Close enough, maybe? Georgia is likely to beat Tulane, and Ole Miss is missing its head coach and is a team that Georgia already beat pretty handily in the second half.

All Miami has to do is beat Texas A&M (more than possible, if Miami stays hot?) And if they're hot, they could beat Ohio State.

We gain a chance to win a championship in 1-game.

I want UGA to take on all comers and never shy away from a title bout. That's what I want from my Dawgs, whether we've got a chance for a natty or not.

Huh, what, where?

Hold the line now. 99 of 100 Toto fans would say "Rosanna."

Let me know if hanging out later works. I'll be over, you.

In part because Game Freak owns a third of TPC, and GF doesn't want that.

If they let another dev do too good of a job on side games, they risk being pushed out by Creatures & Ninty. So that'll never happen.

Also, I love the 3D models. I think the sprites preference is an online thing.

I was gonna ask why is her handwriting so much better than mine is...was.

...better than mine was.

Being a Georgia fan, sure, we're undefeated so far.

But we rarely start well. We've looked suspect in all of our games. Even against Austin Peay. And that's something that was often the case even last year.

I hope you're doing okay and that the six donuts found a safe home at the end.

Sounds like someone needs to find the Parkour Picto.

Excited? No. Most of my friends* are 1-player, casual gamers (if at all.)

I don't care to "see" people as I play. Chatting could be fun. Just don't see use cases to get excited about the potential.

*None of my them are interested in Switch 2 until Gen 10 Pokémon, and that's only one friend.

As a progressive, I think many of us (especially online) assume any skepticism is a declaration of an opposing stance not just of that issue but in political/social beliefs.

I see why: there are a lot of "just saying" comments defending bigotry. But it does good faith discourse no favors at all.

No, no. The grizzly said it was okay to use the n-word because we're all mammals, and because his best friend is a black bear, and so it has come to this.

I read it as "The most since 2001." That is, since that year, this year has the most fatalities. I understood it. But you're not the only one, so it wasn't crystal clear, period.

That said, it's still a statistical anomaly in the making. I think the data merits a post as OP worded it.

Care to link yours? What I looked up is data isn't a call for alarm, but I think it's notable enough to share and be aware of.

Might be a bit semantic, but...what is the claim they made that you say isn't supported?

asn.flightsafety.org/database/yea...

I'm not going to pretend like I analyzed each incident. But in the past 5 years, there are usually no more than 3 incidents with more than a few fatalities in the year. Having 2 with several fatalities in 1/3 year is notable and data-based.

No, if you make a factual claim, you need to back it with data. Especially if it's something we might need to act on.

Right, left, or otherwise, we need to hold ourselves to not spreading misinformation.

This isn't misinformation in this case. The data do back the claim. But we shouldn't assume.

Dunno if it's misleading. The point is to say that there is a notable increase in fatalities compared to other years.

It implies that something this year/in this administration may be making commercial flight less safe. It doesn't say flying is unsafe. And I think that's important to know.