While filings have a fairly standard format, citations can be from multiple sources which may have different formats. In the case Mata v Avianca where ChatGPT fabricated cases, the AI cited the following cases:

• Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 F.3d 1237, 1254 (11th Cir. 2008)
• In re BDC 56 LLC, 330 B.R. 466, 471 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005)
• Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W. S. Ranch Co., 391 U.S. 593 (1968)
• El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (1999)

The first two did not exist but the last two do exist but had nothing to do with the topic cited. It would still take a human to determine that these cases where bogus citations.

For higher courts like SCOTUS, they get clerks who are lawyers and are part of their legal training. However such clerks are not common especially for courts likes one which would handle a state divorce. The clerks at this level are purely administrative clerks. They handle the schedules of hearings and cases, they receive and mark the filings, etc. These clerks do not look at the filings in detail.

Generally assistants and paralegals may not have any part of false citations. They would be more involved with the processes than anything else. It is mostly on the lawyers who signed the filings. Any work submitted under their name is a reflection on them.

Also what did you responsibility do you expect of the judge's support staff? The judge's clerk and court reporter do very little research or look at the filings in detail. They are generally more involved with the processes like scheduling hearings, processing the filings, preparing transcripts for lawyers, etc. From what I can tell this was a state court handling a divorce case.

Generally opposing counsel would challenge the cases; however, if opposing counsel was lazy and did not bother to check, that's another story. The first case I know with AI generated cases was Mata v Avianca. The opposing counsel alerted the court to the fictitious citations early in the case. The lawyers that used ChatGPT to write the briefs were sanctioned and fined. But that was a federal case where there is more scrutiny. A local divorce case may mean the lawyers and judge did not check everything.

Without details it is not clear when Mach 12 happened. A consideration on why the rocket was used might be China does not have a plane that could launch the vehicle at the moment. I think a modified B-52 is used to launch the X planes but they have been doing it for decades.

Unlike you, the various government agencies that investigate crashes have a responsibility to make sure they have everything correct. Analyzing the data is not instant. People seem to think investigations happen like in CSI. Determining the root cause could take months. Part of the investigation is determining if it could have been prevented, what steps can be done to avoid the cause in the future, etc. The crash happened on June 12, 2025. It has not been a month since it happened, yet you expect findings to be released immediately?

Your assumption again is that somehow investigator instantly know the root cause and are ready to release their findings. When the investigation determines that it was a design or construction problem, the appropriate agencies are notified.

Part of the investigation has to take into account how it has to be done. Suppose the root cause is a faulty design of a part. It will need to be replaced; however, the replacement part has to be redesigned first. Then it will take time to replace the part on all affected aircraft even if all the parts existed. Things do not happen magically.

He is trying to smear leftists with topics unrelated to this post. But as his name suggests, he is a right winger. If you follow his other posts, he uses every chance he gets to blame things on the left. Like this post where he insinuates that it is Obama's fault that touchscreens have replaced physical controls in cars."One could indirectly blame the Obama-era NHTSA for pushing a backup camera requirement . . . ".

1. Obama made backup cameras mandatory.
2. ????
3. Automakers removed physical controls.
4. Profit!!

It is his modus operandi.

Yes the 787 has batteries. No the battery is not enough to power all systems for long. Yes there were initial problems with the lithium-ion batteries in the beginning as some of them caught on fire. I do not know the details of the investigation but batteries catching on fire under usage generally suggests a manufacturing issue.

These chips were mentioned above: Have they been independently tested to meet their claims? Considering they have just been released only in China, the answer is probably no.

And they have reviewed these Longsoon chips?

No. According to the Chinese they are catching up. Until someone actually tests these chips, I would be skeptical. Both AMD and Intel have been caught exaggerating performance of their CPUs at times.

There is still execution and implementation that remains to be seen. Remember when China announced they had 7nm chips to rival TSMC and Samsung? It was proof that China had surpassed the West some said. That is until people look at the details. First of which is that TSMC is now on 3nm. Second, it was done using older DUV not the new EUV.

But by using DUV, China was able to do what TSMC could not do according to some. That is not the situation. TSMC could have done 7nm with DUV if they wanted; however, it would have been costly as it would have taken longer, required more steps, and the yields would have been much lower. Also the transition to 5nm and 3nm would been even harder. It was easier to use EUV than DUV. China does not have that option as they have only and handful of EUV machines that are no longer serviced.

25% is not a small amount. If you were missing 25% of groceries/pay check/whatever, you would consider it meaningful. The fact of the matter remains that Tesla is heavier than a Camry by a meaningful amount.

lightest Model 3 curb weight: 1760 kg (3880 lbs). The OP is still factually wrong. The lightest Model 3 still outweighs a Camry even if Camry is fully fueled.

The background on the $900M error. Citibank was supposed to make a payment on a loan on behalf of their customer. They accidentally paid off the loan. The problem for Citibank (and their client) was the client did not have $900M in the account to pay off the loan.

They sued to get the money back; however, a judge ruled against them. Part of the judge's reasoning was the $900M was supposed to paid off eventually so the recipients were not gifted money they were not entitled to get. If they accidentally deposited $900M in my bank account, they probably could get it back. I do not know internally what Citibank had to do to make up the shortfall themselves but it was clear it was all on Citibank to fix.

Please. Apple has not done 2 panels; they are still stuck on one panel.