One baseball game.

Despite there being two other basketball games tonight, both featuring teams I generally follow, and both with start times that fit rather well into my schedule, I'm opting to follow a baseball game tonight.

Tonight's Rays vs Yankees game, with its scheduled start time of 6:06 PM CDT fits even better into my schedule. And the game announcers on Yankees Radio are both entertaining and relaxing to listen to. Easy decision then: tonight I follow the Tamp Bay Rays / New York Yankees MLB Game.

And the adventure continues.

Each month, Washingtonian magazine’s print issue offers a two-page photo spread, with the publication’s June 2026 issue featuring one of our images. The photo is from an open practice I visited in March of the Old Glory DC rugby club, the area’s Major League Rugby franchise that plays at George Mason University stadium in Fairfax, Virginia.

At the practice, I got a ground-level shot, sprawling out on the pitch (field) as the ball is pushed in the middle of a scrum. The photo, shown above, has Old Glory DC’s assistant coach Stan South standing over the scrum as the forwards, the bigger players, push their opponents to take possession of the ball.

I pitched the images to publications in the region, and Washingtonian responded. Washingtonian is a glossy monthly politics and lifestyle magazine that features a two-page photo spread they call the Big Picture, in its Capital Comment section toward the front of the print issue. And the magazine’s art director chose that photo for the June issue’s Big Picture.

Big Picture photos are available only in the print issue and not online, but Washingtonian sent me a PDF of the spread, which I posted on technewslit.com. More photos from the open practice and the club’s first home match at George Mason University stadium are found in the TechNewsLit collections on Smugmug.

Each of the photos in these galleries carries a Creative Commons – Attribution license.

Copyright © Technology News and Literature. All rights reserved.

Anoniem Ingezonden Klein Stukje van een Groter Stuk, indien mogelijk afkomstig van een Beroemd Persoon met enige invloed op de macht over u.

Het was eerder allemaal anders. Nu zijn alle mensen die niet slapen wakker maar dat was niet altijd zo. Ik kan me de tijden nog herinneren dat als je sliep dat niet meteen wou zeggen dat je niet wakker was, mensen deden twee of meer dingen tegelijk. Ik ken er die konden liggen, zitten en staan tegelijk! Kom daar nu nog maar eens om. Mensen gingen ook anders om met elkaar, men beet elkaar in de oren of kietelde elkaar liefkozend onder de oksel om aan te geven dat er iets op het punt stond om te gebeuren, nu geeft men dat zelden of nooit aan of juist veel te vaak ook als het niet zo is of als datgene wat staat te gebeuren niet noemenswaardig is laat staan goedaardig of ontwikkeld. Het is me wat. Ik denk wel eens dat ik op de verkeerde manier geboren ben dat ik daarom geen verkeerd been heb voor opstaan, dat ik het gewoon allemaal in de smiezen heb, en waarom, waarom! Ik kan er met mijn enkels niet bij. Het is gewoon raar gelopen vanaf dat ene moment waarop het eerder in de pas liep, weliswaar niet de passende maat maar zeker een pas met enige regelmaat, wel meer dan dat. Nou. Hoe het zo ver heeft kunnen komen kan ik wel wat meer over kwijt, dat moet dan wel na de volgende onderbreking, met een streepje – Het is zo ver gekomen omdat het de afstand heeft afgelegd, de afstand zat eerst nog om de schouders gewikkeld van een moedwillig persoon maar een held heeft deze omgelegd en toen de afstand meegenomen en daarna laten af leggen, op die manier schoot alles lekker op. De afstand was vijfmaal het kwadraat keer drie en dat dan op een gegeven moment delen door elkaar, schudden eigenlijk en zodoende en des as treus al te min niet is het niet anders, het moest zo zijn, het zijde zo, zo als het zijde zacht. Niet meer en niet minder dan een beetje waar, dat zeg ik! Ik ben blij dat ik hier en nu mijn doelpunt nog een keer kon maken dankzij dit ingezonden stukje en een afgekeurd dood splmoment, dan is er tenminste één omroep die nog deze week iets zinnigs kan melden al moet die kans er nog wel in. Dank voor u aandacht ik groet u ook namens de machthebbers (van weleer).

Lydia's Weekly Lifestyle blog is for today's African girl, so no subject is taboo. My purpose is to share things that may interest today's African girl.

This week's contributors: Lydia, Pépé Pépinière, Titi. This week's subjects: Fascinator for corporate!!!, Menstrual Problems, and Ilona, Italian Restaurant

---

Fascinator for corporate!!! Let’s talk about how to bring a fascinator into the office without looking like you missed your way to a bridal shower. Hair matters. A lot. Low buns, slick ponytails, or soft waves keep the look polished and office-appropriate. You want “boardroom chic,” not “garden party chaos.” Placement is also key—slightly to the side, confident but not chaotic. Let’s talk accessories—less is more, babe. Skip the chunky earrings if your fascinator already has detail. Opt for simple studs or delicate hoops. Your goal is harmony, not a fashion argument. And of course, own it. The real secret to pulling off a fascinator at work? Confidence. Walk into that office like your outfit has a calendar invite. When styled right, your fascinator isn’t out of place—it’s ahead of its time. Because honestly, why should fascinators only come out for special occasions… when every workday is a chance to serve a look and be present!!! Menstrual Problems. What are Menstrual Problems? Menstrual problems are difficulties or symptoms that occur during a woman’s menstrual period. They can affect the amount of bleeding, the level of pain, or the regularity of the menstrual cycle. These problems may be caused by hormonal changes, stress, poor diet, medical conditions, or lifestyle factors. Common menstrual problems include menstrual cramps (pain in the lower abdomen during menstruation), heavy menstrual bleeding, irregular periods (periods that come too early, too late, or are missed), headaches during menstruation, nausea or dizziness, lower back pain, fatigue and weakness. Foods that can increase menstrual problems may include salty foods (may increase bloating and water retention), sugary foods like sweets, pastries, and soft drinks (may increase inflammation and fatigue), caffeinated drinks such as coffee and energy drinks (can worsen cramps and headaches), fried and very fatty foods (may increase inflammation and pain), highly processed foods such as instant noodles and packaged snacks. And foods that can help reduce menstrual problems are spinach, beans, lentils, eggs, fish, banana, avocado, dark chocolate (small amounts), nuts, ginger, turmeric, leafy green vegetables, tomatoes, milk, yogurt and cheese. We can also reduce menstrual problems by drinking plenty of water, applying a warm compress or heating pad to the lower abdomen, exercising lightly such as walking or stretching and getting enough rest and sleep and avoiding too much stress.

Ilona, Italian Restaurant, 1st Floor, Ayna Plaza, 3B Noi Fetreke St, Airport Residential Area, Accra. We were told for a good lasagna Ilona was the best so we booked a table for the evening. We could sit outside, on a sort of open covered terrace, or inside with the air conditioner. The set up is nice, spacious, Picassso style pictures on the wall, modern. Anytime I visit an Italian restaurant for the first time I’ll order a spaghetti carbonara, for me this is the testcase to see whether the cook knows what he is about or they are just opening packages and heating them in the microwave. Their linguini carbonara went for 260 GHC. For the lasagna their only choice was lamb lasagna at GHC 275. linguini carbonara Lasagna is slices of pasta with fillings between them, then in the oven with cheese. Main variations are beef, fish, and vegetarian.
Lasagna A tot of absolute vodka went for GHC 50, Ciroc is 90, a bottle of San Pellegrino sparkling water for 55 GHC and half liter of Heineken draft beer was at 75 GHC. Service was reasonable but a few too many waiters for too few things. The food arrived in no time, faster than you can cook pasta, and the lasagna was a sort of mash mash where the layers of pasta had been overcooked, you could not even cut pieces off it, a spoon was best. The minced lamb was rather tasteless. I am not a lasagna expert but for the carbonara I have my say. One softly fries diced onions in olive oil, then some garlic, then little cubes of smoked guanciale (salt cured cheek of a pig, if not available smoked bacon can do), the very lean fat from the guanciale will allow further frying and together with the onion and the garlic becomes the sauce, then add dry white wine which evaporates but which gives it extra flavour. Guanciale Take the ready cooked hot spaghetti, (be careful with the salt because the guanciale is also a bit salty), put a raw egg yolk through it, the heat of the spaghetti will soft cook the yolk which now becomes a lubricant for the spaghetti to “flow”. No cream needed. Add your sauce, some freshly ground black pepper and parsley and enjoy your spaghetti carbonara, or linguini carbonara. Add grated parmesan cheese according to your taste. I hope their cook reads this, he had added a bucket load of hot cream with a little molten cheese to the linguini and sprinkled a few pieces of thin dry fried bacon on top of it. And I think he forgot the salt. The cream made it extra heavy, I only managed to fall asleep after midnight. We did take away the uneaten half of the lasagna pudding because my friend has backyard chicken. This came with a nice paper bag and a carton container rather than the common polytene container, and they did not charge for it. A plus. Washrooms are neat and pleasant as well. Prices are inclusive of all taxes, but the bill took more than 10 minutes.

Lydia...

Do not forget to hit the subscribe button and confirm in your email inbox to get notified about our posts.

I have received requests about leaving comments/replies. For security and privacy reasons my blog is not associated with major media giants like Facebook or Twitter. I am talking with the host about a solution. for the time being, you can mail me at wunimi@proton.me

I accept invitations and payments to write about certain products or events, things, and people, but I may refuse to accept and if my comments are negative then that's what I will publish, despite your payment. This is not a political newsletter. I do not discriminate on any basis whatsoever.

Our Father Who art in Heaven Hallowed be Thy name Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven Give us this day our daily Bread And forgive us our trespasses As we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into temptation But deliver us from evil

Amen

Jesus is Lord! Come Lord Jesus!

Come Lord Jesus! Christ is Lord!

A Mutiny For The Forest

And it was a first Timed in every worry The parts of war And doing the jury in quick work Lots of succession to grow old Fading in the Paris wind,- a part of my family We knew we could sake this promise Repealed by foreign-born As full as the possible There was power by the timid And a solo effect That birds had carbon And the golden wing-tips Playing our Water For the things we had hidden I was born to a foreign planet In repeal of the nine-second law And acquitted by the feral Seeing the Supreme Court I was shunned by law And had no way to make news So to pitch to the whale A frail infraction And Justice to be secure I was served the death sentence Supposing it would decay- This plot of Heaven I was sent to make-believe Bristling past every bush With nights of candor and one And the irks were every two I spoiled the evident in Rome And acceded by law There was nothing left Nothing But promontory not We could supply every purpose And look into Israel Rain for the center And winning the injust We had every international And in the stream automatic I was literally on time So to shoots every May We planted Heaven And cherished the wind And so the rain followed We carried every nest- Each branching hour And upon rest Awaited the straight sky- to lift and pull what we planted And making verse- in Swahili and Hebrew Asked for ten pence And fired at the Willow In each reprieve- there would be unjust Linings of sulphur And days of clay automatic So surfacing wearily We won the West In only a cannon- was the ceremonial draw And made it late to our jettison A horse for the Bible Weddings new and untold A species for our land And I was unusual But nothing more On this Justice land- Earth.

Oorblog VVA ; Menselijk Schild erwerk

Welkom bij alweer de eerste aflevering van de zo veelste serie rondom de vele bizarre creaturen die de mensheid in de huidige staat van kunstzinnige opwinding verkerend ons hier zo digitaal voorschoteld en wel nadat ze het eerst zelf zo raar heeft klaar gemaakt. Geniet voort van de alledaagse freakshow die we media noemen. Vandaag ontmoeten we onappetijtelijke Hein. Wij waren uitgegaan dat hij mager zou zijn aangezien Hein drie jaar geleden uit vrije wil heeft besloten niet meer te eten. Nu we Hein hier voor u en ons in het openbaar vertonen zien we dat Hein er gewoon gezond uit ziet.

We wandelen met Hein door het cultuur gebied, het Industrie, Winkel, Vermaak en Sport zone Welgelegen Hier ontstaan omdat het heel bereikbaar is gemaakt, ongeveer met alle vehikels op dit moment mogelijk, sporend met de trein, in alle soorten brandstof van a naar b transporterende wagens, op fietsen ook die met batterij, al wandelend, of brommend of scootend, met een bootje over de vers gegraven Wel vaart, en zelfs met een helikopter mits er iemand zeer teleurgesteld is over de manier waarop het laatste evenement op zijn of haar tijdlijn is verlopen, ingestort. Hans zal ons tijdens deze wandeling langs talloze niet bekeken bezienswaardigheden vertellen over waarom hij al 3 jaar en 5 maand niet meer eet sinds het jaar 65754 tot op heden jaar 65763 na het spontaan ontstaan van Keizer Sop.

Beeld 1. Hein staat met zijn handen in zijn broekzakken in de buurt van een druk bezocht snel vreten restaurant. Het korte vraag gesprek op deze culturele expansie locatie over Heins bizarre ongewoonte vangt aan. De gezichtsloze zich zelf zelden of nooit filmende vraagstem stelt zijn eerste vraag al daar rondom deze lui die als bezetenen zich zelf dwangmatig volproppen met lekker smaakvol maar vrij zinloos maal materiaal, eten dat tijdens het eten zelf meer energie kost dan het ooit kan leveren.

Aard – Hein nu je hier staat krijg je dan geen trek in een hapje?

Hein – Nee geen enkele. Twee maanden nadat ik zelf besloot te stoppen met eten is de trek er in compleet verdwenen.

Aard – Wat ik me vooral afvraag wat je er toe bracht om zo in enen daarmee te kappen, waar liep je tegen aan.

Hein – Ach, zo moeilijk was het eigenlijk niet, ik had mijn toetje naar binnen gelepeld en dacht 'Ik heb genoeg!'

Op de achtergrond is het geluid van diverse sirenes te horen, samen op jacht naar de ongelukkigen.

Aard – Wat was 'genoeg' in dit geval?

Hein – Ik zat vol, mijn hele leven at ik iedere dag veel en na dat toetje had ik het idee dat ik nu wel genoeg had gegeten en wel voor alle jaren die nog gingen komen. Ik had in het voor gegeten zo noemen we dat bij ons thuis. Dan ging je zeer vroeg ergens heen waar waarschijnlijk niet veel te eten was en ver voor de normale etenstijd vrat je dan het hoofdmaal op zodat de rest van de dag de trek in eten niet zou opspelen en de trip verpesten.

Aard – Hoe kon jij weten dat je op dat moment genoeg had gegeten voor de rest van je leven?

We staan stil bij een spoorweg overgang en Hein geeft pas antwoord als de vijf treinen zijn gepasseerd, de rode knipper lichten zijn uitgedoofd en de malle elektrieken bel wordt uitgeschakeld

Hein – Dat was slechts een raar opkomend idee, zelf vond ik het ook wel dom om zoiets te denken, en toch bleek de gedachte terecht.

Aard – Als je het zo'n dom idee vondt waarom at je dan toch niet gewoon verder, zoals gewone stervelingen iedere dag doen, moeten doen.

Hein – Ze moeten niks Aard, dat zie je toch! Ik had gewoon genoeg en zij hebben dat blijkbaar nooit of ze voelen dat niet.

Hein sloeg af naar links richting het bedrijven & duurlopen in kringetjes park tevens plek waarop rij studenten de eerste rijlessen ondervinden, we liepen hier veelal tussen langzaamrijdend en stilstaand verkeer al was er van een file geen sprake.

Aard – Kreeg je helemaal geen last van niet meer eten?

Hein – Ik had in het begin wel eens trek maar honger had ik dus nooit, trek is gewoon een hoop vaste gewoontes rondom eten. Alles wat eten is, wat er bij hoort, de etenstijden, het opzoeken van eten bij de vaste trek pleisters, koelkast, broodtrommel, bij de keuken en in de buurt van alle zaken waar eten voor verkoop klaar ligt, restaurants, winkels maar ook in de nabijheid van media spelers, tv radio internet gerelateerd daar is eten heel vaak in beeld of komt bijzonder vaak ter sprake, dat valt meer op met trek dan zonder. Eten is overal heel prominent aanwezig, in de gehele natuur en zeker in onze maal alsmaar door cultuur.

Een geluid zo net nog residerend in de verte komt opeens heel dichtbij. Het bleek een horde dravende bizons bezig met de dwingend aanbevolen participatie cursus voor beter integreren met gestaag grazende koeien

Hein – Ik was er ook echt klaar mee hoor. Iedere keer dat gedoe er om, de herhaling van zetten in gezelschap van zetmeel en zuivel, de tocht langs de voedselketen in winkelketens, het schillen der aardappels, de grote hoeveelheid handelingen horend bij eten. Het vrat heel veel energie veel meer dan ik eigenlijk leek te verbruiken in niet etenstijden. Ik dacht ook dat ik juist daar genoeg van had, dat kook wekker en winkel gedonder, niet van eten zelf. Het was beide en omdat ik was opgehouden met het ene volgde het andere.

Aard – Het moet dan zo zijn dat je tijdens alle eerdere maaltijden zoveel energie hebt ingenomen dat je energie batterijen volledig vol zitten en bijna niet meer leeg lopen, in ieder geval tot een onbekend moment.

Hein – Daar lijkt het op. Ik zit inderdaad propvol en ik loop maar langzaam leeg.

Aard – Je verbruikt vandaag toch ook aardig wat energie, meer nog dan de meeste anderen ervaar ik nu, waar zit die lading dan opgepot?

Ze komen aan bij het Malie Polder veld de aangewezen locatie voor protesten van allerhande aard. Twee partijen demonstreren daar tegen elkaar over het recht om vaker geweldloos te mogen protesteren, ze doen dat al spijkerpoepend. De spijkers zijn eerst met schrootbommen in elkaars bips geschoten.

Hein – Ik zou het niet weten. Het enigste dat ik weet dat mijn genoeg het ook echt is, bij anderen is het alleen maar een klank. Hun genoeg is altijd bezig met meer, en meer anders, het artikel omruilen, schuiven met de inhoud voorheen bekendstaand als de panelen, de stopcontacten verplaatsen in plaats van verwijderen, zeg maar.

Aard – Eh ja, nou, zeg Hein, u heeft tot vandaag de media gemeden, begrijpelijk als media gebruiker waardeer ik iedereen die daarop nooit te zien of horen is, zoals ik ook nooit ontstane problemen echt het allermeest waardeer ook al waren ze allemaal meer dan mogelijk, waarom heeft u dan toch meegewerkt aan dit bescheiden item zodat dit vreemde levensrelaas mogelijk opvalt en juist daar bij de mensen die leven en werken rondom het onbegrip des nooit genoeg.

Hein – Och, u bent echt een zeer beperkt speler in het grote alles overal omroepen veld. Die paar lezers zullen denken dat u mijn ware verhaal uit de duim zuigt, en daarnaast werkt u als één van de weinige schrijver denkers alhier precies zoals ik elke dag leef, zonder weblog eten, kijkcijfers en lezer statistieken, geld (beloning), oorblog leden, applaus en of boe geroep, de eer, de prijzen, het (wederzijds) respect, troepen volgelingen, schare trouwe lezers, opmerkelijke soorten van daadwerkelijke waardering, eten dus voor makers van een dergelijk blog programma en voor dit VVA webblog voedsel gaat u ook al nooit naar de grote aandacht supermarkt voor het inkopen van dergelijke uitingen voor het tonen en stemmen betreffende respectabele klanken, kortom u omroep werk lijkt wel bijna op mijn lijf geschreven.

Net op dat moment horen ze luid en duidelijk voor het eerst deze middag ijselijke stilte vallen

pok verdomme, klote veters

Aard – Toch zou het heel misschien zo zijn dat mensen uit de nooit genoeg sector dit artikel toch via via onder ogen krijgen (dat is in deze samenclustering van willetjes eigenlijk volstrekt normaal) en daarna u gaan benaderen voor meer van dit soort shows of nog erger voor onderzoek naar het enorme energie opslag vermogen daar ergens zetelend in u lijf wat dan?

Hein – Tja, dan neem ik deze mensen uit die sector mee uit eten naar dat junkfood restaurant waar deze uitzending mee begon dan is dat probleem ook weer uit de weg.

Laatste shot, Hein loopt voorbij de met zwaar hekwerk afgesloten poort van een fabriek voor chips en cookies slaat af en loopt voorgoed uit ons ogenblik.

“The ecosystems I was born into, and that form my body, are a boundary, a border between two separate and linked systems. On a macro scale, the boreal and mixed hardwood forests came together to create something new: a zone of overlapping presence that requires care, kindness, sacrifice and reciprocity to continue to bring forth a diversity and abundance of new life.”

— Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, Theory of Water: Nishnaabe Maps to the Times Ahead, p. 68

Wer schon einmal versucht hat, eine längere Liste, Fachbegriffe oder eine Präsentation auswendig zu lernen, kennt das Problem: Einzelne Informationen verschwinden schnell wieder aus dem Gedächtnis. Besonders schwierig wird es, wenn die Inhalte wenig miteinander zu tun haben. Genau hier setzt die sogenannte Loci-Methode an – eine jahrtausendealte Lerntechnik, die bis heute verwendet wird.

Der Grundgedanke ist simpel: Man verbindet den Lernstoff mit bekannten Orten. Tatsächlich nutzt die Methode eine Stärke unseres Gehirns, die viele im Alltag unterschätzen: Menschen erinnern sich oft erstaunlich präzise an Räume, Wege und räumliche Abläufe. Wer sich etwa an seine Primarschule oder die Wohnung der Grosseltern erinnert, sieht häufig sofort konkrete Bilder vor sich. Die Loci-Methode macht sich genau dieses räumliche Gedächtnis zunutze.

Woher kommt die Methode?

Die Ursprünge der Loci-Methode reichen bis in die Antike zurück. Schon griechische und römische Redner nutzten sie, um lange Reden frei vortragen zu können. Bücher waren damals selten und teuer, vieles musste auswendig gelernt werden. Besonders in der #Rhetorik spielte das Gedächtnis deshalb eine zentrale Rolle.

Der Legende nach geht die Methode auf den griechischen Dichter Simonides von Keos zurück. Nachdem ein Gebäude eingestürzt war, soll er die Opfer anhand ihrer ursprünglichen Sitzordnung identifiziert haben. Daraus entstand die Einsicht, dass räumliche Anordnungen Erinnerungen besonders zuverlässig strukturieren können. Später verwendeten auch berühmte Redner wie Cicero diese Technik.

Auch moderne Gedächtnissportler greifen bis heute auf dieselbe Grundidee zurück. Der technologische Fortschritt hat die Funktionsweise unseres Gehirns nämlich nicht verändert. Noch immer gilt: Bilder und räumliche Vorstellungen prägen sich meist leichter ein als abstrakte Informationen oder reine Textfolgen: „Unserem Gehirn fällt es schwer, sich schnell mehrere unzusammenhängende Begriffe oder Zahlen zu merken.“ [1] Genau deshalb helfen Bilder und Orte beim #Lernen.

Wie ist die Methode aufgebaut?

Die Loci-Methode folgt einem klaren Ablauf. Sie benötigt keine besondere Begabung, wohl aber etwas Übung. Anfangs wirkt der Prozess oft ungewohnt, nach einigen Anwendungen wird er jedoch deutlich einfacher.

Im Zentrum stehen drei Elemente:

1. eine vertraute Route oder Umgebung
2. feste Ankerpunkte entlang dieser Route
3. bildhafte Verknüpfungen mit dem Lernstoff

Zunächst wählt man einen Ort, den man sehr gut kennt. Das kann die eigene Wohnung sein, der Arbeitsweg, ein Spaziergang durch die Altstadt oder sogar ein vertrautes Schulzimmer. Wichtig ist lediglich, dass die Reihenfolge der Orte eindeutig ist.

Anschliessend legt man konkrete Stationen fest. In einer Wohnung könnten das beispielsweise Eingangstür, Garderobe, Sofa, Tisch, Bücherregal und Balkon sein. Diese Punkte bilden später die Struktur für die Informationen.

Nun beginnt der eigentliche Lernprozess: Die Inhalte werden als möglichst lebendige Bilder mit diesen Orten verbunden. Je ungewöhnlicher oder absurder die Vorstellung, desto besser funktioniert sie oft. Genau darin liegt eine gewisse Eigenart der Methode. Unser Gehirn reagiert besonders stark auf Überraschungen, Emotionen und skurrile Bilder.

Wer sich etwa die Reihenfolge bestimmter Begriffe merken möchte, könnte sich vorstellen, dass auf dem Sofa plötzlich ein riesiges Wörterbuch explodiert oder dass aus dem Kühlschrank französische Vokabeln herausfliegen. Solche Bilder wirken albern – und genau deshalb bleiben sie häufig haften.

Wie kann man die Methode konkret verwenden?

Besonders gut eignet sich die Loci-Methode für Lernstoff mit klarer Reihenfolge. Dazu gehören beispielsweise:

• Vokabeln
• Präsentationen
• historische Ereignisse
• Fachbegriffe
• Listen
• Prüfungsthemen

Nehmen wir ein einfaches Beispiel aus dem Sprachlernen. Angenommen, man möchte sich fünf französische Wörter merken. Die Wohnung dient dabei als Route.

An der Eingangstür sitzt eine riesige „pomme“ (Apfel), die den Weg versperrt. Auf dem Sofa springt ein „chat“ (Katze) herum. Im Badezimmer schwimmt ein „poisson“ (Fisch) in der Badewanne. Am Küchentisch liegt ein überdimensionales „livre“ (Buch), und auf dem Balkon steht plötzlich ein „cheval“ (Pferd).

Wer später gedanklich durch die Wohnung geht, ruft dadurch automatisch die Begriffe ab. Die Orte dienen als mentale Auslöser.

Ähnlich funktioniert die Methode auch bei Präsentationen. Statt den Vortrag Wort für Wort auswendig zu lernen, verbindet man die einzelnen Themen mit Stationen entlang einer Route. Dadurch erinnert man sich an die Reihenfolge und an die wichtigsten Inhalte, ohne mechanisch auswendig sprechen zu müssen.

Im Berufsalltag kann die Technik ebenfalls nützlich sein. Wer sich Namen, Gesprächspunkte oder Abläufe merken möchte, kann diese gedanklich an Orte koppeln. Gerade bei Vorträgen oder Prüfungen hilft dies oft gegen das bekannte „Blackout“-Gefühl.

Die Methode ist also leicht und überall einsetzbar. Allerdings gilt auch: Die Technik ersetzt kein Verständnis. Wer Inhalte nicht begreift, kann sie zwar kurzfristig speichern, aber kaum sinnvoll anwenden.

Warum funktioniert das überhaupt?

Die genaue Funktionsweise des Gedächtnisses ist bis heute nicht vollständig verstanden. Bekannt ist jedoch, dass räumliche Orientierung und bildhafte Vorstellungen tief im menschlichen Denken verankert sind.

Die Loci-Methode nutzt dabei mehrere psychologische Effekte gleichzeitig:

• Strukturierung von Informationen
• Verknüpfung mit bekannten Räumen
• emotionale oder absurde Bilder
• aktives statt passives Lernen

Gerade der letzte Punkt wird häufig unterschätzt. Viele Menschen lernen passiv: lesen, markieren, wiederholen. Die Loci-Methode zwingt hingegen dazu, Informationen aktiv umzuwandeln und mit eigenen Vorstellungen zu verbinden (Elaboration). Dadurch entsteht eine tiefere Verarbeitung des Lernstoffs.

Ein weiterer Vorteil liegt darin, dass Reihenfolgen stabil bleiben. Wer seine Route kennt, kann Inhalte oft erstaunlich zuverlässig abrufen.

Vor- und Nachteile

Die Methode hat klare Stärken, aber auch Grenzen. Hilfreich ist sie insbesondere dann, wenn grosse Mengen an Fakten gelernt werden müssen. Viele Menschen erleben zudem, dass Lernen dadurch kreativer und weniger monoton wird. Die Methode funktioniert ohne technische Hilfsmittel und lässt sich nahezu überall anwenden.

Allerdings braucht der Einstieg Zeit. Gute Bilder zu entwickeln ist anstrengender, als Informationen einfach zu lesen. Gerade am Anfang empfinden viele die Technik als umständlich. Hinzu kommt, dass sie sich nicht für jede Art von Lernen eignet. Tiefes Verständnis, kritisches Denken oder mathematische Zusammenhänge lassen sich dadurch nicht automatisch verbessern.

Auch die Wiederholung bleibt wichtig. Ohne regelmässiges Auffrischen (Spaced Repetition) werden die mentalen Bilder mit der Zeit unscharf: „Ohne Wiederholung werden die gemerkten Bilder im Kopf immer unschärfer.“ [2]

Warum man die Loci-Methode auch heute noch anwenden kann

Die Loci-Methode gehört zu den ältesten bekannten Lerntechniken – und vermutlich auch zu den unterschätztesten. Ihr Erfolg beruht nicht auf Magie oder aussergewöhnlichen Gedächtnisleistungen, sondern auf einer geschickten Nutzung menschlicher Wahrnehmung.

Wer bereit ist, sich auf die ungewohnten Bilder und räumlichen Vorstellungen einzulassen, entdeckt oft eine überraschend wirkungsvolle Lernstrategie. Eine so einfache Methode mag altmodisch wirken aber vielleicht liegt genau darin ihre Stärke.

---

💬 Kommentieren (nur für write.as-Accounts)

---

Fussnoten [1] Luca Intzen, „Mnemotechnik: Lernen mit der Loci-Methode“, Betzold Blog, 2026. [2] „Loci-Methode“, Wikipedia, 2026.

Bildquelle Henry Robert Morland (1716/19–1797): Woman Reading by a Paper-Bell Shade, Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, Public Domain.

Disclaimer Teile dieses Texts wurden mit Deepl Write (Korrektorat und Lektorat) überarbeitet. Für die Recherche in den erwähnten Werken/Quellen und in meinen Notizen wurde NotebookLM von Google verwendet.

Topic #Erwachsenenbildung | #ProductivityPorn

Returnee Blues #1, 2026 – Mixed Media on paper, 50 cm x 65 cm | 19.6” x 25.6”

Thought I'd finally found a housekeeper to pop in once a week to assist with cleanup. But that was three Fridays ago, and every time she doesn't show up even though the date and time were of her very own choosing. Similar situation with the plumber who first promised to show up two weeks ago. I've set three different appointments with the mirror place, every time they say they'll call me the day of to confirm and never do. Carpenter too been dragging me on for four weeks now.

Not sure why the need to hound someone to do work for you before they do it even after they promise doing it is such a widespread phenomenon in Cairo. I remember only needing to contact a housekeeper back in Houston just once to agree on the day, time, and fees, and she stuck to the same schedule like clockwork for three years before I had to move (Tidyqueen, if anyone in Houston is reading this and looking).

It's such a tedious energy-sucking thing in Cairo, because on any given day I'm expecting someone to show up, I find it extremely difficult to lock in and really get into the zone of whatever project I have on my table; the anticipation of impending distraction lingering in the back of mind all day.

And some of the stuff that needs tending too isn't superfluous. We've got pipes blocked with weeks full of piss and shit at this point.

Now I know why all my homies have moved into compounds; a virtually non-existent development less than 10 years ago. They tell me whenever anything needs fixin', all they have to do is call a number and help is on the way in less than 24 hours. That's enough of a perk to explain the seemingly unquenchable compound craze that has taken over the country in recent years, but I still can't stand that shit. Nothing spells a seething distaste for “the plebs” quite like a gated “community”.

#journal #work #Cairo

I wouldn't exchange any of my failures for someone else's success

I’ve recently come to terms with the fact that I have little natural talent for social media. Everyone around me seems to glide through it effortlessly, I’ve never met a single person who manages to flop on their own feed. Behind every post sits a little self applause. And LinkedIn… well, that’s its own special arena of pain. Endless check ins from endless networking events. At some point, people collectively realized that professionally, showing up to pose for the picture was more advantageous than showing up for their actual work.

I still haven’t mastered the art of caring about these social expectation circles as much as I care about the work itself. My charisma is conditioned to hold up for around 8h pretty well, it is trained for my worker class needs by now. As long as I get the chance to go home and have a walk with my dog after a full day, I'll be alright.

But the truth is, what really loads my battery is the work itself. I am a sucker for my own work. I drool over whatever I’m researching. Not because I’m chasing praise, and not because I grew up drowning in compliments (I didn’t, for the record). Of course acknowledgment is nice, and I expect it like anyone else, but give me a market, a cluster, a brand, a product repositioning, a generation to decode, and I’m gone. It’s the context, the ecosystem, the cold water dive into the problem that pulls me in every time.

I love to understand what drives people’s habits. I want to understand what in our muggle brains convinces us that this product, that service, or that choice is the one that fits us best. That curiosity has always been the real drug behind working in advertising for me: being a total outsider to a territory until it suddenly becomes a project, and then I’m knee deep in the mechanics of a new electric car battery that’s about to shift an entire category. Or what is the deal between millennials and barrel jeans and humble fashion, and then you ask me: Who else cares about it, Paula? Exactly, that's why I love it.

It’s the nonsense that gets me. The leap from “I know nothing about this” to dissecting an entire ecosystem like a forensic scientist. My interest is infinite. That moment when a market, a behavior, a cultural quirk reveals itself, that’s the spark that always brought me the feeling of being on the right direction. And honestly, I really believe that's what makes people interesting: the fact they are interested on things.

It’s a shame that this spark ends up being funneled into an industry that’s basically an engine of the capitalist system, you could say that, and I’d agree 200%. I just wish more professionals carried that same spark into their own fields. Imagine being treated by a doctor who genuinely wants to understand your issue. Or a therapist who’s deeply invested. Or an engineer who’s even half as curious about city planning as they are about their deadlines. Architects, politicians, the whole spectrum.

The world would look completely different if more people were fueled by intrinsic curiosity instead of just going through the motions of their profession. Real success has always felt subjective (almost quiet) to me. It never lived in the awards, or the big campaign launches, or the press releases with my name tucked into the credits. I get it: the industry worships those things, so I’m supposed to care about them too. But my gratification comes from somewhere else entirely, from the investigation, the digging, the unraveling.

And yes, I bang my head against things. A lot. The route has been recalculated more times than I can count. But in the middle of all that rerouting, I’ve learned so much about people, and about social bubbles that were never mine to begin with. My work allows me to move through any circle with the ease of a generalist, and that’s the real reward. The quiet one. The one that actually matters.

Talking to a politician, scheduling slots with his secretary, exchanging with the cameraman. Briefing the production team. Approving the material from the content creator, defending your idea to the CEO of whatever I couldn't care less, then grabbing a coffee with the new intern who's a sweetheart. Stumbling into your competitor at an industry event, only to realize they could be your best friend after some drinks. It’s humbling, in the best possible way. People assume this kind of work lifts you into some glossy, unrealistic realm where you float above reality. It’s the opposite. It drags you right back into the reality of things, the human mix, the plurality, the constant shifting between worlds. That’s the part I love because it keeps me grounded.

Honestly, my failures, awkward moments, and bizarre situations make for far better stories than any perfectly delivered project ever could. I wouldn’t trade that for anything. The mess, the curiosity, the detours, that’s where the good stuff lives.

/May26

While I was growing up I would tell myself not to kill myself because I was like Kassadin. I told myself that even though I wanna kill myself and my life is miserable, I am skiing for a late game. Once I get to college or once I get older my life will be so worth it compared to the people that I envied so much. And at the risk of sounding arrogant, I don’t need to hit 16 to take things into my own hands. I got several kills and a lead, several as solo kills, and several due to help. I’m so incredibly proud of myself for teaching myself to be empathetic, how to be social, charisma, etc. I used to wish that I could be one of those people that gets adopted by someone else socially, and I would mourn the fact that instead I’ve had to learn how to handle it myself and the beautiful thing is now I can handle it. I’m a secure and strong enough person to be authentic in social situations, and that combined with the person that I am authentically, becomes something magnetic towards others. I consistently get thrown into brand new rooms, and I come out surrounded by people that want to interact with me. I’ve gone from being the hopeless person seeking for salvation, to being the person who is so abundantly filled with it, that they’re willing to reach out to people struggling to help them. And thinking about it now, I’ve gone out of my way to involve people or to gently parent people that are abrasive or struggling socially, and even though this is something that I wish I could have growing up I’m completely happy to give it to people that are arguably less deserving. And that never crosses my mind, like it’s not that I think that someone should have helped me socially develop growing up more than these other people, because I was not rude or insulting. And I feel like this post is for misinterpretation, partially because I think I didn’t really capture my thoughts the way that I would hope, but essentially I want to give myself some credit for all of the effort that went to deliberately learning how to be social, and recognizing how that’s paid off.

When I arrived at the cardiologist place I checked in at the front desk. I was instructed to sit in the waiting area. After a short time, a woman with a long ponytail, wearing a surgical mask, burgundy scrubs, and white comfortable shoes appeared from a doorway. She glanced at a clipboard, and read my name out loud.

I acknowledged with a half wave, got up and followed her through a doorway, then down a corridor. She stood outside of a brightly lit small room, and motioned for me to enter first. She followed me in and closed the door.

Wall shelves with supplies. A poster about the importance of heart health. Standard examination table with a step beside it on the floor. Two office chairs. An EKG monitor on a small wheeled stand. A computer in the corner.

She instructed me to hang up my coat, and that I could leave my backpack in one of the chairs, and to take off my shirt. I did those things behind her while she was at the computer typing and clicking things on the screen.

I stood there behind her while she did the things at the computer. It wasn't a very long time. Like 20 or 30 seconds. It was (apparently) long enough for me to have the thought, did she really tell me to take off my shirt? I had an urge to ask her, “did you really want me to take off my shirt?” It seemed like too weird of a question, so I didn’t ask it.

The entire scene repeated in my mind. From the moment of me walking in the room until me just standing there behind her. Shirtless. In the new imagined version she only told me to hang up my jacket and put my backpack in the chair. Maybe I misunderstood what she said next, and it only sounded like, “take off your shirt”. Or she didn't even say anything remotely like that at all. I imagined that I had just walked in, took off my jacket, put my backpack in the chair, and then I took off my shirt for no reason. I was suddenly afraid of what would happen when she turned around.

Like, dude, wtf, why is your shirt off? Face palm. Or she would run from the room vomit exploding spontaneously into her mask and all over her arm when she tried to get the mask off in time. Or start laughing until she cried. Maybe a couple security guys would mysteriously show up and wrestle me to the floor while she stood there slowly shaking her head with her arms crossed.

She turned around. Nothing weird happened.

After a series of questions and an EKG test, I met with the cardiologist. He said everything is fine.

Love this show.

On the morning of 18 March 2026, Deborah Leslie stood at the lectern of the Supreme Court of Georgia, in downtown Atlanta, and tried to explain why several of the cases in her brief did not exist. Leslie was an Assistant District Attorney with Clayton County, assigned to appellate work and assets forfeiture, and she had filed papers opposing a new trial for Hannah Payne, a young woman convicted in 2023 of the murder of Kenneth Herring after a hit-and-run on a Clayton County road in 2019. Payne, then twenty-five, was serving life with the possibility of parole. Her lawyer, Brian Steel, had filed for a fresh trial on the grounds that her original counsel had failed to ask the jury to consider citizen's arrest as a defence. The state's response, signed by Leslie, ran to dozens of pages. It cited authorities. The authorities, in many places, were imaginary.

Chief Justice Nels Peterson did not bury the point. From the bench, he counted aloud: at least five citations to cases that did not exist, and at least five more to cases that existed but did not say what Leslie's brief claimed they said. The video of the exchange, which would later be viewed more than five million times across various clips, has the strangled politeness of a hearing that everyone in the room knows is going badly. Leslie initially suggested the citations might have been added to the version filed with the court rather than the one she had drafted. Peterson noted that the same non-existent cases appeared in the brief opposing Payne's motion below. The implication was unavoidable. The phantom citations were hers.

A week later, on 27 March, Clayton County District Attorney Tasha Mosley wrote to the Chief Justice. The letter, published shortly after by local outlets, conceded what was already obvious. Leslie had used artificial intelligence to draft the filing. She had not verified the output. The office had moved against her: a grievance with the State Bar of Georgia, suspension, a performance improvement plan, loss of privileges. In her own affidavit, Leslie said the errors were not intentional and that the references “were not independently verified before inclusion.” The Hannah Payne appeal, a case with a victim's family, a defendant on a life sentence, and a contested constitutional argument about the right to effective counsel, had been compromised by language a model invented in a few seconds at no cost.

The Georgia incident is not anomalous. It is the latest, most public entry in a list that legal scholar Damien Charlotin, who divides his time between Sciences Po Law School and HEC Paris, has been building since April 2025 in a database he started because he could not find anyone else doing the work. By the spring of 2026, his AI Hallucination Cases tracker had passed 1,200 documented incidents from courts around the world, with roughly 800 from the United States alone. On a single day in March 2026, he logged seventeen. The rate, Charlotin has said, is still rising. What began as a curiosity in late 2022, when ChatGPT first leaked into the workflows of overworked solicitors and overconfident litigants, has become a structural feature of contemporary legal practice. The machine is in the building. The machine lies. Sometimes the lies get caught. Sometimes they do not.

Lay this fact alongside another, less visible one. According to the Legal Services Corporation's 2022 Justice Gap study, conducted with NORC at the University of Chicago, ninety-two per cent of the substantial civil legal problems experienced by low-income Americans receive no, or insufficient, legal help. Seventy-four per cent of low-income households face at least one such problem in any given year. In England and Wales, Ministry of Justice statistics for the third quarter of 2025 showed that fifty-nine per cent of civil cases in the County Court involved at least one party with no legal representation. In state civil dockets across the United States, self-representation rates routinely exceed ninety per cent in housing, family, and consumer cases. The justice gap is not a metaphor. It is the operational reality of most non-criminal courtrooms in the English-speaking world.

This is the contradiction at the heart of the moment. Generative AI is the only piece of legal infrastructure that has, in living memory, become cheaper and more widely available rather than more expensive and more rationed. For the unrepresented mother fighting an eviction, the asylum seeker filling in a witness statement at midnight, the small employer hit with a discrimination claim, a free large language model is, on its worst day, more responsive than the legal aid hotline that has not picked up in three hours and, on its best day, capable of producing a coherent draft of a defence. The same technology, deployed by a tired prosecutor in a county DA's office or a partner under deadline at a magic-circle firm, can introduce phantom precedent into the foundations of a criminal appeal. AI is simultaneously democratising access and corrupting the evidentiary substrate. There is no clean way to keep one without the other.

The Hallucination Problem, Precisely

It helps to be technical about what is happening, because the loose language around “AI mistakes” understates the issue. A large language model does not retrieve. It predicts. Given a prompt, it generates the most statistically plausible next token, then the next, conditioned on its training data and on whatever it has just produced. When the prompt is “cite a case supporting the proposition that an officer's mistaken belief in probable cause is reviewed for objective reasonableness”, the model produces something that looks like a citation, because in the training data the answers to such prompts are followed by things that look like citations. Volume number, reporter, page, year, parenthetical court abbreviation. The format is the easy part. The model has internalised the format. What it has not internalised is the existence of the case.

This is why the hallucinations are so dangerous. They are not random. They are formally correct. A fabricated case will have a plausible volume number for the reporter, a sensible district, a year that lines up with the legal doctrine being argued, and often a holding that maps onto the proposition being supported. The fabrication is grammatical. The citation, considered in isolation, is indistinguishable from a real one until someone looks it up. The Stanford RegLab's preregistered study by Varun Magesh and Faiz Surani, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, gave the phenomenon a metric: even legal-specific tools hallucinated at startling rates. Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research generated incorrect or fabricated information thirty-three per cent of the time in their tests. LexisNexis's Lexis+ AI hallucinated seventeen per cent of the time. Thomson Reuters' Ask Practical Law AI sat near the same number. Premium products. Trained on real case law. Marketed to professionals. Still inventing.

The roll call of incidents starts with Mata v Avianca, the Manhattan personal-injury suit against the Colombian airline that became the founding text of the genre. In June 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York imposed sanctions of $5,000 on attorneys Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca, and on the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, after Schwartz used ChatGPT to research a brief that ended up citing six cases that did not exist: Varghese v. China South Airlines, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Shaboon v. EgyptAir, Petersen v. Iran Air, Miller v. United Airlines, and Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. When opposing counsel pointed out that the cases could not be found, Schwartz had asked ChatGPT whether they were real; the model assured him they were and produced fabricated full texts. He had been a member of the New York bar since 1991. “It just never occurred to me”, he testified, “that it would be making up cases.”

Then came the parade. In late 2023, Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, sent his attorney three citations he had pulled from Google's Bard, all fabricated, in support of a motion for early termination of supervised release. The judge declined to sanction Cohen but called the episode “embarrassing and certainly negligent”. In Texas, in November 2024, Judge Marcia Crone of the Eastern District sanctioned Brandon Monk in Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. after a brief produced with the help of Anthropic's Claude cited authorities that did not exist. In June 2025, the High Court of England and Wales handed down its joined judgment in Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC, a decision that read less like a routine ruling and more like a public warning. The grounds for review in Ayinde, drafted by a barrister called Ms Forey, misstated section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 and cited five non-existent cases, including a phantom “El Gendi v Camden LBC”. In Al-Haroun, a solicitor's witness statement contained eighteen authorities that did not exist, with others misquoted or inapplicable, after the solicitor relied on his client's research without verifying it. The Divisional Court was blunt: GenAI does not extinguish professional responsibility, and Rule 11 equivalents in England and Wales apply with full force regardless of whether a human or a model produced the text.

Australia has produced its own running list. On 19 July 2024, before Justice Amanda Humphreys in Victoria, a solicitor in a marital dispute submitted a list of “relevant” prior cases that turned out to have been generated by AI. He became, that year, the first Australian lawyer formally sanctioned for AI-generated fabrications. He was barred from practising as a principal and required to work under supervision for two years. In August 2025, before the Supreme Court of Victoria, defence lawyer Rishi Nathwani, KC, apologised to Justice James Elliott for filing submissions in a teenager's murder trial that included fabricated quotes from a speech to the state legislature and non-existent citations purportedly from the same court. The errors caused a twenty-four-hour delay; Elliott eventually ruled the youth not guilty of murder by reason of mental impairment, but the embarrassment to the bar was complete. In the months that followed, a Western Australian solicitor was referred to that state's regulator for tendering documents citing four cases that either did not exist or were misreferenced.

South Africa joined the parade in 2025. In Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court found that of the nine authorities Mavundla's legal team had cited, only two were real. Among the fabrications was a confidently asserted “Hassan v Coetzee”, complete with a citation, a court, a year, and a tidy doctrinal proposition, none of which corresponded to any actual case. The court referred Mavundla's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council for investigation and ordered them to bear the costs of a hearing in which an inordinate amount of judicial and counsel time had been spent searching for cases that were never going to be found. The Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr alerts that catalogued the affair noted, drily, that good intentions and apologies were no longer mitigation. They were table stakes.

Charlotin's tracker captures the cumulative shape. The early cases were almost all lawyers. By 2025, the share of pro se litigants caught submitting fabricated citations had grown sharply; Bloomberg Law reported that at least twenty-four self-represented litigants in the United States had been hit with monetary sanctions for AI-generated filings in the eighteen months following the second half of 2023. The trend in the data is unmistakable. The technology is not going away. The hallucinations are not going away. Adoption is outpacing verification, and the courts are catching up by issuing sanctions and warnings rather than by deploying any meaningful screening.

The Other Side of the Same Coin

Now consider who else is using these systems, and why. The New York State Bar Association published a piece on 10 February 2026 by its Pro Se Advocacy interest section titled “Pro Se Advocacy in the AI Era: Benefits, Challenges, and Ethical Implications”. The article does not pretend to resolve the contradiction. It frames it. It catalogues the practical uses to which an unrepresented person might put a chatbot: drafting letters to the court, preparing a defence to a parking ticket, navigating procedural requirements that the court itself communicates through forms a non-lawyer cannot reliably parse. It also notes the obvious risk: hallucinations that look like citations, advice that looks like guidance, and a tool that the client cannot themselves audit. The piece poses the question that the legal profession has, until very recently, been allowed not to answer: “Are the people, who otherwise would not have legal counsel, better served by at least having a chatbot to assist them?”

Similar commentary has come out of South Africa and Australia in the same window. The South African Daily Maverick ran a piece in July 2025 arguing that AI hallucinations were threatening the administration of justice in the country, while simultaneously acknowledging that the country's own access-to-justice gap, particularly in family and labour matters, had created a population for whom no realistic alternative to AI-mediated self-help existed. In one widely cited case, a self-represented litigant called Mr Makunga drafted heads of argument with the help of AI tools and online research, and the presiding judge commended the quality of his submissions, noting that some members of the practising bar had filed worse arguments than the AI-augmented ones. The South African legal profession is in the position of warning the public against the same technology that is, for many of those same members of the public, the only legal-adjacent help on offer. Australian commentators have made the same point, often more sharply: that decades of cuts to legal aid have produced a country where AI is not a luxury for the poor litigant but the default.

The numbers confirm what the rhetoric implies. The 2022 Justice Gap report from the Legal Services Corporation, the federally funded body responsible for funding civil legal aid in the United States, found that ninety-two per cent of the civil legal problems faced by low-income Americans received either no help or not enough. In 2021, LSC grantees were unable to provide adequate help on roughly 1.4 million of the 1.9 million problems brought to them. Across state civil courts, the New York City Bar Association has called the gap a “chasm”. In England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice's own statistics for July to September 2025 recorded that fifty-nine per cent of County Court civil cases involved an unrepresented party. In housing matters, in family proceedings, and in claims under £10,000, the proportion is higher still. The legal profession has been priced out of the lives of the people whom the legal system most often touches.

For those people, generative AI is not a fancy productivity tool. It is the only piece of legal infrastructure that scales to their need. A free model that responds in seconds, drafts in plain English, and produces something resembling a coherent argument is more meaningful in the life of an evicted tenant than a thirty-page government leaflet, a legal aid waiting list of nine months, or a self-help kiosk staffed by a volunteer who can offer information but not advice. The bar associations know this. They are also writing the practice notes that make their members liable for AI-generated errors. The result is a regulatory regime that, on paper, treats AI as a hazardous tool that licensed professionals must approach with caution, while in practice the same tool is being used as a substitute for those professionals by people the profession does not serve.

That asymmetry is not just uncomfortable. It is dangerous. When a lawyer files a brief with phantom citations, the lawyer is sanctioned, the judge is annoyed, the client may suffer reputational damage, and the firm pays the bill. Friction is built into the relationship. The lawyer has insurance, a regulatory body, a duty of competence. When a pro se litigant files the same brief, none of those scaffolds exist. The litigant is told, sometimes for the first time in their interaction with the system, that they have submitted falsehoods to a court. Their case is dismissed, or worse. Their credibility, which they did not choose to risk, is lost. They have no insurer, no body to pay sanctions, no firm to absorb the loss. They have a chatbot and the consequences.

Risk and Where It Lands

The doctrinal answer to “who bears the risk” is easy to state and brutal to apply. In every jurisdiction that has confronted the question, the answer has been: whoever signed the filing. Rule 11 of the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure binds the lawyer or the unrepresented party to the truth of every assertion. The Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales impose comparable duties. The Legal Practice Council in South Africa has already announced that good intentions are not mitigation. Australian state bars have made the same point. The doctrinal posture is that the human is the author, the AI is the tool, and the tool's errors are the author's problem.

This makes intuitive sense for the represented client and their lawyer. It is much harder to defend in the case of the unrepresented. A pro se litigant who copies a fabricated case from a chatbot has not been negligent in the way a lawyer has been negligent. The lawyer is a trained professional with a duty of competence and an obligation to know that ChatGPT does not search; the litigant is a person who can read English and has been given a search box. The same conduct, on the same facts, attracts the same legal exposure but reflects radically different fault. Sanctions imposed on a pro se litigant for AI-generated falsehoods land on someone whose alternative was not better legal advice; their alternative was no advice at all. The system tells them, in effect, that they should have known not to use the tool that the system also will not give them an alternative to.

There are emerging cases that test the edges of this rule. On 4 March 2026, Nippon Life Insurance Company of America filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against OpenAI Foundation and OpenAI Group PBC, alleging that ChatGPT, used by an opposing pro se litigant, had engaged in tortious interference with a settled contract, abuse of process, and the unlicensed practice of law. The Nippon complaint is one of the first attempts to push a portion of the risk back upstream, onto the maker of the tool, rather than letting it rest entirely on the user. It is far from clear whether the case will survive a motion to dismiss, and the substantive merits are contested, but the move is intellectually significant. If a chatbot purports to give legal advice to a litigant, and the advice is wrong, and the litigant's reliance produces real harm to a counterparty, then liability somewhere in that chain is unavoidable. The question is whether it stops at the user, where current doctrine puts it, or extends to the model, the deployer, or the platform.

State legislatures have begun to nibble at the same question. New York legislators are considering a bill that would expressly make companies liable for the unauthorised practice of law by their AI chatbots. The premise is that a tool that confidently advises a non-lawyer on the contents of a defence is, functionally, practising law without a licence; the licensing regime exists for a reason; and the licensing regime should bind the company that deploys the tool. The counter-argument, made vigorously by the deployers, is that disclaimers are visible, that the tool is a general-purpose system, and that holding the platform liable will simply shut the tool down for the very people who most need it. The argument is real on both sides. It is also, to borrow a WIRED instinct, a debate that exists because the legal system has refused to fund civil representation at the level the population requires.

The Patchwork of Rules

What courts have done in the meantime is improvise. Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued the first published standing order on AI in court filings in 2023, requiring attorneys to certify either that no portion of the filing was drafted with generative AI or that any AI-drafted portion had been independently verified by traditional means. Filings without the certificate would be stricken. Starr's order travelled. By the end of 2025, Bloomberg Law's tracker had logged hundreds of standing orders, general orders, and local rules across federal and state courts in the United States addressing AI use in submissions. The orders are not uniform. Some require disclosure of the model used. Some require certification of independent verification. Some prohibit AI in particular categories of filing. Some are silent on pro se litigants and silent in different ways on legal aid clinics that use AI in supervised work.

In the United Kingdom, the Bar Council and the Solicitors Regulation Authority have issued guidance, and the Lord Chief Justice's office has updated its own guidelines for judges on the use of AI tools. The Ayinde judgment did most of the doctrinal work: lawyers are professionally responsible for everything they sign, AI cannot be invoked as an excuse, and serious cases will be referred to the regulators. In Australia, the Victorian Legal Services Board has begun to issue conditions on practising certificates for solicitors caught with fabricated citations. The South African Legal Practice Council has confirmed that referrals for AI-generated fabrications will be standard. None of these regimes is coordinated with the others. None deals systematically with the unrepresented litigant. All of them assume that the deterrent function of sanctions is sufficient, even though the data Charlotin is collecting suggests that sanctions are not, in fact, slowing the rate of submissions.

There is a distinct strand of proposal that goes beyond after-the-fact sanction. The most robust version is the “hyperlink rule” advocated in legal-technology circles, which would require every authority cited in a filing to be backed by a working hyperlink to the actual case in a recognised public database, with verification carried out before submission. Some jurisdictions have flirted with the idea. None has imposed it as a hard rule, in part because the doctrinal infrastructure for stable case URLs is patchy and in part because requiring hyperlinks puts an additional procedural burden on litigants who already cannot navigate the existing forms. A weaker version is the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) requirement, in which AI tools used in legal practice must ground their outputs in a curated, court-vetted database of authorities rather than in the open internet. Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Thomson Reuters all market RAG-based products. The Stanford RegLab study showed that those products still hallucinate, just less often. RAG is mitigation, not solution.

A more interesting proposal, surfacing in academic work and in the most thoughtful sections of the New York State Bar Association's pro se commentary, is a two-tier disclosure regime. Lawyers using AI face one set of rules: they must disclose, certify, and verify, and they will be sanctioned if they fail. Pro se litigants face a different set: they must disclose, but the court will treat AI-generated errors as a procedural defect that triggers an opportunity to correct, not a sanctionable falsehood, provided the litigant did not knowingly file material they suspected to be fabricated. The justification is that the unrepresented litigant has a different epistemic position. They were not supposed to know. The system that did not give them a lawyer cannot then sanction them for the only substitute available. The objection is that the rule creates a second-class evidentiary regime in which the truth of submissions depends on who made them, and that asymmetry is its own injustice.

The Hardest Cases

It is worth sitting with the kinds of cases where this matters most. The Ayinde claimant, on whose behalf phantom cases were cited, had a real housing problem. The barrister's failure did not invent the homelessness. It complicated the record on which the homelessness would be adjudicated. In Mavundla, a real dispute about traditional leadership was filed alongside fabricated authorities, and the case was referred to the Legal Practice Council in part because the court could not separate the genuine claim from the contaminated argument. In the Hannah Payne appeal, the constitutional question, whether her trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to present a citizen's arrest defence, is genuine and consequential. Leslie's hallucinated brief did not change the facts of the underlying killing. It changed the texture of the appellate record, made the prosecution's argument less credible, and forced the Georgia Supreme Court to spend its time policing the inputs rather than weighing them.

For the unrepresented, the most painful version of the problem is not the high-stakes appeal. It is the small case that was always going to be hard. A tenant in Manchester or Atlanta or Cape Town files a defence to an eviction. The defence cites cases that do not exist. The landlord's counsel files a reply that catches the fabrication. The judge, depending on jurisdiction, either strikes the defence or grants it grudging weight. The tenant loses the home that they were trying to keep, in part because the only legal help they could afford was a model that lied to them. The fault lies, on every doctrinal account, with the tenant. The injury, on any honest account, is on the tenant and the tenant's children.

That kind of case rarely makes the Charlotin database. It does not produce a published opinion. It does not generate a sanctions order. It generates a default judgment, a removal, a debt. Some portion of the court orders that are entered against unrepresented defendants in the United States and the United Kingdom in 2025 and 2026 are now, almost certainly, downstream of AI-generated filings that were never identified as such because no one in the courtroom had time or expertise to check. The dark figure of AI's contribution to the justice gap is, by definition, invisible. The cases we know about are the ones in which someone, on the other side, had the resources to look up the citations. Where there is no other side with resources, there is no audit. Where there is no audit, there is no record.

What Should Be Done

This article will not pretend that there is a clean fix. WIRED's instinct, properly, is to take a position rather than to nod sympathetically at every party. The position is this. The legal profession's current posture, in which sanctions land on the human signatory regardless of context and AI tools are treated as neutral hazards, is intellectually consistent and morally untenable. It works only if the system also funds the legal representation that would let people avoid the hazardous tool. It does not. The same legislatures and bar associations writing tighter AI rules have, for thirty years, allowed civil legal aid to be eviscerated. They cannot now have it both ways.

There are concrete steps. Court-vetted, publicly funded retrieval-augmented systems, designed specifically for unrepresented litigants in jurisdictions where self-representation is the norm, would meaningfully reduce hallucination rates and shift some risk back to public infrastructure where it belongs. The technology exists. The cost is a fraction of what jurisdictions spend on courthouse construction. The political will is the obstacle. Two-tier disclosure regimes, in which courts adopt different sanctions postures for represented and unrepresented filers, would acknowledge the moral asymmetry the current rules ignore. Mandatory hyperlinking of authorities, with court-side automated verification, would let scale solve a scale problem. Liability that extends, where appropriate, to the deployer of a model marketed as a legal assistant, would give platforms an incentive to invest in accuracy that disclaimers do not.

None of these will fix the underlying issue, which is that justice is expensive and most people cannot afford it. Generative AI has revealed that fact in a particularly acute way: the cheapest available legal counsel is also the least reliable, and the most reliable counsel has never been cheap. Treating AI as either saviour or saboteur misses the structure of the problem. The technology is a mirror. It reflects, with terrifying efficiency, both the procedural form of legal argument and the unwillingness of states to fund the substance. The Georgia prosecutor and the Manchester tenant are using the same tool for related reasons: their respective systems have not given them what they need to do their work.

Phantom precedent is what happens when a pattern-matching machine is asked to do the job of a research lawyer. It is also, more deeply, what happens when courts pretend that everyone in front of them has equal access to the means of producing reliable arguments. They do not. They have never. The arrival of AI has made that gap visible in a new way, and the next decade of legal regulation will be measured by whether courts and legislatures respond to the visibility or to the symptom. If the answer is more sanctions, more warning notices, and more standing orders, the gap will widen. If the answer is funded counsel, vetted public tools, and a doctrinal reckoning with who actually bears the risk when a model lies, there is at least a route through. The contradiction will not resolve itself. Someone has to choose.

---

References

1. CBS News Atlanta, “AI in Georgia courts raises new questions after Clayton County prosecutor admits citing fake cases”, 2026.
2. Atlanta News First, “Chief justice: Attorney cites nonexistent cases in opposing new trial for woman convicted of murder”, 23 March 2026.
3. Atlanta News First, “Attorney with Clayton County DA's Office apologizes for using AI, citing fake cases in court brief”, 30 March 2026.
4. Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases Database, damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations, accessed April 2026.
5. Eugene Volokh, “In One Day (Mar. 31), 17 U.S. Court Decisions Noting Suspected AI Hallucinations in Court Filings”, Reason, 6 April 2026.
6. New York State Bar Association, “Pro Se Advocacy in the AI Era: Benefits, Challenges, and Ethical Implications”, 10 February 2026.
7. Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), Opinion and Order on Sanctions, Judge P. Kevin Castel, 22 June 2023.
8. NPR, “Michael Cohen says he unwittingly sent AI-generated fake legal cases to his attorney”, 30 December 2023.
9. Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., E.D. Tex., Judge Marcia Crone, sanctions order, November 2024.
10. Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey; Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC, [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), judgment of the Divisional Court, June 2025.
11. Information Age (Australian Computer Society), “First Australian lawyer penalised for AI blunder”, 2025.
12. NBC News, “Australian lawyer sorry for AI errors in murder case, including fake quotes and made up cases”, 15 August 2025.
13. Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others, [2025] ZAKZPHC 2.
14. Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, “Another episode of fabricated citations, real repercussions: South African courts show no tolerance for AI-hallucinated cases”, 4 July 2025.
15. Daily Maverick, “AI 'hallucinations' are threatening the administration of justice in South Africa”, 15 July 2025.
16. Varun Magesh and Faiz Surani et al., “Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools”, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Stanford RegLab, 2024.
17. Legal Services Corporation, The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans, 2022 Report, NORC at the University of Chicago.
18. Ministry of Justice (England and Wales), Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly, July to September 2025.
19. New York City Bar Association, “The Justice Gap Has Become a Chasm”.
20. Bloomberg Law, “Federal Court Judicial Standing Orders on Artificial Intelligence” comparison table, 2025.
21. Legal Dive, “Federal judge seeks to prevent generative AI mistakes in briefs”, 2023, on Judge Brantley Starr's standing order.
22. Vermont Law Review, “Mandatory AI Disclosures: Enforcing A Uniform Standard”, 2025.
23. National Law Review, “Preventing Fabricated AI Legal Authorities: The Case for a Mandatory 'Hyperlink Rule'“.
24. Bloomberg Law, “Big Law Grapples With AI-Fueled Pro Se Surge, Rising Legal Costs”, 2025.
25. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, “GPT, Esquire: How the Nippon Case May Shape the Future of AI in Pro Se Litigation”, 2026.

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast