484
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
484 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
73495 readers
2962 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a clickbait headline from Tom’s, as that’s not how the speech was worded. Per their own cherry picked quotes
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:
Link the original source (in this case the NBC video), link the place you found it in the description if you wish.
Check the Wikipedia perennial news table (which, to be fair, Tom's isn’t in yet): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Try to avoid ragebait
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:
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:
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.
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.
This is reductive. Why report on anything he says then? But for the sake of argument let's go with that.
So how do you go from that to concluding:
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.
That's just the same as the article. Same quotes.
Navidia?
It powers a tesler
There might be typos from the auto-transcription.
No, that's how he pronounced it in the video (to my ear).
That must be it. No way OP spelled that right.
but they got high profile in like the 90s three decades ago
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.
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!
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.
The journalist pretty clearly put the quotation marks in the wrong place. It should be this:
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.