This article (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/02/why-ame...) is basically canonical for things wrong with the media and it was written in 96.

How does a UAF never compile without whole program lifetime and alias analysis?

Oh yes, as opposed to the famously free from abuse oil and gas industry.

Nah. My aunt supports mass deportation because she hates nonwhites. No outcomes matter to her other than ensuring a white society.

> What is their lawful basis under the GDPR to keep it after I demand deletion?

GDPR explicitly permits deletion timeframes. It does not demand that files are instantly destroyed as soon as you click the button.

It is permanently deleted. It just takes a little while.

Genuine advice. Just move on. It seems like you are proud of what you have done here and it is letting you spiral. You say that they’ve deleted more than a hundred of your posts and… yeah. If somebody is making hundreds of posts about this sort of thing that’s gone well beyond useful communication.

This is, frankly, not very important and not something that will produce a successful lawsuit so this is just harming your own mental health for no reason.

Content being moved to trash and then eventually cleaned up and permanently deleted is an extremely ordinary pattern. If you want a more rigorous deleting of your data you can use a wipeout procedure.

I have just mathematically proven that Google is lying to everyone, and you are here writing about some imagined, non-existent corporate jargon while telling me to calm down... Well, listen to me: I am not backing down! Google is the one that will suffer the consequences, not me, because I am going to sue them. I am the first person in the world to conclusively prove this architecture fraud against them. If you haven't done so yet, go read my posts—the links to the archives are all listed right here in the comments.

> have just mathematically proven that Google is lying to everyone

First, no you have not. Second, this would be distinct from actually breaking a law.

Think about the design here for a moment. When you click delete the file goes into the "recoverable, but to be deleted" state. Then after 25 days it goes into the "to be permanently deleted" state and various backend jobs start removing it from storage under a maximum time frame of 30 days. So Google communicates that you have 25 days to recover the file (you do). After 25 days the file is in an indeterminate state because it may be deleted from various backend storage systems. After 55 days it is guaranteed to be completely gone.

This is... how most such systems work. The laws governing data deletion give time windows. They don't specify that files must be deleted instantly. "Fraud" is also a specific legal term. Just saying "well the warning says it will be deleted permanently but it takes some time to do that" is not meaningful.

I also have no idea what "mathematically proven" means in this case.

> Google is the one that will suffer the consequences, not me, because I am going to sue them. I am the first person in the world to conclusively prove this architecture fraud against them.

I remember the first time I submitted something to a VRP. I was so proud of my accomplishment. I was a real security researcher! This made me overemphasize the importance of my finding in my mind. I can understand how pushback against your report feels like a personal slight but I assure that it isn't. The reason that you are getting banned from these systems is not because you've found some great crime or something so dangerous. The reason you are getting banned from these systems is because you are a spammer now.

I can assure you of two things.

First, you are not the first person in the world to notice this deletion pattern. It is not unique to these particular files. Second, you will not successfully sue Google. This design is commonplace across the industry.

You are only causing yourself pain here.

What kind of deletion timeframe are you even talking about when I have literally proven that the deletion process hasn't even started in the first place? Do you actually understand my post at all, or are you just unable to read? xD

I'm genuinely trying to help but it is difficult if your response is to just insult people. I understand your post very clearly. What I am telling you is that what you describe is ordinary design across the industry. It is not unique to this one feature in AI Studio. It isn't even unique to Google.

You are using AI to write your posts. Ask it to summarize the deletion timelines required by GDPR. You are claiming that this design is illegal.

You've submitted dozens of posts on this topic to HN. You are a spammer and you are only causing yourself pain. I understand that it is exciting to see yourself as a protagonist. It is exciting to think that you are the only person to discover some dark secret. But you haven't.

I don’t know tons about him but those assertions would need at least a link to a not out of context quote to take seriously.

BTW I apply the same standard to right wing slams. Stuff like “??? wants to let eight year olds get sex change operations!” Citation needed. Etc.

Most of online discourse is a slug fest between straw men.

Forward progress guarantee is what allows for conversion between recursion and iteration for performance optimization. Otherwise these have different characteristics (recursion blows the stack, a loop hangs).

This is what you get when you hire a TV personality who cares more about soldiers looking masculine (and white) than anything else and launch an illegal war for no reason other than "those guys make me angry."

We are governed by people who think the very idea of expertise is dumb. A system of pure id and grievance. Like children playing war in the bath tub.