This is a clickbait headline from Tom’s, as that’s not how the speech was worded.
Technology
42
Beiträge
19
Kommentatoren
6
Aufrufe
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Navidia?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Navidia?
There might be typos from the auto-transcription.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
There might be typos from the auto-transcription.
No, that's how he pronounced it in the video (to my ear).
-
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.
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. -
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?
-
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.
That's just the same as the article. Same quotes.
-
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.
-
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. -
Navidia?
That must be it. No way OP spelled that right.
-
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
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.
-
-
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.
It's also how we got Trump. We overfed the troll.
-
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.
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 knowI 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 astoundingI 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
-
-
-
-
Brits can get around Discord's age verification thanks to Death Stranding's photo mode, bypassing the measure introduced with the UK's Online Safety Act. We tried it and it works—thanks, Kojima
Technology
1
-
-
-
‘If I switch it off, my girlfriend might think I’m cheating’: inside the rise of couples location sharing
Technology
1
-
Humans can be tracked with unique 'fingerprint' based on how their bodies block Wi-Fi signals
Technology
2
