- cross-posted to:
- antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trumpās assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last monthāsĀ judgmentĀ in his civil fraud case, Trumpās lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.
In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for TrumpĀ saidĀ it has proven a āpractical impossibilityā for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as āabout 30 surety companiesā have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.
To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateralāāa sum he simply does not have,āĀ reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.
Youāre refuting my comment about how humans have to laboriously scan in the documents withā¦ a video of a human laboriously scanning in a document?
For 5000 pages, weāre still talking about hours of human labor just to operate the scanner, even if itās a fast one.
No we arenāt. They are automated.
And actual robots are currently capable of operating them. Completely autonomously.
Again, yāall are months, if not years behind AI news.
Your own video showed a fucking human, dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmhIJOqepVU
Just google it. This is just the first result, normally youād remove the spine so you donāt have to turn the pages. The book in the other video is a special one that should not be destroyed, and since that fancy shmancy thing from my link is probably more expensive than my socks, itās done manually.
It was foggyās job to support his argument, not mine. He shouldāve done a better job (e.g. by citing the video you found instead of the manual one he picked).
Also, I wrote that it would take āhoursā to scan in 5000 pages, even with a fast scanner. The scanner you cited can do 3000 pph, so it would take 1.6 āhoursā to scan 5000 pages. Thatās still a plural number of hours, so if thatās the fastest scanner in the world my statement remains technically correct (the best kind of correct š¤).
Finally, even a sheet-feed* very fast automatic document scanner (especially one hooked to an LLM in an automated workflow) sounds like a pretty expensive and specialized bit of tech, and I donāt know that we can assume the law firm wouldāve chosen to make that investment instead of paying clerks a bunch of man-hours to do it the old, slow way.
(* Frankly, citing a book scanner instead of a sheet-feed one is another way foggy didnāt do his argument any favors, since I wouldāve been happy to concede that the documents Trumpās lawyers produced were unlikely to have been bound in book form. And even if they were bound for some reason, they werenāt the kind of thing anybody would have qualms against running through a band saw to get rid of the spine.)
Itās also over a year old.
ā¦Again, yāall are months, if not years behind AI news.