Cops in Blackhawk, Colorado are writing tickets for "Professional Gambling"

[Garnabby]

That’s the whole point. You don’t take it to the point casinos don’t tolerate it. You learn how to milk them right up to the line & get them to give you incentives for coming back on top of it.

Even more reason to be swatted like flies. You guys don't carry their staggering overhead and responsibility. Freeloaders trying to fool even the Great Garnabby. Looks like I've stumbled into a house of bloodthirsty clowns of all types and sizes. Ha.

[Dan Druff]

Enjoy free speech while you can,

It seems like it’s under attack by both the left & the right.

It isn't like the politicians who crave power and are evil have any particular reason to be one side or the other. I suspect it is just mostly dictated by recent history and social programming.

I haven't seen a leftist populist make it anywhere near the top like this. I'm not sure how it'd happen. AOC and her ilk might be annoying people who don't understand economics very well - but I see her just going down in flames vs trying to burn down the country with her.

THe new precedents being set alone .. I can only hope they're not the new normal.

I don't want this interesting thread hijacked, but I'll say this.

There was a tremendous assault on free speech in the early 2020s.

This was done by the left, under the guise of "preventing COVID misinformation" (lol), "silencing racist rhetoric" (double lol), and "stopping Russian disinformation" (triple lol).

I was shocked to see how many liberals supported this. The liberals I knew in the '90s were of the, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to allow you to say it" variety. I respected that. Today's liberals obsess over so-called "hate speech" and "misinformation", which is then trotted out as an excuse to censor speech they either don't like or don't want people reading/hearing. Very bad.

We could not post on social media that we thought COVID came from a Wuhan lab.

We could not post alternate theories from the then-acceptable COVID dogma regarding the virus and ways to cure it, even though it was a novel virus with tons of unknowns.

We could not even post about Hunter Biden's freakin' laptop because it was supposedly "Russian disinformation" -- and then lo and behold, it was true! Well, whaddya know?!

People were getting fired for the most ridiculous of reasons. One girl was fired from a Silicon Valley firm because she followed Ben Shapiro. It made people feel "scared and uncomfortable", you see.

Our own sitting President was banned from social media!!


That's why I have to laugh when 2025 liberals complain about Trump attempting to suppress speech. Why were they supporting this type of fascist suppression when it was silencing the opposition?

[accountinquestion]

Enjoy free speech while you can,

It seems like it’s under attack by both the left & the right.

It isn't like the politicians who crave power and are evil have any particular reason to be one side or the other. I suspect it is just mostly dictated by recent history and social programming.

I haven't seen a leftist populist make it anywhere near the top like this. I'm not sure how it'd happen. AOC and her ilk might be annoying people who don't understand economics very well - but I see her just going down in flames vs trying to burn down the country with her.

THe new precedents being set alone .. I can only hope they're not the new normal.

I don't want this interesting thread hijacked, but I'll say this.

There was a tremendous assault on free speech in the early 2020s.

This was done by the left, under the guise of "preventing COVID misinformation" (lol), "silencing racist rhetoric" (double lol), and "stopping Russian disinformation" (triple lol).

I was shocked to see how many liberals supported this. The liberals I knew in the '90s were of the, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to allow you to say it" variety. I respected that. Today's liberals obsess over so-called "hate speech" and "misinformation", which is then trotted out as an excuse to censor speech they either don't like or don't want people reading/hearing. Very bad.

We could not post on social media that we thought COVID came from a Wuhan lab.

We could not post alternate theories from the then-acceptable COVID dogma regarding the virus and ways to cure it, even though it was a novel virus with tons of unknowns.

We could not even post about Hunter Biden's freakin' laptop because it was supposedly "Russian disinformation" -- and then lo and behold, it was true! Well, whaddya know?!

People were getting fired for the most ridiculous of reasons. One girl was fired from a Silicon Valley firm because she followed Ben Shapiro. It made people feel "scared and uncomfortable", you see.

Our own sitting President was banned from social media!!


That's why I have to laugh when 2025 liberals complain about Trump attempting to suppress speech. Why were they supporting this type of fascist suppression when it was silencing the opposition?

Do you see any difference in Constitutional type of free speech vs your personal opinion of what free speech should be?

Do you think the government should FORCE private (maybe publicly owned - but thats not what I mean) to print the speech of a government official? Apparently you do. Which is the OPPOSITE of what Free Speech means to me. If I'm running a business I should not be forced to spread ANYONE's message.

While i may not personally agree with it - I can show many places where crazy lawsuits (aka "lawfare") has been used. They settle out of court because it is basically a pay-off at this point.

Again - during the 90s the free speech issue I recall was about CDs and government enforcing (not requesting - big difference) via laws.

Flag burning? Again - government enforcing via threat of being put in a cage.

Maybe campus speech codes would be a actual Constitutional issue that was pushed by the left. Ok. I can grant you that.

Anyway - this is a very very big distinction that flies right over the heads of most of those on the right who don't think for themselves. Far too common.

You can make fun of Twitter for COVID stuff but look where we are with RFK? Most of his support is going to have come from people who either listened to the anti-vax stuff or now believe there is some big conspiracy a foot with "big pharma". You know - Doctors don't matter even though they're near universally in agreement.

Have you seen how bad RFK cherrypicks? The dude had brain worms and it shows.

Yanno, I'm not saying you are autistic but last I heard RFK wants to put you on a list as mentally deficient if you are. But yea, oooh free speech, look at where all that free info has gotten us.

BTW the Russian laptop was specifically kept from many news sources that could have at least looked it over and declared whether it was real or not. The dude may be a crackhead but hard to have guessed he was that stupid to have left that laptop at some dude's store. Like .. it was intentionally released to avoid a robust discussion of it at the time but now the story is somehow of censorship by the left when rightwing operatives specifically avoiding giving it to any leftist news outlet. Whether they would have done the right thing I can not say but they had no chance to even do so. This one really bugs me. So disengenious. I'd have guessed it was a made up thing too - it was reasonable.

Just like the Wuhan thing. Trump just pulled that out of his ass the time but it may have been correct. He had no specific reason at the time though but it wasn't a total guess either.

Let me explain -

There is Constitutionally protected free speech. (No government action to enforce/force it)
Then there is the government suggesting what is politically proper. (Could just be medical info though - now we got idiots all over not wanting to vaccinate their kids )
Then there are private entities censoring things because they wish to do so for whatever interests.
Then there are just individuals shouting down others via political correctness and cancel culture.

Look at Kirk .. people were getting fired etc all over for criticizing him about the things he said. As if once you are dead you are no longer accountable. In some states the governor is going after people in public schools. It is insane the overreach.

Wake up. If you can't understand the distinctions then reread this post a few times. The first 1 of the 4 is what liberals were and still are for but this is a totally different definition from what I've seen as "free speech" on the left. There is a huge difference in the first of the 4 and the other 3. Huge. This should be obvious if you comprehend and appreciate the Constitution as a foundation of our country.

[Dan Druff]

I guess you didn't read the Twitter Files then, nor did you read the recent statements from Mark Zuckerberg.

The government was pressuring social media to remove things. They weren't FORCING it, but they were making it very clear that they'd like certain things removed. If you are a huge social media company, you want to kiss ass to those in power (or likely soon to be in power), for obvious reasons. So this stuff got censored and removed, and libs hid behind "Duhhh private companies can do what they want!"

Only years later did it come out what was suspected all along -- that it had been strongly "suggested" to them to take these courses of actions.

It is your right to guess that the Hunter laptop wasn't what it appeared to be, or to dismiss the Wuhan lab theory. That's all fine. The problem is when one side is prohibited from telling the story, or from providing their opinion. Was there really an epidemic of anti-Asian racism because of the statement that it came from a lab in Wuhan? China has been a semi-enemy for decades. Suddenly criticizing the Chinese government is akin to racism? That was actually the reason trotted out as to why we wouldn't talk about it, and it was repeatedly stated by major Democrats. Please tell me you didn't fall for it.

Even the founder of the ACLU -- still alive and still a left winger -- released a scathing op-ed about the current state of that organization. It was once the gold standard of speech defense. The modern version now advocates for banning books it deems "hateful". One of the so-called "hate books" the organization condemned was a well-researched, respectfully presented book about the alarming rise of teenage females declaring themselves trans. The book explored how this is likely a social contagion. The ACLU wanted it gone. This is the same ACLU which once defended the KKK's right to march and chant outright racist slogans.


I do not like cancel culture. I did not approve of the firings of libs who wrote mean things about Charlie Kirk after his death. In general, you should be allowed to be a private citizen on social media and share your own opinions.

I did not like the FCC pressure to get Jimmy Kimmel removed, but as you saw, most conservatives also criticized this action, which is why it died and Kimmel quickly returned. Notice the left did not apply such pressure to put Trump back on social media. Did you post anywhere that banning the sitting President from the largest social media site was wrong? I bet you didn't.

Has a left wing speaker ever been chased off a college campus? When it happens to milquetoast right wingers like Ben Shapiro, where is the criticism from Democrats?

If you honestly believe that the modern left has been pro-free-speech, you haven't been paying attention.

[smurgerburger]

I think the infamous anti-lab leak editorial may represent the high water mark for gratuitous invocations of racism as an explanatory principle, at least for the current era.

[accountinquestion]

I guess you didn't read the Twitter Files then, nor did you read the recent statements from Mark Zuckerberg.

The government was pressuring social media to remove things. They weren't FORCING it, but they were making it very clear that they'd like certain things removed. If you are a huge social media company, you want to kiss ass to those in power (or likely soon to be in power), for obvious reasons. So this stuff got censored and removed, and libs hid behind "Duhhh private companies can do what they want!"

Only years later did it come out what was suspected all along -- that it had been strongly "suggested" to them to take these courses of actions.

It is your right to guess that the Hunter laptop wasn't what it appeared to be, or to dismiss the Wuhan lab theory. That's all fine. The problem is when one side is prohibited from telling the story, or from providing their opinion. Was there really an epidemic of anti-Asian racism because of the statement that it came from a lab in Wuhan? China has been a semi-enemy for decades. Suddenly criticizing the Chinese government is akin to racism? That was actually the reason trotted out as to why we wouldn't talk about it, and it was repeatedly stated by major Democrats. Please tell me you didn't fall for it.

Even the founder of the ACLU -- still alive and still a left winger -- released a scathing op-ed about the current state of that organization. It was once the gold standard of speech defense. The modern version now advocates for banning books it deems "hateful". One of the so-called "hate books" the organization condemned was a well-researched, respectfully presented book about the alarming rise of teenage females declaring themselves trans. The book explored how this is likely a social contagion. The ACLU wanted it gone. This is the same ACLU which once defended the KKK's right to march and chant outright racist slogans.


I do not like cancel culture. I did not approve of the firings of libs who wrote mean things about Charlie Kirk after his death. In general, you should be allowed to be a private citizen on social media and share your own opinions.

I did not like the FCC pressure to get Jimmy Kimmel removed, but as you saw, most conservatives also criticized this action, which is why it died and Kimmel quickly returned. Notice the left did not apply such pressure to put Trump back on social media. Did you post anywhere that banning the sitting President from the largest social media site was wrong? I bet you didn't.

Has a left wing speaker ever been chased off a college campus? When it happens to milquetoast right wingers like Ben Shapiro, where is the criticism from Democrats?

If you honestly believe that the modern left has been pro-free-speech, you haven't been paying attention.

You do make some solid points but a lot of it is very meh.

RE: facebook. At the end of the day it was only SUGGESTED as you said. Zuckerberg can say whatever he wants on Rogan as it is self-serving. Yes, of course they were concerned the government would do something but they also most likely felt it to be sensible. Biden has no spine. What would have happened to Facebook? Has Zuckerberg actually said "oh i was afraid they were going to do X" ? Or is he just wanting to be a Rogan-bro?

THis us not like Tiktok though which was forced to sell. I'm not all that against that though but I'm not 100% the reasons it was sold are correct. There are a lot of pro-Israeli's purchasing and you can see Netanyahu spelling it out for a group of people how strategically important it is for Israel to censor/control Tiktok. They're starting to lose the game of having America pay for their dozen wars. So ... not seeing it. Tiktok is far worse than Facebook. Actually literal forced sale vs vague implied threats.

The problem with the Wuhan thing to me is that it was just something Trump made up on the spot. It seemed to be racist (questionable if that is racism) but they also pushed back on Trump's idea we ingest bleach and things of that nature. I don't even know what you're talking about "major democrats" or whatever- so no I didn't fall for it. It seems you listened to them more than me, if it makes you feel better. I didn't know just like Trump didn't know at the time. It was a straight guess coming off the geographic location of things and the press called him on it. Maybe it was wrapped into "racism" more than I remember but I didn't ever explore that part. I just knew Trump didn't know either and so many slack-jawwed yokels would just repeat it as gospel.

But again, this wasn't an issue of free speech. You're grasping there.

The ACLU is interesting but it is one org and you're giving one example. I hadn't heard this but i'm not surprised either. Again, they are not necessarily representative of the left as a whole by any stretch. They're basically the equivalent of politicians. You do have a point here though.

I don't know who was prevented from talking about their opinion of the Hunter Biden laptop. I honestly believe you're unintentionally misremembering because you want there to be more evidence than there is. You seem to be conflating the press with being ]liberal and "free speech".

Of course I didn't care that private companies pushed Trump off. I can't stand the fucker. I can write up pages of why but it should be somewhat obvious to someone like you by now. Again - I am more of a Constitutionalist than guys on the right. That is my version of "free speech". You protect people/private entities from being forced to say certain things by the government. It is that simple.

Tell me a left-winger that rises to prominence off a lot of hateful things. That actually has a following. Then shows up at rightwing campuses to debate people? You show me that and i'll say you have a point. Yet I agree with you though Sharpiro should be allowed to speak but I'm not sure the school should be forced to be given a venue to him. This is a tough one but we have to agree some line should be drawn? if X% of the school signs off on it? I don't think anyone should get a venue at a school lol but I'm not sure how it should be determined.

Shapiro was not however "Chased" from a campus AFAIK. You make it sound like the liberal kids had pitchforks and not signs. Again, you are grasping a bit.

The kirk thing is pretty funny. The "oh he said this" interpretations - then the reinterpretations of some rightwing grifter who are actually more unrepresentative than the quotes they attacked. Kirk said some nasty things and was not a person to look up to outside of the fact that he was somewhat for free speech. (Even if they weeded out certain people and it wound up being blue haired girls with more emotions than sense for him to create viral click-bait.) But again - what does Kirk even have to do with this? The dude who shot him was 1 guy who was raised quite conservative then seemingly flipped and started to hate Kirk. Very very little to do with this discussion but I understand, you've been programmed. Ancedotal stuff.

We didn't go into all the contemporary book bannings outside of ACLU. Many of the books I don't care if they're removed from libraries but that is a distinctive thing coming from the right these days. Instead, we hear about 1 guy from the ACLU having an issue. (Which is interesting - I didn't know this)

I am not sure who is pro free speech. You have yet to really demonstrate much about how the left does the same. All these media orgs settling with trump for 8 figures instead of fighting it in court etc. Thats more concerning to me. It is a pay-off at this point.

BTW left-wingers are chased off schools a lot. Look at thsoe who are against the intentional famine in Gaza. You want to talk about free speech? You REALLY REALLY REALLY overlooked the elephant in the room. It is a text-book free-speech issue as per the Constitution. Between the funding issues and Trumps lawsuits we've seen this stuff ratcheted waaaay up by his administration.

Oh and Kimmel had the direct intervention by the FCC I believe. You also didn't bring up Colbert. It is hard to say - I never delved into his ratings to see how justified it is but the reality is people are concerned over Trump. He is a very vindicative person. This country HAS changed.

[kewlJ]

Here's what most likely really happened. The guy that got the ticket was selling plays. He seen that the machine was in advantage mode so he sat down and waited for an AP to come along that he could sell the play to. He did this because he knew that AP's constantly make laps around the machines checking for advantage plays. He knew that someone would come along.

So why would he do that? Because he doesn't have any money. He's flat broke and trying to get his hands on a little scratch. Just like the guy on the corner with the sign. Sometimes they come with a sob story "I put my last $200 in the machine and couldn't hit it. Can you help me out?" He didn't put a dime in the damn thing.

And a lot of times these guys are way over priced. They'll try to sell it to you for way more than it's worth.

I always froze those guys out. Wouldn't give them a dime no matter how good the play was. By paying them you are encouraging them to do it again and again. I always told other AP's not to do business with those idiots.

So my guess is the guy was a repeat offender and a pest so the casino/cops put him out of business permanently. It might have even been an AP that dropped a dime on him. He may have been observed in a few casinos.

The case might get thrown out but they don't have to deal with that guy anymore.

I have no doubt this is occurring, mickey. And they absolutely should crack down on that kind of shit. But I would think a citation for something like that would say something like solicitation rather that professional gambling. The specifity of "professional gambling" and the laws they have written in regards to that, makes me beleive it is a crack down on APs.

Either way, AP's should just be careful playing in Colorado and know there are extra road blocks.

[kewlJ]

That’s the whole point.

You don’t take it to the point casinos don’t tolerate it.



You learn how to milk them right up to the line & get them to give you incentives for coming back on top of it

This is a rather basic statement/concept, but one I think is overlooked. Knowing the tolerance levels, what is acceptable and isn't to different casinos, and even times of day at the same casino, is in my opinion the single biggest "key" to longevity. I like to think I have kind of specialized in that in regards to blackjack in Las Vegas. And that is why I have been able to play here for 16 years now, while the haters all doubt and wonder why? (and how)

[accountinquestion]

That’s the whole point.

You don’t take it to the point casinos don’t tolerate it.



You learn how to milk them right up to the line & get them to give you incentives for coming back on top of it

This is a rather basic statement/concept, but one I think is overlooked. Knowing the tolerance levels, what is acceptable and isn't to different casinos, and even times of day at the same casino, is in my opinion the single biggest "key" to longevity. I like to think I have kind of specialized in that in regards to blackjack in Las Vegas. And that is why I have been able to play here for 16 years now, while the haters all doubt and wonder why? (and how)

Brother, if they are breaking your bones while backrooming then you clearly fucked up somewhere about the line of "what they'll tolerate".

I'm not sure why you didnt' take that lawsuit to the limit and get 7 figures to stop fucking around red-chippin in downtown LV every other Saturday night.

[kewlJ]

Brother, if they are breaking your bones while backrooming then you clearly fucked up somewhere about the line of "what they'll tolerate".

I'm not sure why you didnt' take that lawsuit to the limit and get 7 figures to stop fucking around red-chippin in downtown LV every other Saturday night.

This post is just you trolling me, AinQ. NOTHING you said is true and most are Mdawg talking points. I don't play red chip. I don't play downtown.

I said at the time and will say again, that I probably...make that almost certainly got a little complacent during the backroom incident. When I am on my game, paying attention, that kind of thing could have never occurred.

[ZenKinG]

Only read part of this thread, but people like Rob dont seem to understand, it's not just the holding of the machine, but receiving payment for doing so. They SHOULD absolutely crack down on that bullshit as well as all team play should be cracked down period, including spotter/big player counting. I mean why is 'spooking'in blackjack illegal, but spotting/BP isnt?

Im not exactly for the goverent being the one to crack down on it though. Casinos really should only crack down on team play and forget ablut everything else. All team play is sketchy as fuck and it just creates wannabe APs that shouldnt be APs in the first place. If youre not good enough to make it solo, go work a job.

[smurgerburger]

Only read part of this thread, but people like Rob dont seem to understand, it's not just the holding of the machine, but receiving payment for doing so. They SHOULD absolutely crack down on that bullshit as well as all team play should be cracked down period, including spotter/big player counting. I mean why is 'spooking'in blackjack illegal, but spotting/BP isnt?

Im not exactly for the goverent being the one to crack down on it though. Casinos really should only crack down on team play and forget ablut everything else. All team play is sketchy as fuck and it just creates wannabe APs that shouldnt be APs in the first place. If youre not good enough to make it solo, go work a job.

Spooking gives a player at the table information not available to them through ordinary means.

Whereas in BP/spotter the BP could in principle have determined the count himself, but it would be too expensive or too obvious depending on how he bets.

I believe the distinction is something like that. You can look up the Nevada Supreme Court decision online.

[accountinquestion]

Here we go with another free speech issue.

https://www.wfla.com/news/national/a...THGiWY0vU0kMbg

Apple-takes-down-app-that-allows-people-to-track-and-anonymously-report-sightings-of-ice-agents

I can't get the URL to work but you get the gist. It is a whole different country we live in.

[mickeycrimm]

Here's what most likely really happened. The guy that got the ticket was selling plays. He seen that the machine was in advantage mode so he sat down and waited for an AP to come along that he could sell the play to. He did this because he knew that AP's constantly make laps around the machines checking for advantage plays. He knew that someone would come along.

So why would he do that? Because he doesn't have any money. He's flat broke and trying to get his hands on a little scratch. Just like the guy on the corner with the sign. Sometimes they come with a sob story "I put my last $200 in the machine and couldn't hit it. Can you help me out?" He didn't put a dime in the damn thing.

And a lot of times these guys are way over priced. They'll try to sell it to you for way more than it's worth.

I always froze those guys out. Wouldn't give them a dime no matter how good the play was. By paying them you are encouraging them to do it again and again. I always told other AP's not to do business with those idiots.

So my guess is the guy was a repeat offender and a pest so the casino/cops put him out of business permanently. It might have even been an AP that dropped a dime on him. He may have been observed in a few casinos.

The case might get thrown out but they don't have to deal with that guy anymore.

Decent theory, and very possibly true.

However, the one issue here is how this got disseminated to the public.

A guy named "Vegas T-bone" on X, who is some kind of Vegas-based AP, put this out on social media. Would he really be carrying water for some obnoxious Colorado AP who hogs machines in order to sell plays to vultures walking by?

There's no doubt the guy who held the machine was either broke or near broke, but I think there's a better chance that he scouts casinos for machines in positive states, then plops himself down and calls APs he knows in the area, and sees if they're willing to come down and buy the play from him. That's a little better than what you're describing, because he's not hogging machines and trying to sell to randoms. He's more acting as a spotter for a specific group of friends or associates.

The repeat offender part is a good theory. I had wondered that myself. Possibly the casino had witnessed him doing this multiple times, and finally decided to call the cops on him. If that's the case, it's not as bad as I thought, but I still don't like that law. Banning someone for doing this is fine, but hitting them with criminal charges? Get the fuck outta here...

Tbone is from Billings and has been living in Denver. He’s one of those thats been working the Colorado sportsbooks because of juicy promotions. We’ve conversed quite a bit. We have a mutual friend in Randy McKay. I guess Tbone probably knows the guy that got the ticket.

Cockammamie laws like this one goes back to Roy Roemer. I played poker in Colorado in 93, 94, 95 so familiar with the gambling there. The gaming was legalized in 1991. To get it they had to go over the head of very powerful 3 term governor, Roy Roemer. He was a devout christian and anti gambling zealot. He vowed to veto any legislation legalizing gambling. So they took it to a vote and it passed.

But Roemer had the right to appoint the gaming commission. So his appointee’s had zero gaming experience. They were appointed based on how squeaky clean of a christian they were. And their underlings had the same qualifications. Roemer thought gambling was an abomination infested with crooks and criminals and he was bound and determined to create and strictly enforce tough gaming laws that were as equally harsh on employee’s as gamblers.

They patterned the regulations after Nevada but with more bells and whistles. Hence this ‘professional gambling’ law. What could happen if you put “professional gambler” on your tax return? They have state income tax there.

[mickeycrimm]

Tbone pulled off a huge bet, at least in Montana, on the 2023 FCS championship game where Montana played South Dakota State. The line across the nation was SDS -13.5 -110.

Montana sportsbetting is run by the Montana Lottery. And the lines are horrible, generally -118 or -125 to start. The betting is done on the kiosks in the bars. Max bet is $250. So if you cash the ticket will pay $500.

From the video it looks like Tbone got in about a 35K wager on the game by hitting all the bars in Billings to distribute the wager. The national line never budged but in Montana so much money was bet on the Griz that the line moved all the way to SDS -10.5 +102.

Tbone is from Montana, and of course he’s a big Grizzly fan. But he didn’t let the fandom stand in the way of making a good bet. SDS won 23 to 3.

[mickeycrimm]

Deleted

[Garnabby]

Yeah, but how often do these guys, with the cockamamie nicknames, fuck up? Never hear about that. Ha.

You don't get a cockamamie nickname unless you're a fuckup.

[mickeycrimm]

Here are the videos tbone tweeted about the bet:

In the first video each ticket is worth $500. 2nd video is when he cashed most of them. When you cash out $500 tickets in the Montana bars you are subject to being payed with 20's or even a lot of 5's. I know the right casinos to go to in order to consolidate the money into hundreds.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1744135336945406166

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1744787379146182883