Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
Office of the First Lady
First Lady Melania Trump’s Statement
The White House
April 9, 2026
Good afternoon.
The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.
1)
First Lady Melania Trump’s Statement
The White House
April 9, 2026
Good afternoon.
The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.
1)
The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather, I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.
2)
2)
I have never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.
3)
3)
BCherry Michelle wrote, "BREAKING: 🚨 •Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has reportedly uncovered a DEEP STATE COUP PLOT to remove President Trump from office by SABOTAGING his war effort in Iran ...
1)
1)
in order to turn the American people and the US military against him. Gabbard is also said to have discovered communications between former HIGH-RANKING MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS from the first Trump administration and the Biden administration and
2)
2)
active members of the military involved in this war in which they are being told to DISOBEY AND REFUSE TO CARRY OUT ORDERS made by President Trump. The Deep State within our government is alive and well...
3)
3)
No single insurance company could fully “take Lloyd’s of London’s place,” because Lloyd’s is not a traditional insurance company—it’s a unique centuries-old marketplace (an insurance exchange) where hundreds of independent syndicates (underwritten by corporate members and “Names”) compete to underwrite complex, high-risk, specialty, and reinsurance risks on a subscription basis. This structure allows it to handle massive, unusual, or layered risks (e.g., marine, aviation, energy, catastrophe, war risks) with flexibility, innovation, and global broker access that a single company struggles to replicate exactly.
That said, several large global players have the scale, capital, expertise, and appetite for specialty/high-risk lines to step up significantly in areas where Lloyd’s leads or faces pressure (e.g., from competition in Bermuda, regulatory issues, or geopolitical risks like shipping in high-risk waters). Here’s a realistic assessment based on current market data:
Strongest Contenders to Expand into Lloyd’s Territory
• Berkshire Hathaway (via National Indemnity and other units): One of the world’s largest reinsurers with enormous capacity and a willingness to take on big, complex risks. It has already absorbed legacy Lloyd’s liabilities in the past (Equitas) and competes aggressively in excess & surplus lines and reinsurance. Its financial strength allows it to back huge exposures that syndicates might share.
• Munich Re and Swiss Re: The top global reinsurers by premiums. They have vast balance sheets, sophisticated modeling for catastrophes/climate risks, and strong presence in specialty lines. They could absorb more direct specialty business or expand platforms to rival Lloyd’s innovation in marine, aviation, or cyber. Swiss Re and Munich Re frequently rank at or near the top of global reinsurance lists.
• Allianz, AXA, and Chubb: Major players in global property & casualty and specialty insurance. Allianz and AXA rank among the world’s largest insurers overall; Chubb has a strong London Market presence and expertise in high-net-worth/complex risks. They already underwrite similar lines and could grow their company-market platforms (outside pure Lloyd’s syndicates) in the broader London Market.
• Hannover Re and SCOR: Major European reinsurers with growing specialty capabilities and competitive capacity.
Bermuda-based or Bermuda-linked entities (e.g., via groups like Arch, Aspen, or newer players) also compete directly for the same high-risk business, often with tax/regulatory advantages that have drawn capital away from London in recent years.
Why a Full Replacement Is Unlikely
• Scale and diversity: Lloyd’s writes ~£58 billion in gross premiums across 180+ lines via ~100+ syndicates, supported by a deep broker ecosystem and coverholders worldwide. No single firm matches this distributed risk-spreading and innovation speed.
• Unique structure: The “several liability” model (each syndicate is responsible only for its share) and central oversight allow Lloyd’s to lead on risks others avoid. Competitors often participate alongside Lloyd’s rather than replacing it.
• Challenges for Lloyd’s: It faces competition from alternative capital (ILS/cat bonds), Bermuda growth, and occasional geopolitical pressures (e.g., war risk or shipping insurance). Some business has shifted, but Lloyd’s remains the go-to for many exotic or layered placements.
Other Notes
• London Market companies (non-Lloyd’s) already handle a big portion of similar business through the International Underwriting Association (IUA).
• Recent trends show interest from Asian/Korean insurers or PE-backed entrants acquiring or starting Lloyd’s platforms, but that’s integration, not replacement.
• In specific niches (e.g., marine hull in high-risk areas), governments or U.S. facilities have occasionally stepped in as alternatives, but these are usually limited or temporary.
In short, Berkshire Hathaway, Munich Re, Swiss Re, Allianz, or Chub
That said, several large global players have the scale, capital, expertise, and appetite for specialty/high-risk lines to step up significantly in areas where Lloyd’s leads or faces pressure (e.g., from competition in Bermuda, regulatory issues, or geopolitical risks like shipping in high-risk waters). Here’s a realistic assessment based on current market data:
Strongest Contenders to Expand into Lloyd’s Territory
• Berkshire Hathaway (via National Indemnity and other units): One of the world’s largest reinsurers with enormous capacity and a willingness to take on big, complex risks. It has already absorbed legacy Lloyd’s liabilities in the past (Equitas) and competes aggressively in excess & surplus lines and reinsurance. Its financial strength allows it to back huge exposures that syndicates might share.
• Munich Re and Swiss Re: The top global reinsurers by premiums. They have vast balance sheets, sophisticated modeling for catastrophes/climate risks, and strong presence in specialty lines. They could absorb more direct specialty business or expand platforms to rival Lloyd’s innovation in marine, aviation, or cyber. Swiss Re and Munich Re frequently rank at or near the top of global reinsurance lists.
• Allianz, AXA, and Chubb: Major players in global property & casualty and specialty insurance. Allianz and AXA rank among the world’s largest insurers overall; Chubb has a strong London Market presence and expertise in high-net-worth/complex risks. They already underwrite similar lines and could grow their company-market platforms (outside pure Lloyd’s syndicates) in the broader London Market.
• Hannover Re and SCOR: Major European reinsurers with growing specialty capabilities and competitive capacity.
Bermuda-based or Bermuda-linked entities (e.g., via groups like Arch, Aspen, or newer players) also compete directly for the same high-risk business, often with tax/regulatory advantages that have drawn capital away from London in recent years.
Why a Full Replacement Is Unlikely
• Scale and diversity: Lloyd’s writes ~£58 billion in gross premiums across 180+ lines via ~100+ syndicates, supported by a deep broker ecosystem and coverholders worldwide. No single firm matches this distributed risk-spreading and innovation speed.
• Unique structure: The “several liability” model (each syndicate is responsible only for its share) and central oversight allow Lloyd’s to lead on risks others avoid. Competitors often participate alongside Lloyd’s rather than replacing it.
• Challenges for Lloyd’s: It faces competition from alternative capital (ILS/cat bonds), Bermuda growth, and occasional geopolitical pressures (e.g., war risk or shipping insurance). Some business has shifted, but Lloyd’s remains the go-to for many exotic or layered placements.
Other Notes
• London Market companies (non-Lloyd’s) already handle a big portion of similar business through the International Underwriting Association (IUA).
• Recent trends show interest from Asian/Korean insurers or PE-backed entrants acquiring or starting Lloyd’s platforms, but that’s integration, not replacement.
• In specific niches (e.g., marine hull in high-risk areas), governments or U.S. facilities have occasionally stepped in as alternatives, but these are usually limited or temporary.
In short, Berkshire Hathaway, Munich Re, Swiss Re, Allianz, or Chub
In short, Berkshire Hathaway, Munich Re, Swiss Re, Allianz, or Chubb are the most capable of filling gaps or expanding aggressively if Lloyd’s capacity or appetite shrinks in certain lines. But the market as a whole (including Lloyd’s syndicates + company market) is resilient, and a true “replacement” would likely require a consortium or new marketplace rather than one company.
If you’re asking in the context of a specific risk type (e.g., marine, cyber, catastrophe), investment angle, or recent events, feel free to provide more details for a more targeted answer!
Tokenization could meaningfully help address several of Lloyd’s of London’s core challenges, but it is unlikely to fully “solve” the problem of replacing or fundamentally displacing the marketplace on its own. Lloyd’s unique value lies in its distributed syndicate structure for underwriting complex, high-risk, specialty, and layered risks (e.g., marine, aviation, catastrophe, war, cyber) with flexible subscription placement, deep broker expertise, and centuries of risk-spreading innovation. Tokenization—representing insurance risks, policies, reinsurance contracts, or related assets as digital tokens on blockchain—primarily enhances capital access, liquidity, efficiency, and transparency rather than replicating the human-led, relationship-driven underwriting and claims expertise at Lloyd’s core.
How Tokenization Could Help
Tokenization turns illiquid or hard-to-access insurance elements (like reinsurance shares, catastrophe exposure, or even portions of policies) into programmable, fractional digital assets. This offers clear upsides in the context of Lloyd’s pressures (competition from Bermuda, capital constraints, operational inefficiencies, and the need for faster innovation):
• Broader capital access and fractionalization: Large risks could be broken into smaller tokens, allowing retail, smaller institutional, or alternative investors to participate in insurance-linked securities (ILS), collateralized reinsurance, or parametric products. This expands the investor pool beyond traditional “Names,” syndicates, or big reinsurers, potentially increasing capacity for high-risk lines where Lloyd’s has faced constraints.
• Improved liquidity and secondary trading: Tokens could be traded on exchanges or platforms, enabling faster entry/exit for capital providers. This contrasts with traditional ILS (e.g., cat bonds), which are often buy-and-hold. It could reduce the cost of capital and make risk transfer more dynamic.
• Efficiency gains: Smart contracts could automate claims triggers (especially parametric ones based on verifiable data like weather or sensors), payouts, settlements, and even some reinsurance notifications. This reduces paperwork, intermediaries, errors, and delays—areas where Lloyd’s has pursued digitization (though its full single-platform effort faced setbacks).
• Transparency and reduced costs: Blockchain provides immutable records of risk sharing, ownership, and transactions, potentially lowering admin costs and improving pricing through better data. It aligns well with growing alternative capital in ILS.
• Integration with Real-World Assets (RWA): Tokenized reinsurance or insurance-linked products could connect to tokenized deposits, Treasuries, or other assets for collateral and settlement. Bermuda is actively exploring this convergence with its ILS strengths, which already competes with London.
Lloyd’s itself has explored blockchain potential since at least 2015 and participates in crypto-related insurance (e.g., wallet coverage), while related UK entities like Lloyds Banking Group advance tokenized deposits and gilts. Broader RWA tokenization is growing rapidly (tens of billions in value, with projections into trillions by 2030), and insurance/reinsurance is a logical extension.
If you’re asking in the context of a specific risk type (e.g., marine, cyber, catastrophe), investment angle, or recent events, feel free to provide more details for a more targeted answer!
Tokenization could meaningfully help address several of Lloyd’s of London’s core challenges, but it is unlikely to fully “solve” the problem of replacing or fundamentally displacing the marketplace on its own. Lloyd’s unique value lies in its distributed syndicate structure for underwriting complex, high-risk, specialty, and layered risks (e.g., marine, aviation, catastrophe, war, cyber) with flexible subscription placement, deep broker expertise, and centuries of risk-spreading innovation. Tokenization—representing insurance risks, policies, reinsurance contracts, or related assets as digital tokens on blockchain—primarily enhances capital access, liquidity, efficiency, and transparency rather than replicating the human-led, relationship-driven underwriting and claims expertise at Lloyd’s core.
How Tokenization Could Help
Tokenization turns illiquid or hard-to-access insurance elements (like reinsurance shares, catastrophe exposure, or even portions of policies) into programmable, fractional digital assets. This offers clear upsides in the context of Lloyd’s pressures (competition from Bermuda, capital constraints, operational inefficiencies, and the need for faster innovation):
• Broader capital access and fractionalization: Large risks could be broken into smaller tokens, allowing retail, smaller institutional, or alternative investors to participate in insurance-linked securities (ILS), collateralized reinsurance, or parametric products. This expands the investor pool beyond traditional “Names,” syndicates, or big reinsurers, potentially increasing capacity for high-risk lines where Lloyd’s has faced constraints.
• Improved liquidity and secondary trading: Tokens could be traded on exchanges or platforms, enabling faster entry/exit for capital providers. This contrasts with traditional ILS (e.g., cat bonds), which are often buy-and-hold. It could reduce the cost of capital and make risk transfer more dynamic.
• Efficiency gains: Smart contracts could automate claims triggers (especially parametric ones based on verifiable data like weather or sensors), payouts, settlements, and even some reinsurance notifications. This reduces paperwork, intermediaries, errors, and delays—areas where Lloyd’s has pursued digitization (though its full single-platform effort faced setbacks).
• Transparency and reduced costs: Blockchain provides immutable records of risk sharing, ownership, and transactions, potentially lowering admin costs and improving pricing through better data. It aligns well with growing alternative capital in ILS.
• Integration with Real-World Assets (RWA): Tokenized reinsurance or insurance-linked products could connect to tokenized deposits, Treasuries, or other assets for collateral and settlement. Bermuda is actively exploring this convergence with its ILS strengths, which already competes with London.
Lloyd’s itself has explored blockchain potential since at least 2015 and participates in crypto-related insurance (e.g., wallet coverage), while related UK entities like Lloyds Banking Group advance tokenized deposits and gilts. Broader RWA tokenization is growing rapidly (tens of billions in value, with projections into trillions by 2030), and insurance/reinsurance is a logical extension.
Significant Limitations — Why It Won’t Fully Solve the Issue
Tokenization excels at capital mobilization and back-office efficiencies but struggles with the nuanced, bespoke, high-uncertainty aspects of Lloyd’s business:
• Not a substitute for underwriting expertise: Complex risks require deep domain knowledge, negotiation, layered subscriptions, and judgment that smart contracts or tokens can’t fully replicate. Parametric triggers work for clear events (e.g., earthquakes), but many Lloyd’s risks involve subjective assessment, legal interpretation, and ongoing management.
• Regulatory, legal, and interoperability hurdles: Tokenized insurance must comply with insurance regulations, solvency rules, and securities laws. Issues like standardization, cross-jurisdiction enforceability, oracle reliability (for data feeding smart contracts), and legacy system integration persist. Full-scale adoption faces uncertainty, and platforms often remain permissioned or siloed. 
• Scalability and operational challenges: Handling massive volumes, fraud prevention, cyber risks to the tokens themselves, and ensuring tokens truly represent enforceable claims add complexity. Liquidity benefits assume active secondary markets, which aren’t guaranteed for exotic risks.
• Risks introduced: Potential for volatility (if retail-heavy), maturity/liquidity mismatches, fragmentation across platforms, and new cyber exposures. It doesn’t eliminate the need for strong balance sheets or risk modeling that large players like Berkshire Hathaway, Munich Re, or Swiss Re already provide.
• Market structure fit: Lloyd’s distributed model spreads risk via “several liability.” Tokenization could complement this (e.g., syndicates issuing tokenized shares) or enable hybrid platforms, but a pure tokenized marketplace would likely look more like a Bermuda-style ILS evolution or a new DeFi-adjacent structure rather than a direct Lloyd’s replacement.
In practice, tokenization is more likely to augment the ecosystem: syndicates or competitors could use it for parts of their business, Bermuda could gain ground in tokenized ILS, and hybrid models (traditional + tokenized) could emerge. It won’t magically create the innovation speed, broker network, or trust that define Lloyd’s.
Realistic Outlook
Tokenization is a powerful tool that could ease capital pressures, speed up processes, and open new distribution channels—helping the broader London Market (including non-Lloyd’s players) stay competitive. However, for truly replacing Lloyd’s role in specialty/high-risk insurance, it would need to pair with regulatory evolution, proven smart contract reliability, widespread adoption, and continued human expertise. We’re seeing pilots and growth in RWAs/ILS tokenization, but as of 2026, it’s still early-stage and complementary rather than revolutionary for the full marketplace.
If your question ties to a specific Lloyd’s issue (e.g., capacity in marine/war risks, operational costs, or attracting capital), or if you’re thinking about investment/participation angles, more details would help refine this!
Tokenization excels at capital mobilization and back-office efficiencies but struggles with the nuanced, bespoke, high-uncertainty aspects of Lloyd’s business:
• Not a substitute for underwriting expertise: Complex risks require deep domain knowledge, negotiation, layered subscriptions, and judgment that smart contracts or tokens can’t fully replicate. Parametric triggers work for clear events (e.g., earthquakes), but many Lloyd’s risks involve subjective assessment, legal interpretation, and ongoing management.
• Regulatory, legal, and interoperability hurdles: Tokenized insurance must comply with insurance regulations, solvency rules, and securities laws. Issues like standardization, cross-jurisdiction enforceability, oracle reliability (for data feeding smart contracts), and legacy system integration persist. Full-scale adoption faces uncertainty, and platforms often remain permissioned or siloed. 
• Scalability and operational challenges: Handling massive volumes, fraud prevention, cyber risks to the tokens themselves, and ensuring tokens truly represent enforceable claims add complexity. Liquidity benefits assume active secondary markets, which aren’t guaranteed for exotic risks.
• Risks introduced: Potential for volatility (if retail-heavy), maturity/liquidity mismatches, fragmentation across platforms, and new cyber exposures. It doesn’t eliminate the need for strong balance sheets or risk modeling that large players like Berkshire Hathaway, Munich Re, or Swiss Re already provide.
• Market structure fit: Lloyd’s distributed model spreads risk via “several liability.” Tokenization could complement this (e.g., syndicates issuing tokenized shares) or enable hybrid platforms, but a pure tokenized marketplace would likely look more like a Bermuda-style ILS evolution or a new DeFi-adjacent structure rather than a direct Lloyd’s replacement.
In practice, tokenization is more likely to augment the ecosystem: syndicates or competitors could use it for parts of their business, Bermuda could gain ground in tokenized ILS, and hybrid models (traditional + tokenized) could emerge. It won’t magically create the innovation speed, broker network, or trust that define Lloyd’s.
Realistic Outlook
Tokenization is a powerful tool that could ease capital pressures, speed up processes, and open new distribution channels—helping the broader London Market (including non-Lloyd’s players) stay competitive. However, for truly replacing Lloyd’s role in specialty/high-risk insurance, it would need to pair with regulatory evolution, proven smart contract reliability, widespread adoption, and continued human expertise. We’re seeing pilots and growth in RWAs/ILS tokenization, but as of 2026, it’s still early-stage and complementary rather than revolutionary for the full marketplace.
If your question ties to a specific Lloyd’s issue (e.g., capacity in marine/war risks, operational costs, or attracting capital), or if you’re thinking about investment/participation angles, more details would help refine this!
Long COVID research badly needs studies that move beyond description and toward intervention. This is why this preprint is worth attention. It starts to sketch a possible treatment path.🧵
A new preprint is interesting because it points to something important
a potentially treatable biological mechanism.
Not a clinical breakthrough. More like a promising preclinical proof of concept.
a potentially treatable biological mechanism.
Not a clinical breakthrough. More like a promising preclinical proof of concept.
This study is a strong mechanistic signal that at least some of the neurological problems after COVID may be driven by persistent neuroinflammation - and that shifting immune regulation can improve that state in mice.
I just had the interesting thought that Light Yagami from Death Note might've been a Chaotic Evil ENTP.
I could see this for some key reasons:
Light was a multifaceted genius who's crux was boredom and challenge to his ideals.
His ideals weren't truly lawful but idealistic and god-like.
Light used his networking chameleonism for evil to manipulate people across fields including multiple experts like L. Light even befriended L and deeply empathized with him because they shared similar cognitive and analytical thought processes.
In this sense L might be seen as a Lawful or Chaotic Neutral INTP.
By typing Light as a Chaotic Evil ENTP, you strip away the facade of the "righteous crusader." He becomes exactly what he feared he might be in the beginning: a bored, narcissistic genius with a god complex, treating the world as his personal sandbox simply because he could.
This interpretation also explains why Ryuk finds Light so entertaining until the very end. Ryuk as a Chaotic Neutral/ENTP spectator, recognizes a fellow boredom-fueled player who eventually stops being fun once the ego fully consumes him. Ryuk could even be seen as a mirror that exposes Light's flaws precisely because he never falls into the same trap of taking the game too seriously.
I think the degradation of the game to Light may have been defeating L while under a sophisticated scope leading to boredom. After defeating L he gets bored and sloppy with how he progresses and manages control of his Kira Image.
Light may have even mirrored Mello's aggression later in the series, especially after his sister Sayu was involved because he did genuinely care about her.
Light still probably had feelings for his sister as she was an innocent who wasn't after him and is specifically "his little sister."
He could justify using and killing his father in self preservation because of the line of work he chose. Even referring to his father as a "fool" after his death.
Light reframes Soichiro's death not as a personal loss or a failure of his own manipulations, but as necessary collateral in building a "new world" where "earnest" lawful types won't be victimized by the rotten old system.
Light was not saying his father was inherently foolish in a raw, hateful way—he's saying the current world makes such people into fools by forcing them to play by flawed rules.
Light positions himself as the synthesizer who will fix that: his god-like order will protect (or eliminate the need for) people like Soichiro, but only on his terms.
This is straight ENTP world building and synthesis across multi-faceted domains with a extreme aversion to authority and being told he's wrong.
Light's degradation could even be marked by allowing anyone other than Misa or Takada access to any Death Note without erasing their memories as a temporary distraction. This is due to his boredom following defeating L turning into sloppy handling of his progression.
This boredom fueled sloppiness is what eventually leads Mello to Sayu. Light didn't lose in the warehouse, he lost once his sister was used as a bargaining chip. Light lost here because it broke his god complex, he wasn't untouchable and he couldn't cut off his little sister to pursue his plan. This leads to Light trading a Death Note for her release and also loses his father in the process. The rest of the series is just Light crashing out once this is exposed until Ryuk writes his name in the Death Note once Near outwits him.
I could see this for some key reasons:
Light was a multifaceted genius who's crux was boredom and challenge to his ideals.
His ideals weren't truly lawful but idealistic and god-like.
Light used his networking chameleonism for evil to manipulate people across fields including multiple experts like L. Light even befriended L and deeply empathized with him because they shared similar cognitive and analytical thought processes.
In this sense L might be seen as a Lawful or Chaotic Neutral INTP.
By typing Light as a Chaotic Evil ENTP, you strip away the facade of the "righteous crusader." He becomes exactly what he feared he might be in the beginning: a bored, narcissistic genius with a god complex, treating the world as his personal sandbox simply because he could.
This interpretation also explains why Ryuk finds Light so entertaining until the very end. Ryuk as a Chaotic Neutral/ENTP spectator, recognizes a fellow boredom-fueled player who eventually stops being fun once the ego fully consumes him. Ryuk could even be seen as a mirror that exposes Light's flaws precisely because he never falls into the same trap of taking the game too seriously.
I think the degradation of the game to Light may have been defeating L while under a sophisticated scope leading to boredom. After defeating L he gets bored and sloppy with how he progresses and manages control of his Kira Image.
Light may have even mirrored Mello's aggression later in the series, especially after his sister Sayu was involved because he did genuinely care about her.
Light still probably had feelings for his sister as she was an innocent who wasn't after him and is specifically "his little sister."
He could justify using and killing his father in self preservation because of the line of work he chose. Even referring to his father as a "fool" after his death.
Light reframes Soichiro's death not as a personal loss or a failure of his own manipulations, but as necessary collateral in building a "new world" where "earnest" lawful types won't be victimized by the rotten old system.
Light was not saying his father was inherently foolish in a raw, hateful way—he's saying the current world makes such people into fools by forcing them to play by flawed rules.
Light positions himself as the synthesizer who will fix that: his god-like order will protect (or eliminate the need for) people like Soichiro, but only on his terms.
This is straight ENTP world building and synthesis across multi-faceted domains with a extreme aversion to authority and being told he's wrong.
Light's degradation could even be marked by allowing anyone other than Misa or Takada access to any Death Note without erasing their memories as a temporary distraction. This is due to his boredom following defeating L turning into sloppy handling of his progression.
This boredom fueled sloppiness is what eventually leads Mello to Sayu. Light didn't lose in the warehouse, he lost once his sister was used as a bargaining chip. Light lost here because it broke his god complex, he wasn't untouchable and he couldn't cut off his little sister to pursue his plan. This leads to Light trading a Death Note for her release and also loses his father in the process. The rest of the series is just Light crashing out once this is exposed until Ryuk writes his name in the Death Note once Near outwits him.
Teru Mikami can be seen as the perfect tool for a "complacent" Light. Mikami was Light's first and final "sloppy" mistake that proved he had lost his controlled touch.
@threadreaderapp unroll
ChatGPT isn't replacing search, it's reshaping how people navigate it.
New clickstream data by @semrush (17 months, 1B+ interactions) shows:
– where users go after ChatGPT
– how prompts are evolving
– what it means for SEO/PPC strategy
Here's what to actually do with it 🧵
New clickstream data by @semrush (17 months, 1B+ interactions) shows:
– where users go after ChatGPT
– how prompts are evolving
– what it means for SEO/PPC strategy
Here's what to actually do with it 🧵
Treat ChatGPT as a discovery layer, not a destination.
Referral traffic from ChatGPT grew 206% YoY in 2025.
Implication:
– It's increasingly a gateway to the web
– Visibility here influences what users click next
Action: Start thinking in terms of AI = site journeys, not just rankings.
Referral traffic from ChatGPT grew 206% YoY in 2025.
Implication:
– It's increasingly a gateway to the web
– Visibility here influences what users click next
Action: Start thinking in terms of AI = site journeys, not just rankings.
🚨 Don't separate AI visibility from SEO 🚨
Over 20% of ChatGPT referrals go to Google.
Users often:
1. Discover via ChatGPT
2. Validate via Google
3. Then convert
Action:
– Maintain strong SEO foundations
– Align messaging across both channels
Over 20% of ChatGPT referrals go to Google.
Users often:
1. Discover via ChatGPT
2. Validate via Google
3. Then convert
Action:
– Maintain strong SEO foundations
– Align messaging across both channels
OPEN LETTER to @OliverVarhelyi, @EU_Commission for Health and Animal Welfare -
x.com/tobaccoreporte…
tobaccoreporter.com/2026/04/09/ope…
x.com/tobaccoreporte…
tobaccoreporter.com/2026/04/09/ope…
OPEN LETTER to @OliverVarhelyi, @EU_Commission for Health and Animal Welfare -
x.com/tobaccoreporte…
tobaccoreporter.com/2026/04/09/ope…
x.com/tobaccoreporte…
tobaccoreporter.com/2026/04/09/ope…
@OliverVarhelyi @EU_Commission OPEN LETTER to @OliverVarhelyi, @EU_Commission for Health and Animal Welfare -
x.com/tobaccoreporte…
tobaccoreporter.com/2026/04/09/ope…
x.com/tobaccoreporte…
tobaccoreporter.com/2026/04/09/ope…
ISTG Post-COVID Anime "fans" need to admit they hate women🙄
(Also learn how to use spellcheck🙃)
(Also learn how to use spellcheck🙃)
BASED REDDIT!!😤
OMG REDDIT DESTROYED THIS TOURIST🤣
The Israeli siege of Beirut, 1982.
Hezbollah didn’t exist back then.
Hezbollah didn’t exist back then.
In 1983, the Lebanese government signed a “peace deal” with Israel under US pressure, recognizing Israel and delegitimizing resistance against it. A popular uprising shattered that deal months later. Same thing is happening now, talks of a “peace deal” while Beirut burns
“The PLO did”. There’s always an excuse. After the PLO evacuated and surrendered, Israel and its allies began butchering thousands of civilians in refugee camps and that marked the beginning of an 18 years long Israeli occupation of Lebanon. But yeah, PLO
thejerusalemfund.org/2023/09/sabra-…
thejerusalemfund.org/2023/09/sabra-…
Wow
Ceasefire agreement did include Lebanon.
Trump: "agreed that included Lebanon."
Mediators: "believed the ceasefire to include Lebanon."
Pakistan announced it included Lebanon.
"However, the US position shifted following a phone call between Netanyahu and Mr. Trump."
1/
Ceasefire agreement did include Lebanon.
Trump: "agreed that included Lebanon."
Mediators: "believed the ceasefire to include Lebanon."
Pakistan announced it included Lebanon.
"However, the US position shifted following a phone call between Netanyahu and Mr. Trump."
1/
3/ This reporting (Lebanon was, indeed, part of the ceasefire agreement) makes JD Vance's awful statement below even worse.
The kind of ugly statement that can undermine diplomacy and is even more egregious if Vance's statement on Lebanon was false:
The kind of ugly statement that can undermine diplomacy and is even more egregious if Vance's statement on Lebanon was false:
South Carolina doesn’t have a growth problem. We have a structure problem.
Large load can strengthen the grid or raise costs. Get the structure right, and South Carolina wins.
🧵Not all megawatts are equal.
Large load can strengthen the grid or raise costs. Get the structure right, and South Carolina wins.
🧵Not all megawatts are equal.
Data centers and advanced manufacturing can either be grid assets or liabilities. It depends on policy.
Done right, large load should:
• Co-invest in generation, storage, and infrastructure
• Participate in demand response
• Fund the capacity they require
Right now, the issue isn’t demand. It’s incentives.
When returns are tied only to capital deployed, the system drives more buildout and higher costs.
We can fix that:
• Require transparency
• Tie returns to performance
• Align incentives with flexible, infrastructure-backed load.
Incentivize what works:
Battery storage + demand response
= lower peak demand
= stronger grid
= lower long-term costs
South Carolina has a choice. Get the structure right, and we win.
Done right, large load should:
• Co-invest in generation, storage, and infrastructure
• Participate in demand response
• Fund the capacity they require
Right now, the issue isn’t demand. It’s incentives.
When returns are tied only to capital deployed, the system drives more buildout and higher costs.
We can fix that:
• Require transparency
• Tie returns to performance
• Align incentives with flexible, infrastructure-backed load.
Incentivize what works:
Battery storage + demand response
= lower peak demand
= stronger grid
= lower long-term costs
South Carolina has a choice. Get the structure right, and we win.
Data centers and advanced manufacturing can either be grid assets or liabilities. It depends on policy.
Done right, large load should:
• Co-invest in generation, storage, and infrastructure
• Participate in demand response
• Fund the capacity they require
Right now, the issue isn’t demand. It’s incentives.
When returns are tied only to capital deployed, the system drives more buildout and higher costs.
We can fix that:
• Require transparency
• Tie returns to performance
• Align incentives with flexible, infrastructure-backed load.
Incentivize what works:
Battery storage + demand response
= lower peak demand
= stronger grid
= lower long-term costs
South Carolina has a choice. Get the structure right, and we win.
Building a modern technology and energy strategy for South Carolina.
Join us: sceta.io
Done right, large load should:
• Co-invest in generation, storage, and infrastructure
• Participate in demand response
• Fund the capacity they require
Right now, the issue isn’t demand. It’s incentives.
When returns are tied only to capital deployed, the system drives more buildout and higher costs.
We can fix that:
• Require transparency
• Tie returns to performance
• Align incentives with flexible, infrastructure-backed load.
Incentivize what works:
Battery storage + demand response
= lower peak demand
= stronger grid
= lower long-term costs
South Carolina has a choice. Get the structure right, and we win.
Building a modern technology and energy strategy for South Carolina.
Join us: sceta.io
