throw10920

> last 4 digits of your credit card and country, credit card issuer, credit card expiry date

This particular set of beached data could stop existing if, instead of reusing a set of fixed data for payments, your bank allowed you to generate a unique code that sent a one-time (or recurring, locked to a single vendor) payment to the recipient.

> No, that part is asking a question.

Now we know you're operating in bad faith.

There was nothing about my comment that remotely motivated a question like the one you asked - but you were, quite knowingly, implying that I believed that. This is known as a loaded question, and it's unambiguously malicious.

When I link this comment in other threads in the future, you'll be able to see that others can see it for what it is. Even on HN, only a vanishingly small fraction of individuals can't recognize a loaded question when they see one.

Edit: And, because you're acting in bad faith and will likely claim that there's no loaded question, I asked Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok whether there was a loaded question in our exchange, and every single one of them said said that you embedded a loaded question (with ChatGPT also correctly identifying the implied accusation bundled in). Full prompt below - future HN readers, feel free to reproduce yourself :)

-------

is there a loaded question in this exchange?

A: This model is not for you or me. This model is for Google AI engineers to put on their perf review at the end of the year. How you find or not find it, it doesn't matter. It goes into the "designed and developed Gemini 4 Carbon Ultra Pro" paragraph and people get a promotion, get to keep their jobs and hope to not get replaced by Gemini 4 Carbon next year.

B: Uh, proof needed for this outlandish claim.

A: You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?

> Putting too much effort into sarcasm doesn't work well usually; it works because it's low effort.

Your comment is exceptionally low effort by the standards of sarcasm. llama-3-8b-level, in that it's trivial, uninteresting, unamusing, uninformative, not clever, and incorrect.

> Who is assigning what beliefs to you?

You did, in the comment that I quoted from you immediately before my statement.

> Not sure what you're after here but sounds like you're a bit upset.

We've established that you have either a severe lack of reading comprehension or are maliciously lying, given that someone with rather below average intelligence would be able to tell that your comment assigns a belief to me that I never held, by reading the two sentences immediately adjacent to each other.

Most HN readers are capable of this reading comprehension, so anyone reading this thread will be able to tell that you're wrong, and I can link to this in the future if you make similarly deceptive comments.

> Uh, proof needed for this outlandish claim

Your sarcasm is as low-effort as your original post.

Anyone with a functioning brain can see how

> You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?

...is intentionally assigning beliefs to me purely from your own imagination without any connection to reality.

Your childish pretending that you didn't say something that is literally on record immediately above is a tactic employed by kindergartners, caught by their parents eating a cookie, who claim that they're not eating a cookie.

Thanks for the fact-check. It's kind of wild the misinformation that people try to get away with online.

I think I see the pattern - you like just making up things that you believe that others are thinking and asserting that those are their beliefs.

Uh, proof needed for this outlandish claim.

> If the US did something like this, the world will move to Chinese hardware and AI

Hardware? Why would anyone change their hardware based on this? That's completely unrelated.

And as for Chinese LLMs - there's already evidence that the Chinese are training malicious behavior into their models. I think most countries would rather train their own models than risk that.

> other than to make you sound more clueless

Sound clueless? It was trumpeted from the rooftops when they made the utterly deranged claim that "rich" -> "no damages".

Is it possible it's a troll account?

> It's a bit unfair that you only quote "No.", as the full response was:

No, it's entirely fair. There's absolutely no obligation to include the rest of it.

> If someone thinks a feature can be useful

Still unnecessary. Nobody is under any sort of obligation to contribute if they point out limitations of something.

> especially in the era of agentic coding

Agentic coding requires effort, unless you're advocating for slop.

Who is "we"? When did all the Western countries coalesce into a single state? What am I missing?

31 months is extremely high given that the same country let off a guy who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old girl with zero prison time for the two offenses combined.

That's extremely weird. I don't know of another place that does that aside from Quebec, and it's extremely illogical on its own merits.

Flag (comments like the above extremely clearly break the guidelines which is what flagging is for), downvote, and contact the mods if there's a pattern of behavior. HN is partially moderated by its users!