Misstatement Puns

Mine are people pronouncing Pokémon as Pokéman as well as Zelda saving the princess.

Central Huijin Investment Ltd (CHI,中央汇金投资有限责任公司) claimed that 2020 annual financial statements complied with Chinese Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises (CAS,企业会计准则). But it didn't consolidate financial statements of subsidiaries such as BOC, CCB and China Reinsurance (Group) Corporation.

CHI stated that there was no events after reporting period that must be reported. The date of authorising the financial statement was 22 June 2021 but it stated that in the other parts of annual report outside financial statements that it issued 5.5 billion bonds on 8 March 2021. It failed to diclose the 5.5 billion bonds issuance as event after reporting period.

There were many material misstatements in disclosing related party transactions. For details:

books2read.com/u/bMYZ7X

Recently sold house on an unconditional offer, buyer paid the deposit. But then contacted the agent that they don't want to proceed forward and want a release. The reason being the listing agent overstated the living space 500 sq/ft higher than what it is, in MLS description. My question is do they have legal standing to back out of the deal even though they waived condition of inspection.

I can think of the following:

- Sales

- AR

- Depreciation? (Subjectivity encourages mgmt to undervalue to show less expenses?)

ASIC today reported on the results from its audit firm inspections for the 12 months to 30 June 2020 and has released a supplementary report of audit quality measures, indicators and other information.

Audit inspection findings

ASIC’s latest review found that auditors did not, in our view, obtain reasonable assurance that the financial reports were free from material misstatement in 27 per cent of the 179 key audit areas that ASIC reviewed across 53 audit files. The results compare to 26 per cent in the 12 months to 30 June 2019.

The largest numbers of adverse findings were in the audit of asset values, particularly impairment of non-financial assets and the audit of revenue.

Full article on ASIC: https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2020-releases/20-336mr-asic-reports-on-audit-inspection-findings-for-12-months-to-30-june-2020/

So my professor for Physics With Calculus 1 has us do misstatements, which basically are a sentence about a physics principle that is false or only partially true. On his exam, It's mainly misstatements and calculations problems. These usually required some thinking and test if you know the concepts 100% well.

How can I study for these misstatements? Should I create flashcards and make sure that I know the definitions of physics properties very well or should I just keep doing examples problems?

Here are some examples of the misstatements:

1. If object A and B are in circular motion, and object B's motion has greater radius, object B needs

greater net force to keep its motion.

2. What is wrong with the following statement: " A vector is a magnitude with a direction"

News flash Ken, nobody is trying to set you up. People are determined to get the truth-something you tried to hide during the SA and BrD trials.

"The truth always comes out in the end". (Steven Avery)

I hear a lot people saying something like "Traction law is always in effect on I-70. You need either chains, 4wd or snow tires"

Whilst it may be preferable that this was the law (I make no comment on that) it isn't actually what the traction law says

https://www.codot.gov/travel/winter-driving/tractionlaw

1. 4WD or AWD vehicle and 3/16” tread depth
2. Tires with a mud and snow designation (M+S icon) and 3/16” tread depth
3. Winter tires (mountain-snowflake icon) and 3/16” tread depth
4. Tires with an all-weather rating by the manufacturer and 3/16” tread depth
5. Chains or an approved alternative traction device

So according to 4, any all weather rated tire with 3/16 tread is enough.

Again it may be preferable to change this law, but we should try to give correct advice here and state it correctly.

I believe it's a misstatement of the definition of the social contract to say that it's between the people and the government. But the people *are* the government, so it's *among* the people, isn't it?

I was researching the occurrence of the term in a newspaper database and found that in the mid-1970s and again in the early 1990s the term was sort of hijacked by British labor leaders to refer to their deal with the government and they used it a lot in that way, for months and months of news coverage.

Then I discovered that the Simple English Wikipedia calls the social contract "an agreement between the people of a state and the government of a state." And the Kiddie Encyclopedia follows suit.