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.
Putting too much effort into sarcasm doesn't work well usually; it works because it's low effort.
> is intentionally assigning beliefs to me ...Anyone with a functioning brain can see ...caught by their parents eating a cookie, who claim that they're not eating a cookie...
Who is assigning what beliefs to you? What cookies? Not sure what you're after here but sounds like you're a bit upset.
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.
Ok. Well, I found it amusing and interesting.
> You did, in the comment that I quoted from you immediately before my statement.
You still haven't quoted them. Just vague references and a lot of angry words.
> 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.
You still haven't quoted anything are just continuing with more insults.
> Most HN readers are capable of this reading comprehension, so anyone reading this thread will be able to tell that you're wrong,
Yes they are and it would look rather embarrassing for some of us... but I can't stop you ;-)
Factually incorrect.
You wrote:
> 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?
In this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50284948
Which I quoted in my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50288198
There we go. That's the quotation. Your claim that I never quoted is objectively, factually, trivially false.
This is wild. You literally not only forgot your own words that you wrote less than 12 hours ago, but you were incapable of reading the comment where I very clearly cited them right back to you.
This is sub-grade-school levels of memory and reading comprehension. That's not even an exaggeration - grade schoolers are easily capable of doing the ctrl-f levels of "find this exact string of text in this other string of text" that you just failed.