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:

• 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

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!

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.

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!

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.

Here's the actual video source, skipped to the relevant context:

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.

Here's the actual video source, skipped to the relevant context:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Navidia?

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.

I’m not sure how they do it. I’d be super interested to know.

There might be typos from the auto-transcription.

Here's the actual video source, skipped to the relevant context:

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.

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?

Navidia?

Here's the actual video source, skipped to the relevant context:

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.

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.

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.