this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
433 points (88.6% liked)

Technology

73287 readers
4432 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
433
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' (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 3 days ago by MarriedCavelady50@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world
87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

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.