Remix.run Logo
▲ King-Aaron a day ago

I think it will become obvious who is pulling the strings when they decide on who takes the keys after Jensen.

▲antonvs a day ago | parent [-]

Collette Kress is interim CEO. It might be hard to weave that into your conspiracy theory.

▲King-Aaron a day ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't she a temporary fill? I'd be expecting some maga lackey to be parachuted in by old Don.

▲antonvs a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, hence the "interim" title.

But I think you're trying to connect the dots a bit too hard. First, Trump is not competent enough for the kind of manipulation you're describing.

Second, the power relationship mostly flows the other way - megacorps have more control over the government than the other way around. That's rather the whole point of the current system.

Third, corporations still have checks and balances that work quite well - Nvidia has a board filled with powerful people who aren't likely to stand by and watch the company get hamstrung by the dementia patient in chief.

It's true that their are scenarios in which pressure could be applied, e.g. accept this CEO and the government will allow you to sell to China - but Trump can't make deals like that in a vacuum, he'd get hard pushback from the anti-China hawks in the government.

The idea of an authoritarian president as an all-powerful puppetmaster is a conspiracy fantasy. The reality is that there are all sorts of competing powers acting in their own self-interest. Even the trillionaires don't get what they want all the time, as the case of Musk clearly demonstrates.

▲monideas a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲jb1991 a day ago | parent [-]

This might be the most blatantly prejudicial comment I’ve ever seen posted on this website in the many years I’ve been visiting here. Prejudicial, and easily disproven… as all prejudice is.

▲monideas a day ago | parent [-]

I don’t know what “prejudicial” even means in this context

▲antonvs 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, you could just look it up. In this case, the relevant definitions include "based on or causing prejudice - a bias or a preconceived opinion, idea, or belief about something" and "harmful, damaging, or causing disadvantage to someone or something."

But hey, not wanting to learn is consistent with the flagged comment you posted earlier. Simple refutation of your point: do you really think that there's no woman who could have done a better job as US president over the last couple of years? Maybe someone who knows what "prejudicial" means, or is capable of looking it up?

When your thought process is corrupted by bigotry, you ignore differences in individual attributes and capabilities, both within groups that you're biased against, as well as in the groups that you identify with. (Side note, this is classic identity politics, so if you've ever railed against that, you might want to check a mirror.)

It's essentially the way that primitive tribespeople thought and behaved thousands of years ago, but some people seem unable to overcome that irrationality, even with the benefit of education.