Dank Koala

@SuperShadowKin @skdh Blue = you want everyone to live Red = you are okay with up to half of everyone dying

@skdh Its such an easy choice. Red = you live Blue = you might live

my takeaway from the red/blue button discussion is that if anyone asks, you say you pressed blue

@waitbutwhy Blue obviously, I don't want anyone to die, and I can't believe less than 50% wouldn't either. Red button pushers only worry about themselves. The colors used seem relevant somehow...

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

@JonAlba There's no accounting for taste.

The greatest band in the world. The legendary E Street Band.

@montypython I believe the actual quote is "'ow 'bout one potato, two potato, sir?"

Straws? Ships? Potatoes…? #MontyPython

@gecffmn What Mandela effect madness is this? I could have sworn he jumped a shark in a swimming pool with his motorcycle!

How many of my friends can say that they waited for this cliffhanger?

@UAPWatchers @LegacyProgramVP WTF is a "grip wet wipe"?

@LegacyProgramVP 'Posts like this' Ones that report on what has been said? Get a grip wet wipe.

🚨Spielberg: Disclosure Day "Closer to Truth” than you might think. Steven Spielberg premiered a new trailer at CinemaCon on Wednesday for Disclosure Day, which revealed the alien. The film's plot has mostly been shrouded in secrecy, but during the Cinemacon trailer more was revealed including an alien. Spielberg stated that nothing from the third act will be released in any marketing material, so that makes the fact that an alien has been revealed already, pretty incredible. He also said that the message of the movie was closer to the truth than fiction, and tells the audience to bring a seat belt and buckle up... #ufotwitter #uapX

@center4inquiry Lemme guess! Bupkis?

A man says he can send messages telepathically, so we tested it. What happens when belief meets a protocol? Here's a controlled experiment built with a critical thinking class and run through the CFIIG Paranormal Challenge: skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/cfi-…

(exhales on fingernails, rubs on chest) Wordle 1,760 3/6 ⬛⬛⬛⬛🟩 ⬛⬛⬛🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

@KevinlyFather @MeidasTouch @FlipEmBlue Well, I lost my appetite, so demand did go down a little bit...

@MeidasTouch @FlipEmBlue I wonder how much that lowered the price of groceries?

Trump at a UFC event last night told fighter Paulo Costa he’s too good-looking to fight. “You’re a beautiful guy. You could be a model, you look so good.” This was what Trump was doing as negotiations with Iran imploded.

@ExploreCosmos_ One to scale would be even more majestic, is all I'm sayin'

When a spacecraft leaves Earth, it doesn’t just fire its engines and head straight to its destination. In many missions, especially those going beyond low Earth orbit, there’s a more subtle and elegant strategy at play, one that uses gravity itself as part of the navigation system. This is often called a gravity assist, or a slingshot maneuver. But in the case of missions like #Artemis II, what’s being used is a closely related idea known as a free-return trajectory. At first glance, it might sound simple: the spacecraft goes to the Moon, loops around it, and comes back. But the physics behind it is anything but simple. Instead of relying on continuous propulsion, the spacecraft follows a carefully calculated path through the gravitational field of the Earth–Moon system. It is launched with just the right speed and direction so that, as it approaches the Moon, the Moon’s gravity bends its trajectory. The spacecraft is effectively flung around the Moon, redirected onto a path that naturally brings it back toward Earth. No major engine burn is needed for the return. Small trajectory corrections may still be required, but gravity does the heavy lifting. That’s the key. This kind of trajectory is not just efficient, it’s also safe. If something goes wrong with the spacecraft’s engines or onboard systems, gravity itself ensures the return. It’s an inherent backup plan, built into the trajectory from the very beginning. The same fundamental idea appears in gravity assists used across the Solar System. When a spacecraft flies past a planet, it can gain or lose speed by exchanging momentum with that planet. From the spacecraft’s point of view, it’s as if it has been accelerated without using fuel. In reality, it has borrowed a tiny amount of orbital energy from the planet itself. That’s how missions like Voyager reached the outer planets, and how probes continue to explore regions far beyond what their onboard fuel alone would allow. But there’s an important distinction. An interplanetary gravity assist is typically used to change speed and direction, often increasing the spacecraft’s energy. A free-return trajectory, like the one used in Artemis II, is designed for something more specific: a path that naturally loops back to Earth without requiring additional propulsion. It’s less about gaining energy, and more about shaping a trajectory that guarantees a return. To understand why this works, it helps to stop thinking in straight lines. In space, motion follows curves defined by gravity. The spacecraft is constantly falling, first toward Earth, then toward the Moon, and then back toward Earth again. What looks like a loop is really a continuous free fall through a changing gravitational landscape. This way of navigating space reveals something deeper. We tend to think of engines as the drivers of motion, but once a spacecraft is on its way, gravity does most of the work. The art of spaceflight is not just about thrust. It’s about knowing when not to use it. #GoodLuck #Artemis @NASAArtemis

@ardwen2 @SkylineReport The place so weird, they just released a pinball machine themed after it!

@SkylineReport Reminds me of that mansion in CA that was built by the eccentric woman that literally has stairs to nowhere etc

🚨 BREAKING: Architects Rip Trump’s $400M White House Ballroom as “Vanity Project” with Basic Design Failures March 29, 2026 | 6:30 PM CDT Trump’s proposed White House ballroom is getting torched by architects after new renderings revealed something almost impressive in its incompetence: a massive, $400M building that doesn’t function properly on paper. According to The New York Times, the 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom—nearly double the size of the White House residence—has barely undergone meaningful scrutiny despite its scale and cost. What they found is… not subtle: * Stairs that go nowhere * Columns blocking sightlines inside the ballroom * Fake windows * A bloated, disproportionate portico * A layout that doesn’t logically connect This isn’t “bold design.” This is Architecture 101 getting its ass kicked. Architectural critics say the project mimics classical style without understanding it. Translation: columns and symmetry slapped on like stage props with no structural logic behind them. One critic described it as the “phantom of modernization”—a building that looks important but collapses under basic design scrutiny. Meanwhile, public reaction is brutal: ~98% of 32,000 comments oppose the project. And somehow, this thing is still moving forward—with reports that Trump was still changing core specs late in the process, including increasing capacity long after that phase should’ve been locked. Which explains a lot. What this actually is: Not modernization. Not infrastructure. It’s a $400 million branding exercise pretending to be architecture. A giant, taxpayer-adjacent monument to the idea that if you make something big enough, people won’t notice it doesn’t work. Except… they did. References [1] Architectural Record (2026) "The White House Ballroom and the Phantom of Modernization" architecturalrecord.com/articles/18067… [2] The New York Times (Mar 29, 2026) "Trump’s White House Ballroom Draws Criticism Over Design Flaws" nytimes.com/interactive/20… [3] Yahoo News (2026) "Stairs That Lead Nowhere? Trump White House Ballroom Criticized" yahoo.com/news/articles/… [4] Architectural Record (@ArchRecord) (2026) "Phantom of modernization" critique x.com/ArchRecord/sta… [5] The Daily Beast (2025) "Trump East Wing Ballroom Trashed Over ‘Humiliating Design Flaws’" thedailybeast.com/trump-east-win… [6] The New York Times (Oct 21, 2025) "Architects Raise Concerns Over Trump Ballroom Design Review Process" nytimes.com/2025/10/21/art…

@vabchlove @hwinkler4real Irregardless, there's nothing wrong with the word irregardless.

@hwinkler4real I would not use the word irregardless, it’s just regardless.

Yes

@nothatpaulallen @Feijoa_Chutney @PastorAlexLove I was going to say, looks like Lemmy

@Feijoa_Chutney @PastorAlexLove Nope. Jesus was a bass player.

Atheists, if JESUS is not real then please explain this.

Joshua Haymes & Brooks Potteiger (Pete Hegseth's pastor) pray imprecatory psalms against James Talarico: "I pray that God kills him. Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ ... If it would not be within God's will to do so, stop him by any means necessary."

@montypython Kilimanjaro's a tricky climb, it's up, up, up until you reach the very top, then it tends to slope away rather sharply

Safe travels... Sir. #MonthyPython

@michaelshermer Do you ever think, as you read your own book out loud, that you should have worded something differently, but you're stuck with what was published? Just curious.

Recording the audio edition of Truth, out in a month, 100 pages in 6 hours with 5 minute breaks between chapters and a 1-hour lunch break. 2 more days to go!

@ThrillaRilla369 I used to use, get the munchies... So yeah

Did you use to eat egg sandwiches back in the day when times were rough

@WillieHandler I don't normally drink coffee on actual days, so this will be extra easy

I'm going to do it. How about joining me.

@iamAtheistGirl Yummy! I gotta try one with Spam like they do in Hawaii!

pineapple on pizza is delicious