Yea, TFA was not clear on what happened earlier as to source of money

An earlier report claimed that the director had actually turned a $4 million investment in Dogecoin into $27 million, but had then proceeded to spend much of his profits on luxury goods.

He should have just put 11$mill back and enjoyed the rest; I doubt anyone would b ethe wiser and he could have gone on and made the series. If it was a dud the studio would just have charge dthe loss to oteh rprojects.He thought he was too smart to lose and got greedy...

There are plenty of legal ways to take 11 million form a studio and pocket it without resorting to theft; Hollywood has perfected the game of taking money from one pocket and sliding it into another.

The good news is if it fails, lawyers get nothing. What damages has the class suffered? Fewer bad movies and shows? Higher costs? IF Netflix get more expensive, cancel it. It's not like you need Netflix or HBO or whatever. I get creatives' concerns, especially if Netflix moves away from theatrical releases, which can change how they get paid at the back end. Should teh class get certified, opt out. If enough people do, the action becomes worthless for the lawyers and costly since they don't get paid.

Mighty nice place you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it, I suggest insurance from here...

Quite true, but you are limited to the quality of the stream; and if a service decides to remove the video and your file gets corrupted/lost you can't redo it. Then again, DVD media is not eternal either. Both options have their pluses and minuses.

It's ca;;ed the real world, and is coming at them with a clue by four. A HS near me no longer fails students, because well, it's easier to pass them and push them on than deal with parents who blame the school and teachers for their kid's performance.

And you can rip them for portablity or to put on a server. Best of both worlds.

Rather, itâ(TM)s about money. If Netflix goes streaming, all that money made in distribution, percentages of gross, etc. goes away. WB doesnâ(TM)t care because, except for payments such as percentages of gross, much of it rolls back to them eventually. All the creatives, OTOH, may lose out on a lot of money.

Or the jerk in glasses decided to shoot you when being assaulted.

I doubt any bus driver would want to cross to the other side, it would be a challenge, even if cars cooperated. You'd have a line of blocked cars that would need to be let by, while holding up traffic behind you. If the driver doesn't have on red flashers when they start to move, a car could potentially legally pass them and the bus pull out into them. Then if the stop is near a corner, the driver may not see an oncoming car, setting up your scenario; or I've seen stops on a street with a 45 MPH limit, trying to cross that and then face oncoming traffic would be crazy.

Some cars do not have integrated gsrage door openers. I have one that uses bluetooth and works great, no network needed.

In general, bus stops are designed for the students to exit on the non-street side. The issue is kids who have to cross the street to get home since a stop serves multiple homes on both sides of a street. Retracing the route would double the bus transit time for some kids, who likely just get off the bus at the first stop and not theirs if the bus retraced the route so they could get off on their side of the street.

They're politicians, so adding in funding illegal activities is redundant.

I suspect most of those speculative hobbyists aren't simply giving up a percentage of their holdings to use a fun toy; if you're speculating why give up a % of your return when you get no value from it? As for PGP and its ilk, there are probably a lot more legitimate users, which is why law enforcement used other means, such a taking over services clandestinely to be able to track organized crime; just like wiretaps allowed targeting suspected criminals without eliminating telephones. That's not to say governments aren't trying to get backdoors, and while I disagree with that approach, it's still allows targeting suspects without eliminating encryption. Of course, you have to rely on governments to play fair, something "for the children" arguments make the effort suspect and open to fishing expeditions.

Personally, I think taking it over surreptitiously would be a better move because then you can see and track both ends of the transaction; something they may have done but wouldn't admit to until they have some strong cases. They may have done that and after they had what they needed decided to shut it down. Who knows, I certainly don't.