FreedomAdvocate
You have a plex pass though, so nothing changed for you - you just got all angry because you didn’t read the email properly.
Your users are going to be much worse off now than they were, and you will absolutely lose a bunch of them who don’t want to (or can’t) have to connect to a VPN every time they want to stream from your library.
It’s also fucking wild to me that people are defending a monetization model that is on self hosted hardware.
It’s wild to me that people who claim to be tech savvy don’t understand that Plex Server, the software, is what makes Plex what it is and as popular as it is. No other solution exists that is as easy as Plex and as secure as Plex. Jellyfin, Emby, Kodi, etc are nowhere near as simple to use and don’t have the breadth of app support that Plex does. Plex is basically on every device anyone owns. They sign in and they can stream from everyones libraries. No VPNs needed, no other hoops.
I paid like $100 for a lifetime Plex Pass like 10 years ago. The 2 dozen friends and family that share my server don’t pay a cent and this changes nothing.
You actually want me to provide 6 examples of left-wing homophobia, or pedos, or anything else like that? You seriously don’t think that any left-wing people do bad things?
The point is that there’s no “right wingers are all closet homosexuals”, just like there’s no “left wingers are all closet pedos”. How did you not get that? Are there some, even lots, on both sides? Absolutely.
You can’t solve homelessness and crime with involuntary commitment. This is woefully ineffective policy, no matter how you cut it.
This isn’t attempting to solve homelessness or crime lol
The various mentions of first responders reads as first responders to me
“First responders” simply means the first people on the scene. Those people have generally always been police, which critics have long said are not the correct people for this job. This is going to change that.
Might be about time for some change in CA?
What we call “JoUrNaLiStS” these days are nothing more than activists most of the time, as is evident by whoever wrote this article and whoever ok’d it for publication, especially without publishing the comments that they specifically reached out to Tesla’s board to get.
In this situation you can either believe:
a) Unsubstantiated rumours, with zero evidence supplied, zero sources, from a “JoUrNaLiSt” who tried to verify the story and then refused to acknowledge and publish the fact that the rumour was denied.
b) the board, who the rumour is about, flat out denying the rumour.
I choose to believe the one that isn’t just reporting rumours based on zero evidence that have been categorically denied. You choose the other option, which is up to you, but it makes your decision making skills look very dubious. You seem very much in the “guilty until proven innocent” category, because that’s essentially what you’re saying here - you’re asking someone to prove a negative, and even when they say they aren’t doing it you then don’t believe them?
Many would argue that Tesla’s stock price would go UP if this rumour was true, so saying that their stock price depends on them denying it is questionable.
We don’t want Murdoch back btw.