From ABC via The Daily Sneed

‘A man walked into a Walgreens in Madera and killed an employee because police say he had a grudge against large pharmacies.’

- ABC 30 pic.twitter.com/KOmOMArGdY

— The Daily Sneed™ (@Tr00peRR) April 2, 2025

Round capy butt and block face + Squirrely limbs

They weigh 5-13lbs so pretty large for a rodent. A lot of these pics make them seem smaller than they are.

Human for scale

Some whining for food noises in this vid

They mostly eat nuts which they bury everywhere like squirrels

They thump like

I can't find any vids of them really moving fast

Range

!animalposters discuss

Motive unknown chuds

Why a Christian elementary school tho, what's up with that?

Strongest pooner needed weak prey, JFC

She just wanted to die where she was happiest!

I don't know if I believe a word of this but it's incredibly if true.

No way the cops the cops would cover up her wanting to kill transphobic christo fascists? Surely not.

Realizing I'm into hot husbanding has been a big revelation and it feels like things have moved super quickly, but OH MY GOODNESS I am so into this

!metashit @Discuss

Happy lil boi!

!animalposters !cats

Is it even worth going and collecting the hundreds to thousands of meltdowns from modmail dms pings and random whining threads about "it wasn't ok changing everyone's name for a day as a joke" on wpd/l

I can't imagine anyone will read them

Anyway this guy was my favorite

UPDATE HE IS CURRENTLY DOUBLE TEXTING AT SNAPPY DEFENDING HIMSELF

Members of President Donald Trump's National Security Council, including White House national security adviser Michael Waltz, have conducted government business over personal Gmail accounts, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post and interviews with three U.S. officials.

The use of Gmail, a far less secure method of communication than the encrypted messaging app Signal, is the latest example of questionable data security practices by top national security officials already under fire for the mistaken inclusion of a journ*list in a group chat about high-level planning for military operations in Yemen.

A senior Waltz aide used the commercial email service for highly technical conversations with colleagues at other government agencies involving sensitive military positions and powerful weapons systems relating to an ongoing conflict, according to emails reviewed by The Post. While the NSC official used his Gmail account, his interagency colleagues used government-issued accounts, headers from the email correspondence show.

Waltz has had less sensitive, but potentially exploitable information sent to his Gmail, such as his schedule and other work documents, said officials, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe what they viewed as problematic handling of information. The officials said Waltz would sometimes copy and paste from his schedule into Signal to coordinate meetings and discussions.

The use of personal email, even for unclassified materials, is risky given the premium value foreign intelligence services place on the communications and schedules of senior government officials, such as the national security adviser, experts say.

NSC spokesman Brian Hughes said he has seen no evidence of Waltz using his personal email as described and said on occasions when "legacy contacts" have emailed him work-related materials, he makes sure to "cc" his government email to ensure compliance with federal records laws that require officials to archive official correspondence.

"Waltz didn't and wouldn't send classified information on an open account," said Hughes.

When asked about a Waltz staffer discussing sensitive military matters over Gmail, Hughes said NSC staff have guidance about using "only secure platforms for classified information."

Waltz has also created and hosted other Signal chats with Cabinet members on sensitive topics, including on Somalia and Russia's war in Ukraine, said a senior administration official. The existence of those groups was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.

Hughes said that Signal "is approved and in some cases is added automatically to government devices." He acknowledged that it is not supposed to be used for classified material and insisted Waltz never used it as such.

Waltz's creation of a Signal group chat that discussed sensitive information and included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic and a prominent critic of President Donald Trump, has rankled the president and frustrated other Cabinet members whose communications were exposed on the chat.

Publicly, Trump has strongly backed Waltz, but on Wednesday he met with Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and others to discuss whether to keep him on. A day later, he informed aides he was not firing Waltz, but it was largely out of a desire to avoid giving the "liberal media a scalp," said a senior administration official.

"This incident badly damaged Waltz," said the official, who noted that the national security adviser was told after the meeting that he needed to be more deferential to Wiles. The Wednesday meeting was first reported by the New York Times.

Data security experts have expressed alarm that U.S. national security professionals are not more readily using the government's suite of secure encrypted systems for work communications such as JWICS, the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System.

Most concerning, however, is the use of personal email, which is widely acknowledged to be susceptible to hacking, spearfishing and other types of digital compromise.

"Unless you are using GPG, email is not end-to-end encrypted, and the contents of a message can be intercepted and read at many points, including on Google's email servers," said Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

National security experts have expressed alarm over the administration's denial that the leaked Signal chat contained classified information.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's comments in the Signal chat detailed the sequencing, timing and weapons systems in advance of the Trump administration's March attack on Houthi militants in Yemen, potentially jeopardizing U.S. airmen headed into harm's way.

In the chat, Waltz offered a brief but highly specific after-action report of the strikes, revealing that the military had "positive ID" of a senior Houthi leader "walking into his girlfriend's building" — pointing to what intelligence sources would later confirm was Israeli surveillance capabilities shared with the United States. Israeli officials expressed frustration that their capabilities were made public.

U.S. officials say Trump is much more upset about the inclusion of a liberal journ*list on a confidential group chat than he is about exposing secrets to foreign adversaries. But White House officials have found Waltz's denials increasingly hard to believe.

Waltz, who added Goldberg to the chat, told Fox News: "I take full responsibility. I built the group." But he has subsequently said Goldberg's contact information was "sucked into" his phone somehow and that he's never met or talked to the journ*list despite a newly circulated photo of the two men near each other at an event at the French ambassador's residence in Washington.

"He's telling everyone that he's never met me or spoken to me. That's simply not true," Goldberg told "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"This isn't 'The Matrix.' Phone numbers don't just get sucked into other phones," he added.

Waltz, the first Green Beret elected to Congress and an adviser to former vice president Peepee Cheney, has long pontificated about the importance of classified information and harshly criticized the Justice Department for not pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for using a private email server as secretary of state.

"What did DOJ do about it? Not a darn thing," Waltz wrote on social media in June 2023. The FBI investigated Clinton's use of the private server and concluded no criminal charges were warranted. FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have given no indication that Trump officials' use of Signal for sensitive information will be investigated, with Bondi saying the material shared was not classified.

While most Trump administration officials have downplayed the Signal breach publicly, some have acknowledged it was a significant mishap.

"Obviously, someone made a mistake. Someone made a big mistake," Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters during a trip last week to Jamaica.

Rubio and his staff, who have years of experience with classified intelligence from his former role as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are known for taking operational security seriously, said a senior U.S. official.

Rubio noted that his contributions in the Signal chat were minimal.

"Just speaking for my role, I contributed to it twice," Rubio told reporters. "I identified my point of contact, which is my chief of staff, and then later on … I congratulated the members of the team."

On Sunday, Trump dismissed the controversy as a politically motivated attack. "I don't fire people because of fake news and because of witch hunts," he said.

Hughes, the NSC spokesman, said that "Mike serves at the pleasure of President Trump and the President has voiced his support for the National Security Advisor multiple times this week."

While Democrats have seized on the incident as evidence of incompetence, some in the MAGA wing of the Republican Party have assailed Waltz as a George W. Bush-aligned neoconservative, circulating a video from 2016 in which he condemned Trump as a draft-dodger, saying "Stop Trump now."

"The chattering of unnamed sources should be treated with the skepticism of gossip from people lacking the integrity to attach their names," Hughes said.

When asked about the senior aide's use of Gmail for highly sensitive topics, Hughes said it is "unreasonable to ask for comment on an email you refuse to provide for my review." The Post accepted the emails on the condition that it would not disclose the materials in full.

A key mark in Waltz's favor is that the breach was discovered by a left-of-center media outlet and not conservative media, officials said.

"The one thing saving his job is that Trump doesn't want to give Jeff Goldberg a scalp," said a second administration official. "Despite all of Trump's attacks on the 'fake news,' he still reads the papers, and he doesn't like seeing this stuff."

!nonchuds !khive

So Trump finally found out that Lesotho exists and that they've been ripping off the US very badly for decades?

!nooticers

"It breaks my brain sometimes," Dennis Rosloniec told me. For half a decade now, the 44-year-old media technician and mountain biker from Green Bay, Wisconsin, has done everything he can to understand the risks of getting COVID. He's read the published studies. He's looked at meta-analyses. And here's the truth as far as he can tell: Each time he's infected, the chances that something really bad will happen to his body ratchet up a little higher.

Dennis is not immunocompromised. He doesn't have a chronic illness. He's not obese or hypertensive or unvaccinated. He's just a thoughtful autodidact, the kind of guy who references both The Simpsons and the Stoics as he talks. "I'm a fairly large, fit, white dude, for lack of a better term," he said. But even now, in 2025, Dennis Rosloniec is afraid of COVID. Someone else might say he's strangely so.

Dennis is still masking quite a bit. He's wary of attending indoor social gatherings unless they seem especially important. And he's been taking sundry extra measures to protect himself, based on fledgling research that he's either heard about or read online, since 2020, when he bought a tube of ivermectin, the antiparasitic drug that was repurposed as a highly suspect COVID treatment, "out of anxiety" while awaiting the vaccines. Later on, he tried iota-carrageenan nasal spray, which he used as a hedge against COVID infection until "the science became sort of iffy on it." These days, he keeps a bottle of cetylpyridinium-chloride mouthwash in his desk, so he can gargle when he thinks he might have been exposed. And he's got a prophylactic nasal rinse, which, actually, he's come to sort of like for reasons that don't have much to do with COVID. "I breathe better through my nose when I use it."

As a masker---and as a mouthwash guy and a nasal-rinser---Dennis knows he's out of step with almost everyone he sees in person. "You feel pressure from the world," he told me. "It makes you question, Is this really worth it?" But he also knows that certain others share his sense of caution, or even worry more than he does. He interacts with them online, on message boards for "COVID conscious" conversation. Theirs is a kind of shadow world where the fears and obligations felt by everyone in early 2020 never really went away, and lockdowns still persist in private.

Members of these groups say they're only doing what they've always done since the start of the pandemic: In the parlance of the boards, they're "still COVID-ing." But some are also going further to protect themselves than they did in 2020, and seeking out new strategies for staying safe. They share https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HsLGbGf7QGKSJiT7fsBf8YLn0PftAjqvkfRu8O5JTK4/edit?tab=t.0 online for how to fit their N95 masks, or for taping filters to the spouts of snorkels so they can safely visit indoor pools. They talk about the challenges of COVID-conscious parenting, and meet up for COVID-conscious church events on Sunday Zooms. They share lists of COVID-conscious therapists who would never try to tell you that you're too afraid of getting sick, or that your risk perception is distorted, or that the problem here is not the world's but your own.

The pressure that they feel from others used to be a little worse. Not so long ago, just the sight of someone in a mask was read as a reproach, a sanctimonious demand that lockdowns should continue for us all. Or maybe it was taken as "a reminder of how awful the last few years had been," Lauren Wilde, a COVID-conscious therapist in Washington State, told me---"of how many people had died, of how much it sucked to get COVID." But now that tension has started to subside. When people walk around in masks in 2025, or insist on having lunch outside even in the dead of winter, they find that their cautious habits earn them fewer angry looks. They're less reviled than they used to be. They're more often just ignored.

Amid the nation's mass indifference, their isolation has only gotten more intense. Their epistemic bubble has been shrinking too. This used to be the group that was most attuned to what "the science" said; the ones who paid attention to the dots painted on the sidewalk, six feet apart. In the past few years, as official rules for social distancing have been revoked, they've had to make up new ones for themselves. As standard COVID medicines grew ever more expensive, they've had to scour for alternatives. And as basic research on the virus hit a wall, they've had no choice but to do their own. "The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said last week, as local health departments braced themselves for funding cuts.

The COVID-conscious people have not abandoned science, Dennis told me. It's the opposite: They've come to think that science has abandoned them.

If the evermaskers seem a little weirder every year, that's because, in many ways, they haven't changed at all. At a basic level, their COVID-conscious attitudes may not be so far from the mainstream. Twenty-one percent of Americans still think of the disease as "a major threat" to public health, according to a recent poll from Pew Research Center. Thirty-nine percent say we're not "taking it seriously enough." But if 50 million to 100 million adults harbor such concerns, very few are doing much about them. Masking rates were once as high as 88 percent; now they're close to nil.

For those who still maintain their masking habit---4 percent, says Pew---the whiplash in social norms has been a shock. When masking mandates went away for public transportation, in the spring of 2022, viral videos showed people cheering as they ripped the fabric off their face. Wilde told me she remembered feeling how "it was like, nothing has actually changed, apart from the fact that someone with authority has said you don't have to do this anymore. COVID is still risky; it's still a new disease; we don't know what happens 10 years after you've had it." Why was everyone so quick to abandon those concerns?

The coronavirus never stopped its killing rampage: Hundreds of Americans die from it every week, even now in March of 2025, when the pandemic emergency is over and the virus is theoretically offseason. Nearly 50,000 people died from COVID in the U.S. last year, too. (The disease remains among the nation's leading causes of death, on par with traffic accidents and suicides.) Yet even those alarming figures seem to matter less to COVID-conscious people than the vaguer risk of long-term complications. "It's less about death, because if you die that sucks but you're dead," said Tess, a 35-year-old public-health researcher who asked to use her first name only, so that her professional work would not be connected to her COVID advocacy. "It's disability. It's living through it." Tess told me that she already has long COVID, with brain fog and some loss of function in her lungs. "I want to maintain whatever health I have, and not make it worse," she said.

Nancy, a 69-year-old woman who runs two weekly Zooms for COVID-conscious people from her home, and who requested to be identified by only her first name out of concern for her privacy, said that she and many members of her groups were less afraid of death than of a "reduction in our quality of life." "Some of the data shows that if you keep catching it over and over and over again, that your chances of developing long COVID increase," she told me, "and it also gradually weakens your immune system."

Other data tell a different story, though. Some studies do suggest an ever-growing threat of long-term symptoms with each new SARS-CoV-2 infection. But according to the U.K.'s Office of National Statistics, which did perhaps the most thorough tracking of long-COVID rates through late 2022, the risk of long-term complications had been going down with reinfection. And although the coronavirus has produced several major spikes of new infections across the past five years, the proportion of those in the U.S. who report having disabilities has been either stable or increasing at a steady pace (depending on which agency's data and definitions you consult). That means it hasn't tracked each COVID wave the way that deaths have. According to one sensible interpretation, the risk of long-term disability was greatest early on in the pandemic, but long COVID's threat, like the threat of COVID overall, has been fading over time.

The truth, or its best approximation, may be, to some extent, irrelevant. How any given person will perceive a threat is "a deeply psychological phenomenon," Steven Taylor, a clinical psychologist at the University of British Columbia and the author of The New Psychology of Pandemics, told me, and one that is "influenced by values, your past history, your medical history, and your mental-health history." (In the U.S., at least, people's sense of risk from COVID, in particular, also has a strong connection to their politics.) Unless someone's COVID-cautious habits have been causing major problems in their life, there's no point in trying to discourage them, Taylor said. "I would let people choose their level of comfort with threats. That's their decision."

Yes, the evermaskers have assessed the costs and benefits of keeping up precautions. And yes, they say they're happy with the trade-off, despite the many people who claim to know they've chosen wrong.

"There are some things that I miss," Tess told me. "I miss a good punk-rock show where we're all sweaty in the pit and that kind of stuff. That's not necessarily something I'm gonna do now, but I have an approximation of it when I go to an outdoor punk show and I let everybody else go in the pit." Nancy told me that she and her husband still have active social lives. They converse with neighbors from a distance: "We just holler and say hi to each other. It's not like we're living as monks or something, in total isolation." And then she has all the people from her Zoom groups. "I think I have more friends now than I ever had in my life," she said.

Certain challenges persist. Private or domestic disagreements over COVID-conscious choices---how to navigate the holidays, what to say to friends, which rules apply to kids---never go away. Nancy and her husband have two grown children and nine grandkids, all of whom have "gone on" from COVID, as she puts it. "There's always a child that's sniffling or coughing and you don't know what's going on," she said. "We don't like to make a big deal about it, so if we meet with them, we usually meet outside and do things outside together, but it's hard." Tess said she separated from her husband last year, in part because at one point he'd taken off his mask at work without telling her, got infected, and then passed along the illness. "Somebody who, literally, I just got married to, who I'm supposed to trust, lied to me, took away my agency, and got me sick," she said. But moving out has not been easy: Any roommate she might find would need to share her views on COVID safety. (For now, she's still living with her ex in a small apartment in the Bronx.)

Politics provide another potent source of conflict. Many COVID-conscious people are progressives and identify as advocates for those with disabilities. On Instagram, calls for staying COVID safe may be tethered to appeals to anti-racism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Zionism. For a set of people who feel a broader sense of crisis in America and despair at recent actions of the U.S. government, these concerns are additive. Having to accept the risk of getting COVID, Wilde told me, is just one more way "to feel like someone is trying to force something on you that you don't want."

A version of that complaint was once associated with people on the opposite end of COVID caution: those who resisted lockdowns and refused to wear masks. They voiced frustration, like the evermaskers do today, at a government that neglected their concerns, and at a public-health establishment that failed to meet their needs. Like the evermaskers, they felt forced to find their own approach to staying safe while other people yelled that they were wrong. I asked Wilde if she thought there might be some affinities between her own mindset and the one of parents who are opposed to vaccination, still another group of those who have come to trust their own judgment more than the government's. "There's a lot of overlap there. There just is," she said. "That isn't to say the people who are anti-vax have valid points at all. It's just saying---and I say this a lot to the people I work with---being human is really hard."

People tend to make it easier on themselves by remaining settled in the cultural mainstream. Those who break from that current may end up drifting past the limits of what's agreed upon by scientists. Wilde gargles mouthwash when she feels at risk of an exposure to COVID; she also uses a nasal spray. She understands the weakness of the evidence---published trials of the cetylpyridinium-chloride mouthwash, for example, have found only the barest hints of its potential as a prophylactic---but what other cowtools does she have at her disposal? "Maybe these things don't have any impact at all," she said. Still, they've helped her get through some scary situations---and when it comes to scary situations, she treasures any help at all.

Dennis has a similar attitude. "Does it do anything? I'm not convinced," he said of the mouthwash. "But, you know, it's something that I can do." He doesn't trust everything he sees on COVID-conscious message boards, but at the very least, they let him know that other people in the world see risks the way he does. That's important in itself. He said he took a recent flight to Ireland, and a small contingent of people were masking on the plane. One couple even tried to kiss each other with their masks in place. "Their faces did this high-five kind of thing ... I was like, That's really sweet. It just made me smile," Dennis said. "We're human beings, we want to belong to a tribe, right? We want to feel that sense of belonging." Five years ago, it felt like everyone was in his tribe; it felt like all Americans were together in their fear of the unknown. Now that fear provides a rarer bond: togetherness in eccentricity, the communion of avoiding crowds.

neolibs also feeling the pain of no bottom feeder fruit pickers

https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1jo7n3c/californiamexico_border_once_overwhelmed_now/

Top Drama

Score	Post	Community	Votes	Comments
[ ]	I am going to end up hating women all together	ConsumeProduct	(+16/-9)	86
[ ]	Average Christjewish chads:	ConsumeProduct	(+19/-5)	43
[ ]	It's confirmed that Scored is a dead site	ConsumeProduct	(+17/-4)	41
[ ]	Harsh truth: you can't blame women for your own failures	ConsumeProduct	(+26/-6)	35
[ ]	Hero: Ten-year-old boy stole Ukrainian Armed Forces ammunition and handed it over to Rus...	ConsumeProduct	(+15/-10)	24
[ ]	Lord Jesus, we need you more than ever. Screen cap of comments below.	ConsumeProduct	(+10/-2)	28
[ ]	S*x is sacred. Anyone who tells you that it's not is an r-slured satanicojewish chad or ( brainw...	ConsumeProduct	(+10/-4)	24
[ ]	Leftist making a good point	ConsumeProduct	(+43/-6)	36
[ ]	Proof the Reich wasn't Christian	ConsumeProduct	(+1/-5)	24
[ ]	maybe i was mistaken in trusting massie	ConsumeProduct	(+45/-7)	28

'autodrama' for scored (thanks HeyMoon). Ping @GatanKot about bugs or ideas

/u/unfathomably-lost is a 258lb formerly a pooner, who goes into detail in how much she demands from her man:

No conservatives or centrists. I am only interested in left-leaning men. My sister is a lesbian and my best friend is transgender, and if you can't respect them, we aren't cool. I don't want the kind of man who would get mad if we found out we had a gay or transgender kid.

You were groomed into being trans, decided you hated it, and still fricking defend transes? what an r-slur white woman.

I am a detransitioned woman. I identified as FTM and was on testosterone for 2 years. There are basically 3 big changes that are semi-permanent/permanent. I have a little facial hair which I've gotten the vast majority of lasered off at this point, and I shave every morning. I have a deeper, kind of androgynous voice that I personally think is silky and sexy as frick but I get it's not everyone's vibe. And, and I'm sorry to be crass, but my clit is big. It's like a teeny nub, maybe half an inch. This comes with the added bonus of it being basically impossible to miss. My body is unique and I think it's cool as frick.

you ain't no Lauren Bacall and you definitely ain't sexy being a fat, hairy monkey with a pseudopeepee.

I want to be a mom someday. This is really important to me. If you're childfree, we just aren't compatible.

Pick leftist, or pick children. You can't have both in this day and age. All leftist men are low T frickwits, requiring you to get a BBC to do it for you. You'll just be completing the cuck cycle!

I was raised Jewish but I consider myself an atheist. Your faith has no impact on my view of you, and I will never try to "talk you out of it" or whatever, as long as you don't try to convert me lol. When we have kids, if you're religious, I am fine with you sharing your faith with them, but understand I will also be sharing my own perspective, and as they get older, I will let them come to their own conclusions around belief.

Hear that Christians?

Also a Jew. No fricking wonder. Carrying out the work that Hitler failed to finish.

!transphobes

Not offended if u don't want to celebrate.

They're paying to do this btw.

Just a thought I had recently. Doing some marriage counseling with my wife to better understand each other. We were covering our upbringing on the roles of men and women. In that discussion, naturally the role of a man came up as the "protector." We don't really sway from this because physically I am the protector of my family and of my wife and she likes having me in that role.

Next day we were talking about our days and I brought some stuff about work and my wife responded with, "frick those guys, you know your role and your value. Don't let them get to you." It then hit me that, my wife is my protector too. We have this tendency to believe that being protector just means "physically" protecting someone. But there are other forms of protection (pun not intended). My wife is my protector that she will always have my back, she will always defend me verbally, emotionally, and psychologically. She will make sure no one will harass me or get me down.

When talking about men's health, we always address men's inability to communicate emotions. We always talk about how people berate and belittle men for having (wrong) emotions. But a part that is less talked about is how we are supposed to be protecting them. How parents, adults, friends, and partners are supposed to be protecting them emotionally and mentally. Especially when you hear countless stories of someone going to someone who think is safe and they immediately get berated causing them to forever shut down their emotions. They had no protector. Women mistrust men cause they feel physically endangered. Men mistrust women cause they feel emotionally endangered. (Not an absolute).

Just wanted to hear others thoughts on this and share with the class. Love y'all