If you're thinking about donating money to food banks to help cover for SNAP shortages, here's the states with the highest rates of SNAP coverage.
Full list at the source and in the ALT text.
(Source: worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankin...)
Full list at the source and in the ALT text.
(Source: worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankin...)
October 31, 2025 at 3:53 AM
If you're thinking about donating money to food banks to help cover for SNAP shortages, here's the states with the highest rates of SNAP coverage.
Full list at the source and in the ALT text.
(Source: worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankin...)
Full list at the source and in the ALT text.
(Source: worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankin...)
my timeline blessed me with this
October 24, 2025 at 10:24 PM
my timeline blessed me with this
Okay, this is deranged, tho
October 21, 2025 at 7:33 AM
Okay, this is deranged, tho
As an ADHDer I can wholeheartedly recommend timer caps. Nothing to remember to do, it just resets the timer every time you open the bottle and restarts it when you close it again :)
October 12, 2025 at 2:59 AM
As an ADHDer I can wholeheartedly recommend timer caps. Nothing to remember to do, it just resets the timer every time you open the bottle and restarts it when you close it again :)
It is, in fact, for *all* datacenters, as shown by this graph that starts in 2010, based on bb's analysis.
You can see the growth is relatively steady in most places, although there are some upticks in places (especially VA) around 2022 that could very well be AI-related.
Source: archive.ph/6Aypw
You can see the growth is relatively steady in most places, although there are some upticks in places (especially VA) around 2022 that could very well be AI-related.
Source: archive.ph/6Aypw
September 30, 2025 at 10:03 PM
It is, in fact, for *all* datacenters, as shown by this graph that starts in 2010, based on bb's analysis.
You can see the growth is relatively steady in most places, although there are some upticks in places (especially VA) around 2022 that could very well be AI-related.
Source: archive.ph/6Aypw
You can see the growth is relatively steady in most places, although there are some upticks in places (especially VA) around 2022 that could very well be AI-related.
Source: archive.ph/6Aypw
No joke, I just won (10 heads ending) with 678 flips.
As a game designer myself, I am fully aware of how absurdly lucky that is.
gg, ez
As a game designer myself, I am fully aware of how absurdly lucky that is.
gg, ez
September 26, 2025 at 1:55 AM
No joke, I just won (10 heads ending) with 678 flips.
As a game designer myself, I am fully aware of how absurdly lucky that is.
gg, ez
As a game designer myself, I am fully aware of how absurdly lucky that is.
gg, ez
Emil is all grown up :D
September 21, 2025 at 12:20 AM
Emil is all grown up :D
36% of those with *confirmed COVID cases* have *ever* had Long COVID.
"We caution that our pooled prevalence estimates represent the percentage of individuals who *ever* experienced long COVID symptoms... "
LC is a serious problem. It's also important to present facts in a factual manner.
"We caution that our pooled prevalence estimates represent the percentage of individuals who *ever* experienced long COVID symptoms... "
LC is a serious problem. It's also important to present facts in a factual manner.
![Screenshot of the "Discussion" section of the paper:
We synthesized information from 442 studies, with 429 contributing to the meta-analysis. Our findings suggest a global long COVID prevalence of approximately 36% among individuals with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, with large heterogeneity across studies. Thus, as a precaution, these results should be compared with national benchmark estimates when available. We estimated the prevalence of long COVID at 29% (95% CI, 21%–37%) among individuals with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis in the US. Our result is strikingly similar to the report by the Household Pulse Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau, in which the most proximal survey in phase 4.2 (20 August to 16 September 2024) estimated 29.8% (95% CI, 28.7%–30.8%) among adults who had ever experienced COVID-19 symptoms lasting ≥3 months [13].
We caution that our pooled prevalence estimates represent the percentage of individuals who ever experienced long COVID symptoms during study follow-up, rather than those who are currently experiencing symptoms at a specific point in time, among those with a history of COVID-19. Therefore, our pooled estimates may overstate the clinical burden of long COVID. For comparison, the same Household Pulse Survey mentioned in the previous paragraph reported that 8.7% (95% CI, 8.1%–9.3%) of US adults who have ever had COVID-19 currently experience long COVID symptoms. However, only 24.3% of adults who currently experience long COVID symptoms in phase 4.2 reported significant activity limitations, indicating that for most, the clinical burden of long COVID does not interfere with daily activities [13].](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rzolk7dpxpcemoewsymgzcxk/bafkreicm4lw36dlwas4f7drcf2g3m7hpdgp4izphu3s64zhmcksz3vcevu@jpeg)
September 17, 2025 at 2:06 AM
36% of those with *confirmed COVID cases* have *ever* had Long COVID.
"We caution that our pooled prevalence estimates represent the percentage of individuals who *ever* experienced long COVID symptoms... "
LC is a serious problem. It's also important to present facts in a factual manner.
"We caution that our pooled prevalence estimates represent the percentage of individuals who *ever* experienced long COVID symptoms... "
LC is a serious problem. It's also important to present facts in a factual manner.
This is obviously edited. Look at all the smudging around her hands.
It wasn't hard to find the original.
Are you unaware that it's fake, or are you posting lies on purpose?
twitter.com/i/status/136...
It wasn't hard to find the original.
Are you unaware that it's fake, or are you posting lies on purpose?
twitter.com/i/status/136...
September 9, 2025 at 10:57 PM
This is obviously edited. Look at all the smudging around her hands.
It wasn't hard to find the original.
Are you unaware that it's fake, or are you posting lies on purpose?
twitter.com/i/status/136...
It wasn't hard to find the original.
Are you unaware that it's fake, or are you posting lies on purpose?
twitter.com/i/status/136...
You seem to be using the number for Cisgender Female mass shooters instead of the number for Transgender mass shooters.
Your "130 / 2m" should be "4 / 2m".
And per your other post, the divisor should be 3m, as well.
Reading is also important!
(Your rate-per-100k math is also wrong, somehow.)
Your "130 / 2m" should be "4 / 2m".
And per your other post, the divisor should be 3m, as well.
Reading is also important!
(Your rate-per-100k math is also wrong, somehow.)
September 2, 2025 at 7:49 PM
You seem to be using the number for Cisgender Female mass shooters instead of the number for Transgender mass shooters.
Your "130 / 2m" should be "4 / 2m".
And per your other post, the divisor should be 3m, as well.
Reading is also important!
(Your rate-per-100k math is also wrong, somehow.)
Your "130 / 2m" should be "4 / 2m".
And per your other post, the divisor should be 3m, as well.
Reading is also important!
(Your rate-per-100k math is also wrong, somehow.)
Nah, it's proper AP style to use an apostrophe in single-letter pluralizations, as in "The student got straight A's".
English is just strange like that.
English is just strange like that.
August 8, 2025 at 11:13 PM
Nah, it's proper AP style to use an apostrophe in single-letter pluralizations, as in "The student got straight A's".
English is just strange like that.
English is just strange like that.
Yep, that's the other wall.
I would have guessed that was a (bad) render if I hadn't seen the rest of the photos of the house, though.
I would have guessed that was a (bad) render if I hadn't seen the rest of the photos of the house, though.
July 27, 2025 at 11:02 PM
Yep, that's the other wall.
I would have guessed that was a (bad) render if I hadn't seen the rest of the photos of the house, though.
I would have guessed that was a (bad) render if I hadn't seen the rest of the photos of the house, though.
My feed made me do a double-take
July 20, 2025 at 12:25 AM
My feed made me do a double-take
It's still up on his Twitter as of 10am PST.
Chuck meant what he said, he just isn't willing to take any pressure for it, which is exactly what I expect from him.
Chuck meant what he said, he just isn't willing to take any pressure for it, which is exactly what I expect from him.
June 18, 2025 at 5:03 PM
It's still up on his Twitter as of 10am PST.
Chuck meant what he said, he just isn't willing to take any pressure for it, which is exactly what I expect from him.
Chuck meant what he said, he just isn't willing to take any pressure for it, which is exactly what I expect from him.
You mean a black shirt, jeans, and a face mask?
That's my everyday wear.
That's my everyday wear.
June 17, 2025 at 8:58 PM
You mean a black shirt, jeans, and a face mask?
That's my everyday wear.
That's my everyday wear.
It reminds me of *the* haunted painting, "The Hands Resist Him"
June 14, 2025 at 3:02 AM
It reminds me of *the* haunted painting, "The Hands Resist Him"
This is sitting on my counter at home
June 4, 2025 at 10:27 PM
This is sitting on my counter at home
Here's the Lavasioth hitzones, may be useful in fighting climate change (apparently)
May 29, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Here's the Lavasioth hitzones, may be useful in fighting climate change (apparently)
ChatGPT *can* answer the question correctly - but it also *can* answer it entirely incorrectly, especially if the prompt is phrased in a convoluted or leading way.
Either way, it will answer with absolute confidence, which is what makes it so insidiously dangerous.
It won't even "know" it's lying.
Either way, it will answer with absolute confidence, which is what makes it so insidiously dangerous.
It won't even "know" it's lying.
May 21, 2025 at 9:56 AM
ChatGPT *can* answer the question correctly - but it also *can* answer it entirely incorrectly, especially if the prompt is phrased in a convoluted or leading way.
Either way, it will answer with absolute confidence, which is what makes it so insidiously dangerous.
It won't even "know" it's lying.
Either way, it will answer with absolute confidence, which is what makes it so insidiously dangerous.
It won't even "know" it's lying.
