Now even your UI shows one option. That is as useful as your examples.

It looks like your UI is borked. Like everything in your system.

AI is a trend that companies somehow think will sway the public when it does not. It is like blockchain and NFTs. While these technologies may have uses, companies should really think about what are the benefits and disadvantages of using these technologies. To publicly touted that you are going "AI first" is not garnering the support that companies think will garner. Now, investors love the idea of technologies reducing cost with zero disadvantages; however, investors are known to reward short-term gains over long-term benefits.

It seems you’re probably worse than I thought as you have problems booting. Again, check with a doctor.

Segment violation accurately describes all your responses so far. Perhaps you need to check with a doctor about that. There is treatment but alas they are years away from a cure.

It is not the fine that will harm the lawyer. It is the formal sanction. That follows a lawyer for their entire career. In the US when a lawyer is applying for admission to a state bar even to practice one case, many if not all states will ask if the lawyers has ever been sanctioned previously and provide details. The court can refuse an attorney to appear on a case if it has reasons.

For example, the infamous Jack Thompson was removed from a case in Alabama as the court said he lied on his application. When asked if he had ever been sanctioned by his state, Florida, Thompson said ,"No but see details". He had been sanctioned by the Florida bar and when asked why would he said no, he gave a confusing answer of Schrodinger's cat where he had been and had not been sanctioned previously.

The point you are missing is that somehow courts will allow AI as an excuse for false statements. They will not. Whether it was generated by AI or a lawyer making up false a statements, that is the same to the court. Second, the hard part of citations is finding the cases that support an argument. The citations are easy to check whether they exist which makes the lawyers look incredibly lazy or dumb. Lastly, there are lawyers on the opposite side that will check as they have to counter any arguments made.

In one the later seasons, Colonel O’Neill was sent to be a technical advisor on a TV show called "Wormhole X Treme" that depicted many of the details of the top secret Stargate program: Teams of military personnel would travel to far away planets for missions through teleportation gates. Not only was Wormhole X Treme allowed by the Pentagon, they actually assisted with it providing technical advisors. When asked by O'Neill why they would willingly divulge details of the Stargate program, the reason was plausible deniability. If someone tried to leak real information about Stargate, it could be dismissed as someone confusing the TV show "Wormhole X Treme" for real life.

The issue at hand is lawyers submitted false information to a court. How they generated the false information was possibly AI, but the lawyers will not admit that is what happened. False information to the court carries a possible sentence of life in prison. Using AI is not the main issue. Not checking that their filings were full of false statements was the issue.

You should stop using AI to generate your statements. It seems it does not understand the topic at all.

Seems like your expression does not parse. Like your statements

Well that's a lie. From your own link onUrban Dictionary: "An online side hustle that consists of expressing political opinions, usually right-wing, and then asking for financial support in order to continute to express those opinions. . . " TThat's not remotely the same thing.

So there seems to be some variation here that you're insisting not be allowed.

And what part of the rest of the definition has anything to do with what you are saying: "In this context, grift implies that either A) the opinions are just a performance (and not actually held by the speaker, so the grift is just an act to make money), or B) the need for financial support is significantly overstated, typically by stoking fears of being censored. Thus, a genuinely opinionated online presence with a small amount of support is not considered a grift."

What game? The man is making YouTube videos.

You said: "He makes videos mostly about other people's technology, and sometimes it's contrived stuff just to make a video about the latest tech toys." when someone asked why he is grifter. Then you said: "You two are reading way to much negativity into "grift"" when called out on your statements.

Bahahahahahaah. You think you are some sort of judge here. No you are not.

Quintuple confirmation that you spouted nonsense.

Bahahahaha. Next thing you'll say is that Ukraine soldiers shooting Russian soldiers with bullets is an attack on Russia's nuclear capability. After those soldiers could have guarded Russian's nuclear missile silos in the future.

According to you Russia used these bombers to attack Ukraine with conventional weapons. I seriously doubt only six were used.

Bahahahaha. So was Ukraine supposed to identify exactly which of the six was used and only disable those six? According to you, there are 10 fewer bombers now that Russia can use. Did Ukraine wipe out Russia's fleet? No one said they did. But your "zero impact" statement is pure denial and you know it..

They have attacked other targets. It's you either ignorance or denial that you don't recognize. But according to you from above, these bombers were used to attack Ukraine.

Please. Russia has ALWAYS been the provocateur here. Again it is either your ignorance or dishonesty that is being demonstrated.

Grift has a meaning. It seems you define to use words according to you.

Please explain how a busker is a grifter. Again, words have meaning.

Are you confusing someone who has initiative with someone who is a grifter.