I honestly can't imagine how anyone could convince themselves that, if someone could go back and ask the authors of Section 3 if they thought it applied to the office of the president, that they would say, "No" . It's ridiculous to me that this is even something we're discussing.
ETA: Not disagreeing with you. Just complaining.
You didn't even need to click on the link. It's right there in the last paragraph OP posted.
With two children and nowhere to go, the suit states the disabled veteran mother switched both children to car riders while searching for steady housing. While the family remained in the same city, they were not located in the same school zone following the eviction.
Exactly, and this also contradicts the "few bad apples" defense. If there were only a few bad apples, then the police unions should be bending over backwards to eradicate them sooner than later to protect the many good apples, not to mention improve the long suffering reputation of police.
Instead, they're doing the exact opposite, making it clear to anyone paying attention that it's mostly, if not entirely, bad apples.
That's a far cry from investors just counting how many job listings the company has on Indeed without knowing if those positions are actually being filled, and if they're new positions or just replacing people that quit
You need lots and lots of real video of a person to train an AI to make fake videos of that person. So, unless the CFO and the other allegedly faked employees are all youtubers, there's very good reason to consider more plausible explanations.
To your point, you are correct. There are lots of stupid people. This includes people that will blindly believe that AI can just magically do anything and not even consider simpler explanations for things like this.
I think it was just last year there was a story about some school official claiming to have been duped into paying scammers millions from the schools funds, only to later have been caught making the whole thing up in an attempt to steal the money. (Maybe somebody remembers enough to find a link) So it's not remotely far fetched to think that's what could be happening here.
REI used to have this kind of policy, until people abused it to death
Well, I mean, 3.5 years is, technically, "after 2 years."
I'm highly doubtful that scammers could get enough real video of multiple employees in the same company to train an AI to pull this off convincingly. Celebrities, yes. Regular people, no
However, Occam's Razor tells me this employee knows exactly where that money went and plans to quietly slip away to a tropical island to retire, after getting fired for being "gullible."
No serious investor is dumb enough to be swayed by data that's easy to fake. Public companies are required to publish their financial reports every quarter.
Name and shame
First three words...
A federal court
Why shit like this doesn't instantly result in criminal assault charges is beyond my comprehension.