Smash can you summarize that? I don’t have the patience or time to watch an hour long episode of this. And I did the first several minutes but they never actually say what they are doing. They just keep leading into it without saying it. And it drives me crazy.

Some legal analyst was on NFL radio a few days ago and covered this ruling in detail. Basically, he said the independent arbiter that ruled on the case, a retired appeals judge, found no legitimate evidence of "true" collusion. He said there were several cases of things being said and done AFTER the fact that weren't great optics, but collusion has to be actively orchestrated PRIOR to actions to be legally deemed collusion. Thanking a fellow owner for not agreeing to a veteran fully guaranteed contract for example, may not seem very savory, but it does not meet the legal definition of collusion.

Therein lies the controversy... We all know they collude... And they find ways to get away with it. And it's more than just one case . Although they didn't mention Gruden's case, it wouldn't be shocking there is collision in his case. His is on appeal. Wouldn't mind at all a Gruden win vs RG.

AI states, "Collusion itself is not a specific crime, but it can describe the act of participating in a conspiracy or other illegal agreement that could be a crime. For example, price-fixing or bid-rigging are illegal agreements, and collusion is often used to describe the act of engaging in these activities."

We all participate in the definition of collusion in our every day lives. If you and your friends decide in private to boycott a business for whatever reason it is collusion. It is not illegal. Some may call it petty. Or unethical. But not illegal.

AI is total bull****. AI doesn't say anything anyway. Its a webscraper that uses among many other things AI technology to pull keywords and phrases from the web. On a simple level, you ask which widget is best. “AI” pulls info from a widget manufacturer that spends a lot of time and money boosting their reviews. “AI” picks up on these reviews and starts down that rabbit hole. Algorithms and opinion pieces from users get mixed in there and you have your answer. Go ask detailed questions about razors and see where it takes you. Its an obscure subject that most of the general population have little knowledge about.
People would be floored to see what it says when it comes to anything to do with the second amendment or the ins and outs of using a firearm.

AI actually does a decent job of compiling information that you can verify yourself. The snippet that I posted was an exact compilation of what I knew as fact and saved me from having to type it all out.

As for razors, I have a fairly extensive collection of Gillette razors that have ranged from the earliest regular production year of 1904 through the latest of the double edges and even into the band era. I wouldn't depend on AI for anything in totality, but if it's scraping reflects what I know for a fact I have no problem sharing it.