• 1 Post
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 12th, 2024

help-circle










  • Thank you

    The record in this case reflects Mr. Giuliani’s continued failure to meet his reporting obligations and provide the financial transparency required of a debtor in possession.

    Most significantly, none of Mr. Giuliani’s business entities have made any production at all despite being required to do so by the Rule 2004 Order.

    So they were not transparent and the up to 10 million in assets and debt numbers may very well be made up.

    Fifth, Mr. Giuliani has agreed to a one year filing bar following the dismissal of this case, alleviating concerns that Mr. Giuliani would simply file another bankruptcy as soon as this case is dismissed.

    Seems like he chose case dismissal over financial transparency.

    (It’s a long document, with multiple things/decisions, and legal speak, so having only skimmed for that detail, I may not have identified the or all significant parts. Discretion advised.)



  • The decision […] comes almost seven months after Giuliani sought bankruptcy protection after he was ordered to immediately pay millions in damages to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, two Georgia women he falsely accused of helping to steal the 2020 presidential election.

    lol, so absurd you could mistake it for satire

    too much damages to pay -> bankruptcy -> rejected -> has to pay

    In paperwork filed Thursday to seek protection from creditors, Giuliani listed up to $500 million in debts, including the $148 million he owes former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss. He also listed “unknown” amounts of debt to election technology companies Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, which named the former New York mayor in their defamation lawsuits about the 2020 presidential election. He listed his assets between $1 million and $10 million.

    So, he has (up to) 10 million in assets. He has to pay 148 million in damages immediately. And has over 352 million in other debts.

    How is he not bankrupt? I’d be interested in the ruling. Unfortunately, it’s not linked to in the article, referenced, or mentioned why it’s missing. Does the ruling publishing need time, or is it press not sourcing?







  • I think it’s a question of how you see the debate. What it is, or should be. Is it between the two candidates, and moderators merely give it structure? Or is it a debate with an expectation of truth and trustworthiness, fulfilling the press code, where the moderators would have to at least point out lies or ask for clarifications?

    A debate between two candidates has its value, but we can’t deny it strengthens Trumps position as an apparently to many people charismatic liar. Between only two people it’s about who is more charismatic and convincing, not about truthfulness, verifiability. All of those only go as far as the other candidate can establish them.

    If many citizens watch only the debate, is that enough to inform them / base their voting [or omission thereof] on?

    In the end, it may be understandable to wish for moderators to point out lies. It can be irritating and frustrating to see lies on a podium finding success, without successful, conclusive rebuttal. But that’s not the moderators’ place in the show format as it is.

    Disclaimer: I haven’t watched it.


  • I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.

    I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).

    Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.


  • How do you think the US tried to make China invade?

    I think it’s a bafflingly absurd claim. And I’m surprised some people wouldn’t doubt it.

    How does this fit into China invading and harassing other ships in international waters near Taiwan? Or China punishing Taiwans independent election results by doing military maneuvers around Taiwan, clearly showing force and threatening. And the constant reiterations of considering Taiwan as part of China. Integration of Taiwan is a clear and repeatedly voiced goal. Their willingness to use force was shown repeatedly; in Tibet, Hong Kong, and against minorities in their own established lands.

    I don’t see how with such a discrepancy believing the Chinese claims makes any sense. It’s smoke and trying to influence and irritate the western nations and their alliances. Similar playbook to Russia.