NotNotMike

Dude chill out, why are you so angry? I merely pointed out that one of the videos does not support your claims and suggested an alternative hypothesis

Sorry for upsetting you with discussion hot damn

The top right video is a video absolutely dumpstering Tesla and calling it a worthless stock. Your recommendations will also highly depend on what video you were just watching, could it be that users who watch your video also happen to watch these other videos? Is that the platforms fault?

I’ve found it hogs a bit of resources so I shut mine off until Plex crossed a line

Looks like that day came sooner than I expected

What run command did you use? Any resource constraints?

I have a friend who is just so damn stubborn when it comes to mixing up their “comfortable” things if they aren’t the one to come up with the idea

Very frustrating

Any suggestions for an XMPP client?

In an ideal world I want something that has Discord’s “drop-in” chats where you don’t need to “start a call” anywhere, you just join in. My biggest gripe with Element’s voice chat

Yeah the news of this non-recusal came too soon after the other recusal. Very confusing timeline if you didn’t know there were two cases

The mathematical proof is that Elon owns several hundred million Tesla shares and his holding or selling of those shares will impact the share price of the judge’s shares. Up or down, the price will be impacted, that’s just how markets work. If he is forced to sell those shares to fund X, the judge will be impacted.

Also, you shouldn’t really need an exact proof for the judge’s recusal. There is a chance he is impacted by the result of the case in a significant monetary way, so why not pass the case to a judge who doesn’t have these connections. This isn’t the last judge in Texas (just one of the most partisan) so there is far greater upsides to recusal than downsides.

Why risk the optics of impropriety when you don’t have to?

For anyone confused by this headline, there are two trials this judge is considering for X

[O’Conner] was overseeing two lawsuits filed by X and recused himself from only one of the cases.

This isn’t the new case about the “illegal boycott” O’Conner has recused himself from that trial (likely) because he also owns stock in Unilever, one of the defending companies

In my opinion, it comes down to the wording of the U.S. judges’ code of conduct

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned

While the link between Musk’s two companies might be debatable, it definitely raises “reasonable questions” about whether or not the judge can be impartial. It is much easier to recuse oneself then to try to deal with a mistrial, so the judge not recusing themselves is extremely suspicious.

Also, as to evidence to whether Musk’s involvement with X has impacted Tesla stock, that has been a matter of debate for a while. X is in a dire financial situation because of the loans taken out during the buyout. If they cannot get advertisers back on the platform, then either X goes bankrupt or Elon has to chip in his own money. Musk’s money is mostly locked in to Tesla stock, and if he sells a large number, the stock will inevitably go down. Therefore, if Elon loses this case, it is very possible that the judge will lose money.

I mean, I’m not much of a tinfoil hat, but this article feels extremely conveniently timed for Intel, who is currently going through a massive ordeal with their chips. Especially considering that the vulnerability is so extremely difficult to exploit that there’s borderline no story here for 99% of people but the headline will still drive clicks and drama.