Capital One to buy Discover Financial in $35B stock deal

Post by 486sx33 » Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 2:30 AM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #18

BadHumans wrote: post #6

I've always heard Discover was a good company to work for and they had the best customer support. Capital One is the opposite of both of those things so I hope the government steps in here.

I know someone who wasted two years trying to use a capital one secured credit card to help rebuild their credit history. The initial card offer was a $300 secured card and they figured it was the best they could do, ho hum, and just patiently plugged away For two years, they used the card routinely, paid if off religiously...sometimes having a monthly spend three times the limit. They would periodically request eith…

Post by NoPedantsThanks » Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 5:09 AM UTC

coder543 wrote: post #60

NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't "hallucinate." It provides incorrect output. That is all.

"Hallucination" is a widely understood and accepted term in the LLM industry. If you want to change that, replying to my comment doesn't seem to be the most effective place to start. I don't know that it's the best term, but it seems better than re-explaining the issue in detail every time. "Incorrect output" is broader, encompassing other failure modes. If you ask an LLM to respond in JSON with a list of common food…

Post by nonethewiser » Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 2:52 PM UTC

NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #51

nonethewiser wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've always heard Discover was a good company to work for and they had the best customer support. Capital One is the opposite of both of those things so I hope the government steps in here. You want the government to step in because you don’t like what you’ve heard about capital one’s customer service and work culture?

That's what he said. There's nothing wrong with it, either. And don't bother pretending to think that he wants the government to use his opinion as justification. That's obviously where you're going, so don't insult the rest of us by continuing.

Post by RHSeeger » Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 4:37 AM UTC

b112 wrote: post #116

RHSeeger wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we're talking past each other here. What I'm saying is that it's hard to tell if the usary limits actually provide a benefit to the borrowers. And I'm discussing the topics related to figuring out if they do or don't. And what you appear to be saying is that we need those limits because we've always had those limits, and because limits are good. And that the limits don't limit people because secured credi…

Well I'm also saying that those limits exist because of historical reasons, and those reasons were derived from issues in the past, and we should examine that context, and logic for those laws, before questioning if we need usury laws. Why? Because they've done a lot of research, and there was lead up, there were issues, that caused those laws to exist. Study that, before we ponder is what I say.