I just discovered this person on YouTube, member name is LegalEagle (real first name is Devin) who is a real life lawyer, and has been doing videos discussing the accuracies (or mistakes) TV shows or movies make when featuring real legal matters.
He already has many videos up, but this video
is a good starting point, where he discusses the infamous series finale to Seinfeld.
Mod Note
There is a forum-wide ban on discussing US politics, which remains in place as long at the dedicated US Politics thread
is locked.
If a new episode goes back onto that subject (or any of the other banned topics
) then you are not allowed to discuss it. You can discuss any video about anything else, just not related to US politics.
If this becomes a problem, posts will be thumped and there may be further consequences.
We've already had to lock this thread once. If we have to lock it again, it's likely to remain locked for a very long time — and may not get unlocked at all. We'd really like to avoid that.
Edited by kory on Sep 22nd 2024 at 9:15:19 AM
Around North Austin, I can say that there are two massively multi-restaurant facilities that are only for delivery/takeout in my area. One is out in the open on the highway and one is hidden in an industrial park. I think the only place I've delivered from that is directly running a second brand out of a noteworthy kitchen is Chili's, which launched "It's Just Wings" during the lockdowns. I never delivered out of the closest Chuck E. Cheese, but I know they had their own secret delivery-only brand named Pasqually's Pizza and Wings.
Fresh-eyed movie blogThe big splash I remember Taco Bell making in restaurant design was lofting the kitchen over multiple lanes of drive through and lowering the orders to the cars like the pneumatic tubes at a bank, which I suppose would allow for extra room for ghost kitchen work.
Fresh-eyed movie blogLegal Eagle covers the case of Michael Oher.
This seems a particularly slimy case that should sound familiar to fans of Britney Spears. Remember, people, always read the contract, always know what you're signing, even if it's from someone you trust.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI remember when this controversy first came out (just a couple months ago, right), there were people calling for Sandra Bullock to have her Oscar award revoked because she must have known how bad the Tuohys were in real life.
Like creepy stories? Check out my book!The red flag in that case is why a full conservatorship was needed when the Tuohys (or their lawyer) must have known they could legally adopt an adult. Everything else is he-said, they-said that needs to go through the discovery process. I refuse to take sides on the basis of gossip and hearsay. It's the fact of the conservatorship that makes me think the complaint is legit.
There is no evidence that Oher is not or was not legally competent to manage his own affairs, and if the Tuohys didn't want his money, why not hire an independent agent for that purpose, like many athletes do?
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 16th 2023 at 2:33:42 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Maybe I'm biased because, well, that movie was a mediocre film in a terrible genre (White Savior Oscar Bait garbage) and I do think Bullock should give back her Oscar but just because it was plain ol' undeserved... but I really don't see any way where the defendants come out looking good here. Either they're not very competent and had bad lawyers or they were malicious.
I don't think even facetiously it could be interpreted as me thinking that the quality of the movie had anything to do with the lawsuit. At worst I'm saying that the quality of the movie clouds my judgment.
![]()
Only if you, uh, don't finish the sentence. It was hyperbole in that it's not a situation where someone would give back an Oscar, but I stand by she did not deserve an Oscar for that performance.
Edited by Larkmarn on Sep 20th 2023 at 11:01:15 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.![]()
TBF on first glance it looked like you were saying you agree with the people saying Sandra Bullock should return her Oscar in response to this conservatorship stuff but might be biased because of the quality of the movie, not that you think she should return the Oscar for separate reasons altogether but also agree that the conservatorship stuff looks awful.
Unless Bullock knew about the dubious facts of the matter — and there's no reason for her to since she's an actor, not a writer or investigative reporter, I don't see how she would be under any moral obligation to return any awards. She might decide to do it for personal reasons, of course.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"xQc Is Stealing Content (and So Are Most Reaction Streamers)
I see Devin has declared war. I happen to agree with the headline point, and I am very interested to see his full take on the matter. I've been following the Jacksfilms - Sssniperwolf "feud" for several months now.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The primary argument that comes from reactors like xQc and Sssniperwolf is that they are benefiting the creators by giving exposure to their videos, but the statistical data belies this.
I watch a lot of reaction videos and I recognize the distinction between transformative content, which offers commentary and interesting opinions without reproducing the entire thing being reacted to; and this type of empty content that offers no transformation and is literally a market substitute.
The distinction appears to be completely ignored by platforms like YouTube and Twitch, which only react to direct copyright infringement claims. Since the original creator often has no knowledge of the reproduction, and algorithms like Content ID don't work across platforms, the shitty reactions go unpunished. Never mind that xQc has a lot more money than a random 'tuber and can afford to fight the battle in court.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed in Legal Eagle for using The Homies as an example of poor reactions. They follow all the rules, as far as I know, and are very diligent about reacting to things like TV shows and films rather than other creators' content on the platform.
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 23rd 2023 at 12:00:03 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I haven't watched Ssniperwolf in years, but I thought she did provide commentary in her videos. Did she just stop doing it?
Like creepy stories? Check out my book!There was also a video on whether the 14th amendment could block Trump from running. Short answer, not likely, since it didn't even stop former Civil War revels from running for office, and hinges on whether or not Trump is "an officer of the United States", to which the answer seems to be no.
We are certainly learning these days just how low the bar for running for elected office really is in the US. There seems to be very little that actually categorically disqualifies someone from running at all.
Edited by Redmess on Sep 23rd 2023 at 2:38:12 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesThe chances that any court would uphold a 14th Amendment challenge to Trump's presence on the 2024 ballot is basically nil without a conviction for insurrection and/or aiding and abetting one. Since he is merely accused, I don't see how it would be feasible.
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 23rd 2023 at 8:57:10 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'll be surprised if any of them make it above D rank.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's basically:
- S-tier: No one
- A-Tier: People who are competent and therefore you haven't heard of them because they don't shove themselves in front of the camera.
- B-Tier: People you've heard of who haven't been indicted.
- No C, no D.
- F-Tier: People who have been indicted.

Edited by Chortleous on Sep 7th 2023 at 6:49:04 AM