Okay, that's a fair point. They left too many blanks for the reader to fill in, and some will assume the problem is more widespread than it is.
When I put my Social Scientist hat on, I don't think the methodology was totally unreasonable or obviously malicious, so X would have to strengthen their claims to convince me to wait for court. But you're right, MM should have done better.
I agree with your point in general, but I have a hard time applying it here. Unless the lawsuit alleges that MM hacked into Twitter or doctored the screenshots, then the core claim of the MM report "Twitter served ad Y next to post Z" is not under dispute. If the claim is that refreshing a page is malicious, then I don't think we need to wait to call the lawsuit malicious.
This is a beautiful blog post and I recommend reading it. I never used Omegle, but I now understand what we've lost.
PineTime checks these boxes for under $30. The caveat being that it's an open source project without fancy features. Also, the heart rate monitor doesn't work well on my skin, but it works for some people.
I love my PineTime, but I stopped using it because I wanted sleep tracking.
The tech that made this possible is really cool. They force DNA through a teeny-tiny hole in a protein, and measure changes in voltage to ID each individual letter.
Totally different from traditional shotgun sequencing!