; how is it generated? Do mods post it or something?
Lemmy could theoretically do that, but it'd either have to hit an API, host it with their server resources, or lean on potentially power-tripping/busy human mods to do it.
I’m not sure how they do it. I’d be super interested to know.
Well, ML is kinda toxic right now, and even a hint of "let's draft community notes with a language model" is going to be shot down by the huge fediverse anti-AI community. So I think that's, unfortunately, a non-starter.
And again, mods purely doing it would be problematic.
It seems like a great idea to me, but I'm just not sure how it would be implemented.
Yeah. To be fair, everyone’s gotta slowly learn that.
But I think it’s fair for communities/mods to lay down posting standards, unless it’s like an explicit shitposting community.
but they got high profile in like the 90s three decades ago
Nobody but computer nerds had heard of NVIDIA back then. Go outside right now and snatch 10 neighbors or strangers, ask them if they know anything about the company.
I can only think of 3 people on my block who have heard of them. Me (35 years of IT), young neighbor (works county IT), young neighbor (PC gamer). Bet not another soul on the whole block would have a clue.
As my favorite YouTuber Paul Harrell (RIP) always said:
"Everything I'm saying today are my conclusions and my opinions. My opinions are based on my education, my training, my experience. Different people have different experiences so they have different opinions. I make no claim that my opinion has its origin in the mind of greatness. And if someone does tell you that their opinion has such origins, you should be very incredulous."
I had a few people come to me asking when Nvidia starting surfacing in investor/finance land. And one for AI work.
EDIT: Also, I'm bookmarking that quote, thanks.
To PC gamers and hardware nerds. Not to the average person or the high levels of US politics.
As I often say, Lemmy skews really techy, but most people don’t know anything about this stuff.
Not sure why you're being down voted. If you never built your own PC, you would have had zero reason to know who Nvidia was.
And most people buy pre built machines. Most of those have probably been laptops for the last 10-15 years, so not even the chance to upgrade. They just but the latest things with the biggest numbers and assume it will handle their needs.
I mean I realize we're talking about a moron here but grammar is important:
"I've never heard of them" vs "I had never heard of them"
So no, not clickbait.
Trump continued, "I said, 'Who the hell is he? What's his name?' 'His name is Jensen Huang, Nvidia, ' I said, 'What the hell is Nvidia?' I've never heard of it before.
The journalist pretty clearly put the quotation marks in the wrong place. It should be this:
Trump continued, "I said, 'Who the hell is he? What's his name?' 'His name is Jensen Huang, Nvidia, ' I said, 'What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before.'
He's quoting himself, in the past, saying "What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before." He's not saying that he hasn't heard of NVIDIA in the present moment. The context makes that clear, because in the next paragraph he describes how he got to know Jensen Huang and learn about NVIDIA. But the journalist closed the quote too early, making it a bit nonsensical. On this rare occasion, Trump was not being 100% incoherent.
I dunno. I feel like trying to make sense of anything he says is like trying to make sense of Bible verses. The only person who knows is the one who said it but they're incapable or unwilling to clarify.
I think it was a couple of years ago, I made a reply on a thread where people were accusing the average Reddit user of being a bot or a shill (rightly so) - anyway, my position was that Lemmy is already being infected by similar.
Oh man did people get salty; but I swear it's only been getting worse.
I’m not accusing anyone here of being a bot or shill.
But I think information hygiene is super, super important, lest the Fediverse meet the same fate as the rest of the internet.
Oh for sure!
It doesn't take very many who participate in bad faith, though, before information hygiene, as you put it, starts going by the wayside.
But, my apologies if it sounded like I was trying to hijack your message; was not my intent! Whether it's bad actors or just people giving in to emotional reactions instead of reasoning out the argument, it is for sure important to be careful of misinformation. I'm sure a distressing amount is spread quite unintentionally.
No worries, I got the idea (and was a tad blunt clarifying). And yeah, for sure.
To expand on my perspective, I’ve encountered genuinely curious comments about link sourcing, questionable but popular sites and such. It reminds me there are young folks or newcomers still learning those concepts and “characters” of the internet, and I mean that with no intended condescension to anyone.
I have a bad habit of being condescending myself, I appreciate the reminder.
Some time back I saw a blog post where the author was making the claim that the only possible way to deprogram someone who had been radicalized starts with compassion. Real, honest compassion for the person; which can be hard with the hateful ideals that are spread so freely these days! But he is right. Without compassion, whoever you are trying to communicate with has no honest reason to listen.
Anyway, thank you again for sharing your perspective!
100%.
Frequently Lemmy left users appear as deluded as Trump supporters with their foaming at the mouth support for anything and everything anti Trump.
It's like hating Trump is a personality trait now, it's fucking sad.
Thanks for outting yourself. I haven't blocked anyone here lately.
Guessing you already blocked me, but are you suggesting I'm a Trump supporter?
It's also how we got Trump. We overfed the troll.
I mean, I don't have a problem with hating Trump being a personality trait. explain why I should like him, he represents everything I despise and is making my country somehow am even bigger laughing stock of the world. Now I obviously know this is a problem with American elites...far beyond trump but he's effectively the CEO of the country and as such would be the person to blame.Just as they like to say Biden this Obama that Clinton this other thing...not that any of it matters anyways because obviously one single person doesn't control much anyways as people should know
I mean I think he's a character and fun to watch sometimes, but that's about it. don't really know how you can make Trump look worse than he already does with his hateful vile words and disgraceful record. he's brought a new level of corruption to an already corrupt office, which I find quite astounding
I can't see how anyone would be like, 'why are people so quickly anti trump' if you ask me-- noone with braincells and good intentions should be supporting him (or the Dems for that matter)! but certainly not an administration that is actively covering up one of the greatest child trafficking rings in modern history.
sorry for the rant but I just truley do not get this take 😭
I'd be more shocked if I came to lemmy and it read like r/conservatives
Because that's exactly what Trump supporters do: don't think critically, just blindly, loyally assume the opposition must always be incorrect.
It's not about supporting him or not, it has nothing to do with that. It's about seeing through objectively false posts (often posted for money, attention, or simply from gut feelings) and people cheering them on, which is exactly what has empowered Trump and given his supporters something to point to painting them as victims of lies.
You should set aside any thought about Trump and look at the material first. That's critical thinking, in a nutshell.
Or you can play the engagement hate game that got that man into office.
Uhhh what do you think my take is?
