I've run a successful business, been a soldier, firefighter, commercial driver, worked construction, armed security, property management, ride share... retired
Joined February 2026
- Tweets 819
- Following 730
- Followers 177
- Likes 295
29 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
Worth another listen, reworked, new, longer version, click the link, enjoy.
How does one make a song about Elon Musk without saying Elon Musk?
Check out this work on SoundCloud: Listen to "National Treasure" by Patrick J Soule on #SoundCloud
on.soundcloud.com/SqJyPBNk4L…
"“National Treasure” is an upbeat Americana country storytelling song about ambition, innovation, disruption, and..."
26
Excuse me... other than the post, what have you created?
How many jobs have you created?
How many functioning business have you started?
How many people do you employ?
Let us know when you reach par with @elonmusk, then talk about this again.
Elon Musk has become a trillionaire. If we confiscated just 15% of his wealth we could: clean up all the oceans, eliminate poverty, and literally make the world into a utopia.
Instead he chooses to indulge in his phallic obsession with rockets and wants to build data centers in space. You cant even move electricity from space to earth. Dumbest idea ever.
All the best,
Wolfgang
20
You can't make this stuff up...
Two X posts, one over the other, top one started in the 600's AD and hasn't progressed, bottom one, the expansion of science via "white" men, started around the dawn of man
10
I'm downloading this, going to get it transcribed, then ask my cardiologist about it.
Dr Nathan Bryan, PhD..."The people who live the longest have a total cholesterol of 240-260. Cholesterol does not cause heart disease."
"Total cholesterol, HDL & LDL levels are completely useless markers."
5
Hhmmm...
16h
You have been told to drink 8 glasses of water a day.
A Dartmouth physiologist traced the rule to a single sentence in a 1945 federal report.
The very next sentence said "most of this is already in your food."
Marketers cut that line. You have been hydrating against an invented number for 80 years.
Here is the full story.
The expert is Heinz Valtin. He spent his career as a professor of physiology at Dartmouth Medical School. He wrote two of the standard textbooks on the kidney and water balance. He is one of the most cited water scientists in the country.
In 2002, the American Journal of Physiology asked him to write an invited review. He took the assignment seriously. He read every study on water intake he could find. He went back through the citation chain on the "8 glasses a day" rule, paper by paper.
He could not find the source. There was no study. There was no clinical trial. There was no medical body that had ever set the rule.
So he kept digging.
He traced it back to one document. A 1945 report by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council, published during the Second World War. The board was writing dietary advice for a rationed country.
Tucked into the report was this line:
"A suitable allowance of water for adults is 2.5 liters daily in most instances."
2.5 liters is about 8 cups. The math was clean. The phrasing was authoritative.
Then came the next sentence.
"An ordinary standard for diverse persons is 1 milliliter for each calorie of food. Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods."
That second sentence does all the work. It says the 2.5 liter number is a total intake target. Not a drinking target. Every glass of milk, every bowl of soup, every apple, every cup of coffee counts. The water inside your food counts. Once you subtract the food, the actual glass-of-water number is closer to 1 liter. Sometimes less.
The second sentence disappeared. The first one became the rule.
Valtin published his findings in August 2002. The paper is titled "Drink at least eight glasses of water a day. Really? Is there scientific evidence for 8 by 8?"
His conclusion, in his own words: "I have found no scientific proof that absolutely every person must drink at least eight glasses of water a day."
Two years later, the Institute of Medicine, the top US body on nutrition, published its own review. The 2004 report said adult men need about 3.7 liters of total water a day. Adult women need about 2.7 liters.
But here is the key line in the same report, which most people never see.
About 20 percent of that water comes from food. The rest comes from any fluid. Coffee counts. Tea counts. Milk counts. Soup counts. Juice counts.
The Institute also said this: "the vast majority of healthy people adequately meet their daily hydration needs by letting thirst be their guide."
That is the official guidance. From the same body that sets every nutrition rule in America. Trust your thirst.
So why does the 8 glasses rule keep coming back.
Look at who profits when you follow it.
The global bottled water market was worth $364 billion in 2024. It is projected to hit $677 billion by 2035. Every wellness brand, every gym, every influencer with a tracker app has a reason to keep you reaching for one more glass.
Drinking extra water when you are not thirsty is not just unnecessary. In rare cases it is dangerous. Forcing fluids beyond thirst can cause a condition called hyponatremia, where blood sodium drops too low. It has killed marathon runners who drank too much during races. Valtin flagged this risk in his 2002 paper.
So how do you actually hydrate. 3 rules.
Rule 1. Drink when you are thirsty. Your body has a 200,000 year old hydration sensor. It works.
Rule 2. Check your urine color. If it is pale yellow, you are fine. If it is dark, drink more. If it is clear all day, you might be drinking too much.
Rule 3. Count every fluid. Coffee, tea, milk, juice, soup, fruit, and yes, plain water. They all count. The "caffeine dehydrates you" myth has also been debunked by the same Institute of Medicine.
The bigger lesson.
A rule everyone repeats is not the same as a rule that is true. The 8 glasses rule has been printed in school textbooks, on bottled water labels, on doctor's office posters, and in your phone's wellness app. None of those sources went back to check the original.
One physiologist did. He found one sentence. The sentence the marketers dropped.
If you have been forcing down water you did not want, you can stop.
Your thirst is the science. It always was.
2
I read something where the writer asked the question; "What if every person detained or arrested for speech, knife hand speared the cop in their throat? How many times would it take before police stopped arresting Peoplefor speech?".
Interesting question.
Police, any comment? Not on the legality, either way, but knowing it's best to not do some things... like how many times did you willingly put a hand on a hot stove? Once?
Jun 13
🚨 UK Police Arrest a Man For Saying “You’re Chatting Sh*t” Despite High Court Ruling That Swearing Is Protected Speech
A man is calmly explaining to a police officer that swearing in public isn’t automatically illegal.
He correctly references the High Court ruling (Lord Justice Bean) that everyday swearing is part of normal expressive language and protected under free speech, unless it’s genuinely threatening or abusive under the Public Order Act.
Instead of listening, the officer warns him, gets defensive, and then arrests him for a public order offence simply for saying “you’re chatting sh*t.”
Classic example of police abusing their powers and ignoring established case law just because they don’t like being challenged. This is why trust in policing keeps dropping.
1
14
Jun 11
What I find interesting is the number of people who automatically assume oh this is sovereign citizen b******* and no one is claiming Sovereign citizenship because ones that are working in this system know that you can't be both a sovereign and a citizen you can be a sovereign which is the Supreme or you can be a citizen which is subordinate you can be a sovereign of the people or you can be a citizen which is subordinate too.
The main issue is they don't understand there is a game of foot just like you described you're on the one yard line and they don't know how to play offense they only unsuccessfully play defense And there is a way to play offense at a level higher than what they're playing You just have to know how to do it How to say it how to write it How to submit it and so on.
But because they don't comprehend that there is a game afoot that they're not privy to they say there is no game and that's from ignorance not that they are stupid they just don't know you're ignorant if you don't know you're not stupid because you don't know you just have ignorance of the data, the information.
But once John Q public wakes up and starts playing the game they'll fight your tooth and nail because they don't want you in their game because it'll cost them money it'll cost them control it'll cost them their ability to manipulate the situation. You learn to step outside their framework outside their game and play your own game which is a superior game and they hate it when that happens.
But the loudmouth just say you're stupid and you're b******* full of b******* and that anything you say in regards to the matter is untrue and they just don't know they just won't let their ego damp itself down and learn.
I'm going to beat this dead horse until you effing people comprehend and you notice I'm saying comprehend instead of understand because understand has a legal context other than Webster's Dictionary. Maybe that should be a clue dictionary other than Webster's what would that be maybe a legal definition dictionary that is focused on the Constitution of the United States?
57
Jun 10
THE CONSTITUTIONAL WALL:
Restoring Collective Sovereignty Over the Tyranny of Administrative Convenience
By Patrick J Soule
PREFACE: The Foundation of Unalienable Rights and the Fallacy of Individuated Sovereignty
The written text of the Declaration of Independence, the united States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments mean precisely what they say [1]. They are not fluid guidelines open to ongoing judicial adjustment, prosecutorial exploitation, or administrative re-engineering; they are rigid legal structures that can only be altered by the explicit, collective will of the People through the formal amendment process.
The Supreme court of the united States does not possess the constitutional authority to create law or modify the text; it exists strictly to enforce adherence to the actual, literal reading and original intent of the Constitution [1]. This framework serves a singular, supreme purpose: the furtherance of a government instituted to secure pre-existing, natural rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As outlined with strict logic throughout The Federalist Papers, any branch of government that oversteps its delegated text commits a void act [2].
To maintain the integrity of this critique, it is necessary to unequivocally distinguish Popular Sovereignty from modern "sovereign citizen" claims. The phrase "sovereign citizen" is an intellectual and logical contradiction that cancels itself out. A citizen, by definition, is a subject subordinate to a sovereign authority; conversely, a sovereign answers to no earthly superior. An individual cannot simultaneously be a sovereign and a citizen—the two concepts are mutually exclusive, rendering the term a legal misnomer. In the American Republic, sovereignty does not belong to isolated individuals acting outside the law; it belongs collectively to the joint body of the inhabitants: The People. This collective sovereignty creates a binding, supreme contract that no individual has the unilateral authority to oppose. This essay is a strict textual demand that the government remain subordinate to the collective command of the People as codified in the supreme law of the land.
Preface References
[1] U.S. Constitution, Amendment V
[2] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78 ("The Independence of the Judiciary")
_______________
The above is the preface to a 14 segment white paper / essay on the 5th Amendment that I released over on substack. This link takes you to the first segment:
substack.com/@patrickjsoule/…
While I was writing it I discovered more issues but those are for future writings I didn't want to create a 700 page white paper so I've limited it to an introduction and 13 segments in the segments are essentially two to five or six paragraphs per segment.
1
95
You appear to be a young man based on the imagery of your account. Your experience with money seems to indicate you're someone who's been dealing with it for 40 plus years, someone who understands money and its use, is willing to share it, essentially for free, but still offering direct assistance for, I presume, a small fee.
So I ask, are you a young man and have you have acquired "old knowledge" quickly?
Is it in part, if this is true, because you're not constrained by "old thinking"?
I borrow money from the bank at 0% interest, then loan that exact same money to other people at 14%
The bank's money. My spread. I do nothing but wire it out and collect
This is how you become the bank using the bank's own money
Everybody's chasing ways to DEPLOY their 0% capital. Real estate, ads, inventory. All of it works. But the cleanest play is the one nobody talks about. You don't invest the money. You re-lend it
There's an entire world of real estate investors who need fast cash and can't wait on a mortgage. House flippers. Wholesalers. BRRRR guys. They'll pay 12 to 15% interest for a short loan because they're making 30% on the flip and they need the money THIS week. They're called hard money borrowers
You become the lender
The play:
Stack $150K to $250K in 0% business cards
Liquidate to cash. Trykashu at 6.5% in 72 hours, or balance transfer checks at 3% if you've got time
Loan it to a vetted flipper at 12 to 14%, secured by a lien on the property. If they don't pay, you foreclose and take the house. Your money is backed by real estate worth more than the loan
Your cost of capital: 6.5% one time. Your return: 12 to 14% per year. The spread is yours
Real numbers. Guy pulled $200,000 off 0% cards, paid $13,000 to liquidate, loaned it to two flippers at 13% secured by first liens. Earned $26,000 in interest year one. Net after his liquidation cost: about $13,000 in pure spread, on money that was never his, backing loans secured by houses he'd happily foreclose on
"what if the borrower runs"
He can't run with a house. You hold a recorded lien. He doesn't pay, you take the property, you're now up a house you lent 70 cents on the dollar against. The downside is you accidentally make MORE money
The bank gave you money at 0% betting you'd waste it. You turned around and became their competitor with it lmfaooo
dm me "funding" and i'll show you how you can qualify for up to 250k in 0% APR funding (if you have a 700 )
1
66
I'm telling you right now, just because she a woman don't mean s***. She started the violence, I'm going to f****** finish it and I'm going to bloody my knuckles doing it.!! Holy s*** that's horrible!!
A Dollar Tree worker was fired and charged with assault after attacking and macing a customer. The customer is now suing Dollar Tree.
1
152
If you start punching criminals in the face, continuously, until they comply, does that make it wrong?
Asking for a friend.
I'm just sayin'...
Jun 5
🔥 Is This Electioneering??
Poll worker denies a voter a ballot for wearing a MAGA hat.
Electioneering rules vary by state;
some strictly prohibit candidate gear inside polling places, while others are more lenient on slogans like ‘MAGA’. ✨Always check your local laws before heading to vote.
(List of states attached)
1
2
102
So first let me say this about that.
I don't believe this guy had good intentions regarding the judge's order. In fact, I think he wanted to do what he wanted to do regardless of what the court said. But what I think, what the judge thinks, and what the prosecutor thinks are completely irrelevant.
The Constitution was written specifically to prevent government from depriving someone of liberty based on what government officials think.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process of law.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to face his accusers, to obtain counsel, and to be judged in an impartial proceeding.
Now let's look at what actually happened.
A judge issues an order.
The judge decides the order was violated.
The judge determines whether the explanation is sufficient.
The judge determines whether guilt exists.
The judge determines whether punishment is appropriate.
The judge determines the punishment.
The judge then sends the man to jail.
That is not due process.
That is one person acting as offended party, accuser, fact finder, prosecutor, judge, jury, and sentencer all at the same time.
The Founders did not write the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because they trusted government officials. They wrote them because they did not.
The question is not whether the guy is a jerk.
The question is not whether the guy deserved punishment.
The question is whether government can deprive a citizen of liberty without the constitutional protections that exist specifically to prevent abuses of power.
In my view, the answer is no.
If a judge believes a citizen violated an order and should be incarcerated, then the constitutional process is straightforward.
The accusation is presented.
A grand jury may consider the matter if required.
The accused is notified.
The accused is given the opportunity to retain counsel or have counsel appointed.
The accused is allowed to confront witnesses.
Evidence is presented.
The State proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
An impartial jury determines guilt.
A different judge imposes sentence if a conviction occurs.
What cannot happen under a strict reading of the Constitution is one government official deciding that he has been disobeyed and then personally ordering a citizen into a jail cell.
The government does not possess powers simply because they are convenient.
Government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
The burden is not on the citizen to prove the government lacks authority.
The burden is on the government to identify where that authority was granted.
Show me where the Constitution authorizes a judge to bypass the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imprison a citizen based solely upon the judge's own finding.
Not where another judge said it was okay.
Not where a court created a doctrine.
Not where modern jurisprudence evolved into something convenient.
Show me where the Constitution itself grants that authority.
If liberty can be taken without due process, then due process means nothing.
If a judge can be the accuser and the adjudicator, then impartiality means nothing.
If incarceration can occur without the protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, then those amendments are reduced to suggestions rather than restraints on government power.
Yes, I realize that is not how current jurisprudence operates.
I also believe current jurisprudence has drifted far from the constitutional restraints the Founders intentionally imposed.
The Constitution is not supposed to bend itself around government convenience.
Government is supposed to bend itself around the Constitution.
Am I tilting at windmills?
Probably.
But every major abuse of power in history survived because enough people convinced themselves it was normal.
If enough of us keep tilting at windmills, maybe we'll knock the f**kers off their pedestals!
55
That, and I'm not going to use the word that comes to mind, congress person, has a demonstrated bias against the president and is apparently intentionally misrepresenting the videos. I see a person with their eyes closed, but I've never seen someone fall asleep with their head turned when sitting. It always returns to a neutral position. Not saying it can't happen, but it's not what I'm seeing. Being as this congress person has an intentional, shown, and demonstrated bias against the President, he'll use anything to attempt to cause others to think less of the President, if he can at all achieve it. This is just an example of desperation by a weak, feckless, POS congress person.
Jun 3
Rubio might not notice because he is distracted by the shoes Trump gave him that are several sizes too large for the little dude.
23
No law enforcement to stop the street from being blocked?
No law enforcement to deal with those threatening others?
No law enforcement to deal with people egress intentionally restricted by civilians?
WTAF!
Jun 6
🚨 JUST NOW: A rioter who JUMPED IN FRONT OF a civilian employee driving out of Delaney Hall in Newark LOST a game of chicken with the vehicle
Pure FAFO.
Diving in front of a convoy of fast moving government contracted vehicles is a GREAT way to spend domestic nights in the hospital.
Hope this was a lesson!
13
It seems like your math is not mathing. I'm counting 3.4 trillion, maybe 3.5 trillion.
Regardless it's still big numbers that most people can't wrap their heads around, including me. Hell, I have difficulty with $100,000.
However, despite that downturn in numbers, somebody, or multiple somebody's, made that amount I'm willing to bet.
Those numbers have to go somewhere and it's just not to most of us.
Jun 5
🚨 EVERYTHING THAT COULD GO WRONG FOR MARKETS WENT WRONG TODAY.
S&P 500 down -1.65%, wiping out $1.14 trillion.
Nasdaq down -2.60%, wiping out $1.11 trillion.
Gold down -3.38%, wiping out $1 trillion.
Silver down -6.9%, wiping out $280 billion.
Bitcoin down -6.31%, wiping out $80 billion.
In total $2.5 TRILLION wiped out in a single session. These were not isolated moves. Everything started breaking at the same time.
It started with the jobs report this morning.
The US economy added 172,000 jobs in May. Wall Street expected 88,000. That is almost double.
On any normal day, strong jobs is good news. But inflation is already at 3.8% and oil is sitting at $90. A labor market this strong tells the Fed it cannot cut interest rates and may actually need to raise them.
The probability of a rate hike this year went from 40% to 57% in a single day. That spooked every investor holding tech and growth stocks because higher rates mean those stocks are worth less today.
Then the AI trade started cracking.
Yesterday Broadcom reported record earnings: revenue up 48%, AI chip sales up 143% and the stock still crashed 12.6%. The reason was simple.
Broadcom did not raise its AI revenue targets for the year. Investors had expected it to. That single miss made people ask a question they had been avoiding for months: are we paying too much for AI stocks?
That question got louder today when a research firm called SemiAnalysis revealed that Nvidia's next-generation AI chips will need significantly less memory than everyone assumed, roughly half of what the market was pricing in.
Memory chips are what companies like SK Hynix and Samsung make. SK Hynix fell nearly 10% today. Samsung fell over 6%.
South Korea's entire stock market crashed 5.5% in a single session. Japan's semiconductor stocks did the same.
And then Anthropic added fuel to the fire by publishing a report warning that AI is getting close to the point where it can improve itself without human help and calling for a global pause in AI development.
Coming on the same day as the memory demand news and Broadcom's miss, it fed a single growing fear across the market: what if the AI boom is moving faster than the business models can keep up with?
Underneath all of this, there is a liquidity problem nobody is talking about.
SpaceX goes public next week at a $1.75 trillion valuation. Anthropic just filed to go public. OpenAI is next.
These three companies together are worth $4 to $5 trillion. Fund managers need cash to buy into these listings.
But cash levels are already at their lowest since early 2024. The only way to raise cash is to sell what they already own. That selling is happening right now.
The new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh will also hold his very first policy meeting in 11 days. He was appointed by Trump with the expectation of cutting rates.
He is now walking into a situation where inflation is high, oil is high, and the job market is running hot. Investors do not know what he will do.
When nobody knows what the most powerful central banker in the world will decide in less than two weeks, the safest move is to reduce risk today.
Everything that could go wrong, went wrong at the same time. A hot jobs report, a collapsing ceasefire, a crack in the AI trade, a trillion dollar liquidity drain, and a Fed meeting with no clear outcome.
28
Isn't there video of the accuser admitting that they lied about who did the crime, admitting that they had done it instead, whatever this Colorado thing is, something about elections interference or something?
They railroaded Tina Peters.
Jena Griswold should face prison for this injustice against Peters and the citizens of Colorado.
Tina Peters Case: Is it your position that someone can be charged with crimes they never committed?”
6
"Journalist" used to be defined, and I'm paraphrasing here for the idiots who might read this, as someone who sought the truth behind a particular subject. Told the who, what, when, where, and the stated why, never injecting their own opinion into the story. Letting the reader determine the why themselves, trusting the reader to form their own opinion on the subject.
Today, again, paraphrasing for the idiots, a "journalist" starts with their own opinion, MAY... try to get one fact to support their opinion, then publishes a "story" as fact, trying to bolster a particular narrative. Regardless, their objective is to further what ever narrative it is they support.
Increasingly, that narrative is in support of socialism, communism, progressivism, pedophilia, islam, and any other ideal that tears at the fabric of America and "western culture".
What these "journalists" don't, refuse, or are incapable of understanding is that they would be amoung the first killed by such a regime, for several reasons;
1 - They are standing at the forefront of a event.
2 - Their potential for spreading the incorrect narrative.
3 - Their published support for gays, alphabet people ( lgbt... what ever ) and/or their direct involvement in such activities.
Anyone who says I'm a liar is either a left-wing ideologist, a muslim, an actual liar themselves and/or a useful idiot for those ideals.
In this particular instance, someone who has never created a job and is incapable of creating a job that produces a physical item, has never successfully operated and is incapable of creating a business long term, is actively tearing at someone who is/has, and hides behind their screen telling others to beware of the "bad man". Never producing actual evidence, only supposition and innuendo. Has also never been punched in the mouth for their indiscretion.
I'm just sayin'...
Jun 4
Larry Ellison acaba de hacer la única pregunta que ningún periodista en la Tierra puede responder.
Un periodista del Wall Street Journal le dijo a la cara a Larry Ellison que Elon Musk no sabe lo que hace.
Ellison solo le hizo una pregunta.
Ellison:
“Este tipo aterriza cohetes sobre plataformas robóticas en medio del océano… ¿y tú dices que no sabe lo que hace? ¿Alguna vez has aterrizado un cohete?”
“¿Quién eres tú? ¿Por qué debería creerte a ti antes que a mi amigo Elon?”
Esta es la pregunta que toda la clase mediática lleva una década esquivando:
¿Quién eres tú para juzgar?
¿Qué has construido?
¿Qué has lanzado?
¿Qué problema has resuelto que no implique un teclado y una fecha límite?
Ellison:
“Ahí estás tú, delante de tu Apple Macintosh, escribiendo un artículo diciendo que Elon es un idiota.”
Se sientan detrás de un portátil que no diseñaron.
Usan una red que no construyeron.
Funcionando sobre chips de silicio que ni siquiera pueden explicar.
Para decirle al mundo que el hombre que envía humanos al espacio no sabe lo que hace.
Nunca han construido nada más pesado que un documento de Word.
Y aun así lo publican con absoluta certeza.
Eso es lo que debería inquietarte.
No la crítica.
Sino la confianza con la que la hacen.
La ausencia total de autoconciencia necesaria para juzgar disciplinas en las que no durarían ni un semestre.
Musk no opera en opiniones.
Opera en la capa física del universo, donde las matemáticas funcionan… o el cohete no regresa.
Sus críticos operan en un editor de texto.
Construyó el vehículo que transporta astronautas de la NASA a la Estación Espacial Internacional.
La constelación de satélites que lleva internet a zonas de guerra activas.
El coche eléctrico que obligó a todos los fabricantes del planeta a abandonar sus planes basados en motores de combustión.
Sus críticos más ruidosos construyeron una firma al final de un artículo.
Entonces… ¿por qué tanto odio coordinado?
Porque perdieron la correa.
Los ataques no aumentaron porque Musk empeorara como ingeniero.
Aumentaron porque compró X.
Abrió el algoritmo.
Le devolvió la plaza pública a la gente.
Y destruyó su capacidad de controlar lo que puedes pensar.
No odian al ingeniero.
Odian que el ingeniero les quitó el monopolio.
No puedes cancelar un cohete.
No puedes publicar un artículo contra la gravedad.
No puedes editar las leyes de la física.
Ellos controlan la narrativa.
Él controla la física.
Y uno de los dos va camino a Marte.
11
"The universe is a strange and wonderful place. We are figuring out the strange I hope we never lose the wonder." Patrick J Soule
Jun 5
The Cosmic Treasure Chest: 10 Million Galaxies in a Single FrameThis is the first major image released by the largest digital camera ever built for astronomy — the 3.2-gigapixel LSST Camera on the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.And it is absolutely staggering.Every single speck of light you see in this vast field is not a star.
It is an entire galaxy — each one home to hundreds of billions of stars, planets, and possibly entire civilizations.In this one breathtaking snapshot, astronomers have captured roughly 10 million galaxies. That’s only about 0.05% of the total number this revolutionary observatory is expected to image over its 10-year survey.Captured in the direction of the Virgo Cluster, this image transforms what looks like empty space into a glittering tapestry of distant universes stretching back billions of years. The few brighter foreground stars belong to our own Milky Way — everything else is far beyond our galaxy.This is more than just a pretty picture.
It is a preview of a new era in astronomy — where we will map the changing universe in unprecedented detail, hunt for mysterious dark matter and dark energy, discover thousands of new asteroids, and witness cosmic events as they unfold in real time.Welcome to the future of discovery.
Image Credit: NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory
11
Usually, it's "mess with the bull, ya get the horns".
However, considering who you are, "mess with the kitten, lose an eye".
Just got a letter from the US Department of Justice, confirming the guy who swatted me the first three times, is now serving 4 years in prison.
FAFO - that’s two people now who have threatened me who are behind bars.
There are serious consequences now for these leftists who threaten our lives.
24
I 100% support this group/activity. I am chagrined I hadn't thought of something similar myself.
Dear @WhiteHouse, my name is Rodney Smith Jr., founder of Raising Men & Women Lawn Care Service in Huntsville, Alabama. Through our 50 Yard Challenge, over 6,000 kids across the country have signed up to mow free lawns for the elderly, disabled, veterans, active-duty military, first responders, and single parents. With America celebrating its 250th birthday this year and me also being born on July 4th, I wanted to humbly ask if a few kids from our program and myself could travel to Washington, D.C. to help mow the White House lawn for this historic celebration.
More than anything, I want these kids to see how a simple act of service something as ordinary as mowing a lawn for someone in need can lead to extraordinary places. What better lesson in community service than showing them that helping others can take them all the way to our nation’s capital? I’d also love to bring my American flag-themed mower in hopes that the President might sign it, so I can later auction it off and donate 100% of the proceeds to a nonprofit supporting veterans. It would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to highlight the importance of service, patriotism, and the impact young people can have when they choose to make a difference. 🇺🇸
8