Something I Found While Looking for Something Else…Enjoy!

A quick and simple definition of XOXO – what it means, why it is used, and how to use it in text messages… If you have a phone, or a teenager/millennial in your home, you’ve probably seen the text XOXO. But what does XOXO actually mean? Like other internet slang, SMH, for instance, or Yeet, these abbreviations can be confusing at first glance. “XOXO” Definition: What It Means XOXO means hugs and kisses. Simple, right? The X means kiss and the O means hugs, so XOXO technically means kisses, hugs, kisses, hugs. Although plenty of people in America abbreviate it to XO, meaning kisses and hugs. But is this really the case? As with all things internet-based, the meaning of XOXO is up for debate. According to The New Yorker, XOXO is actually used to convey “light affection” but make sure you use it correctly because getting it wrong can indicate strong sexual desire. For instance, “XOX” indicates a heavy sexual desire, so if you see this inside a Tinder message, chances are your date will go well. Not to be confused with “XOX”, “XO” is, again, a term used for light-to-moderate affection like when you send your aunty a message, thanking her for xmas gifts. So, to recap: XOXO means light affection, XO also means light affection. And XOX means I want to jump your bones. Confused? This is just the tip of the iceberg. Online, XOXO is basically level one for letter-based sigils. You have plenty of other acronyms like NSFW, IIRC, IMHO, ROTFL, LMAO, and, of course, LOL which means laughing out loud – not Lots of Love. Why Do People Use XOXO? XOXO is used as a term of endearment. If you like someone and you want to express affection towards them, you can sign off an email, text message, or social media update with XOXO. The most common use of XOXO is inside WhatsApp, although people use XOXO in all kinds of settings. Those that are very meta even say it IRL – IRL means In Real Life, by the way – although this isn’t exactly common and probably isn’t advisable, especially if you born before the 2000s. OK, so we’ve covered XOXO. But what about other, popular text message abbreviations? As noted above, there is plenty of text-based slang online, in forums, in WhatsApp group chats, and on Facebook. Here’s a list of the 10 most-used and popular texting abbreviations and what they mean. Most Popular Texting Abbreviations & What They Mean ROFL – Rolling on floor laughing STFU – Shut the F**K up LMK – Let me know ILY – I love you YOLO – You only live once SMH – Shaking my head LMFAO – Laughing my freaking Ass off NVM – Never mind There are the basic ones, the type you’ll see most online. But there are plenty of more esoteric texting abbreviations you’ll come across – and some are downright bonkers! I mean, check out these ones: 420 – Marijuana 2M2H – Too Much To Handle 1NAM – One In A Million @TEOTD – At The End of The Day AAP – Always A Pleasure YGM – You Got Mail ACC – Anyone Can Come BAMF – Bass Ass Mother F****R BFFLNMW – Best Friends For Life No Matter Water I could go on, but I won’t. There are literally thousands of texting slang terms used today all over the world. And these are just the English language-based ones. Once you start looking at other languages, you get thousands more… Variations of XOXO XOXO is a popular slang term all by itself but like like popular things it is now evolving and changing with new variations. In what is perhaps the most meta thing ever, XOXO is now often abbreviated in an even shorter version – XO What does XO mean? As before, it means hugs and kisses; it is a message of love and affection. It is different from XOXO in that it connotes just hugs and kisses, not multiple hugs and kisses. Or, more likely, it is just easier to type out on a smartphone keyboard. So, if a girl sends you a message with XO at the end of it, it means she’s sending you hugs and kisses. Similarly, if a boy ends a message with XO, it means he is sending the recipient hugs and kisses. The gender of the sender has no effect on the meaning of the phrase. XO means hugs and kisses, regardless of who is sending it. Why Does “O” Mean Hugs? People have used “x” to mean kisses for hundreds of years. Well before the rise of smartphones, people were signing off cards with an “x” or multiple “x’s” to indicate love, but more specifically kisses. It has been a common practice sign the middle ages – but back then it meant something else. Back in the middle ages, letters were the ONLY form of long-distance communication. And people would seal their envelopes with a Christian cross and then kiss it. This was done to signify sincerity, faith, and honesty. This tradition carried forwards into the modern era but lost its theological meaning – the cross simply became a kiss or a term of affection. So, we know why “x” means kiss but how in the heck does “o” mean hug? It’s actually a really interesting story; and one that is still rather unclear today. The origins of “x” and “o” being used together are often linked to the game tic-tac-toe and, back when literacy rates were extremely low, and “x” and an “o” were two symbols that illiterate people knew and could use to communicate. The game (tic-tac-toe), which has roots in ancient Egypt and Rome, was played with pebbles or coins until it moved to paper. “These are two of the simplest contrasting symbols, easy to master by illiterate people,” says David Parlett, author of “The Oxford History of Board Games.” The Washington Post What is totally unclear is how the symbols from the ancient game, tic tac toe, changed meanings and began to be used to mean hugs and kisses. One of the first instances of XOXO being used was in 1960; it concerned a letter from two children to Santa Clause: “Dear Santa, How are you? I am fine. . . . Will you please bring me a play rifle and . . . please Love & Kisses XOXOXO DAVY MIKEY & CHERYL.” Similarly, the phrase began to appear in adverts and newspaper articles during the mid-1970s. But linguists are at a loss as to how XOXO came to mean hugs and kisses. It is truly a mystery, something that no one can explain. Its origins started with tic tac toe but morphed at some point to mean something else entirely. Frequently Asked Questions Q: What Does XOXO Mean? XOXO means light affection, XO also means light affection. You could use XOXO to sign-off a text or email to a good friend or a family member like your mum or dad. Q: What Are The 10 Most Popular Texting Abbreviations? The 10 most used texting abbreviations are as follows: ROFL – Rolling on floor laughing STFU – Shut the F**K up LMK – Let me know ILY – I love you YOLO – You only live once SMH – Shaking my head LMFAO – Laughing my freaking Ass off NVM – Never mind Q: What Does LOL Mean? Contrary to popular belief, LOL means laughing out loud, not Lots of Love. Q: What Does NSFW Mean? If you see the phrase NSFW, it means what you’re about to look at is NOT suitable for viewing in a work environment. NSFW means Not Suitable/Safe For Work. Usually, NSFW is used to tag adult content and/or stuff that is not suitable for younger viewers/minors. richard goodwin Richard Goodwin Richard Goodwin has been working as a tech journalist for over 10 years. He is the editor and owner of KnowYourMobile.

The Irish ☘️ Are A Proud & Courageous People, Will NATO Join Them or Seek Safe Harbors?

Fishermen plan to disrupt Russian military exercise Updated / Tuesday, 25 Jan 2022 20:35 The Chief Executive Officer of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation has said some of their members plan to peacefully disrupt Russia's plans to conduct a military exercise in waters off the Irish coast next month. Patrick Murphy described the area as "very important" for fishermen and said they want to protect biodiversity and marine life. Yesterday, Russia's Ambassador to Ireland said the controversy around the military exercise was "hugely overblown". In a press conference in the Russian Embassy in Dublin, Yury Filatov said the exercise was "not in any way a threat to Ireland or anybody else" and he said no harm is intended by it. The fishing organisation said it had been contacted by an official of the Russian Embassy in Dublin - and that they spoke after 2pm this afternoon. Mr Murphy said he spoke with a named official who said "that it would be reckless for us to send boats out to intervene with their exercise". There is just three ships involved, he said, but he had no other details on the exercise. Mr Murphy said he assured the official that they were not sending boats out to engage with the Russian navy but "we are letting them know that we will be fishing in our traditional fishing areas and if this has an impact on their exercise this would be considered a peaceful protest". Mr Murphy asked the official to send them an email confirming their conversation. In a statement the Russian Embassy said: "We have seen the statement by the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation that some of their members are planning to 'peacefully disrupt' Russia's naval exercise in the waters of the Atlantic next month. While we understand the concerns of fishermen about the integrity of marine resources there are neither grounds nor scientific data to believe that these exercises would influence the biodiversity of the ocean. "At the same time, we would think that any attempts to interfere with military exercises would be reckless and irresponsible act which could put in harms way both sailors and fishermen. All that has been explained to the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation." Tonight, the Irish South and West Fish Producers said they have had further contact with an official at the Russian Embassy in Dublin. Mr Murphy said that during a second telephone conversation this evening, he was advised that the Embassy would be notifying the Irish Government on 27 January that the exercises will proceed and that it is the duty of the Irish Government to ensure all Irish fishing boats must not be in the area outlined in the notification to them. Mr Murphy said that they are appalled at this development. Speaking earlier on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Mr Murphy said there are currently half a billion tonnes of blue whiting in the area that move up along the coastline. "That's a one million tonne fishery - not just for ourselves but for the Russian fleet as well too," he said. "So there's fierce risks in this. We feel that this is serious. You just had the minister on, Eamon Ryan, saying how critical fuel is. "This is the same for us. This isn't about €100 per person, this is the livelihoods of fishermen and fishing families all around the coastline here. "We've already seen 25% of what we were allowed to catch taken from us in the Brexit negotiations, and the cure to that is to wipe out one third of the fleet again? Another 60 boats are looking to be decommissioned by this Government." Mr Murphy said they are entitled to fish there, describing it as "our waters". "Can you imagine if the Russians were applying to go onto the mainland of Ireland to go launching rockets, how far would they get with that?" Mr Murphy said. "It's no different to fishermen, this is our ground, this is our farm, this is where we earn our living. "Why should somebody be able to come in and do that in our waters... this is going to affect our livelihoods and the marine life... there's seismic activity out there for years and it actually changed the migratory pattern of tuna at one stage. "So this is a very important ground where fish come to spawn... and we don't know what's going on out here. "We should be entitled to go fishing there, and if we're fishing there then these boats, these warships shouldn't be having war games." Mr Murphy added that the ships will be followed by submarines and asked what would happen if the fishing gear at the back of their boats got tangled with a submarine. He said this is a "real concern" and boats have been sunk by these vessels before. "We in our industry feel nothing's being done here, like everything else, and we want to act," he said. "We're not going to face down boats, we're not going to take them on that way, but we are definitely making a point here and we want our Government to do something for us. "Getting rid of us is not the cure, trust me." More stories on NewsIrelandNews Headlines

Biden’s Latest Foreign Policy Mayhem…

It should not be surprising that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin believes he can invade Ukraine, a sovereign neighboring nation, and claim it as an historic part of his empire. After all, there is a shameful European history to reflect upon, combined with the most recent actions of the United States under the current White House. In 1938, Western democracies were more than willing to hand over a free and stable central European nation to Hitler. The Czechs found themselves abandoned and served up on a plate to the Third Reich as Hitler threatened war if the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia was not annexed by Germany. The reason for his demand was that it was territory long populated by many ethnic Germans. (And this may sound disturbingly familiar if you follow Putin's logic why Ukraine is his, given that part of its diverse population is Russian.) Continue Reading Article

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories…

The Dispatch: Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told reporters yesterday that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had placed about 8,500 U.S. military personnel on “a heightened preparedness to deploy” to Eastern Europe in case NATO activates its response force. The Washington Post reports that, in another effort to stave off a Russian reinvasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration is threatening Moscow with rarely used export controls that would cripple Russian industry by inhibiting the country’s ability to import semiconductors—manufactured around the globe—that rely on American software or tools in any way. U.S. Central Command announced yesterday that American forces at Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates—with the help of Emirati armed forces—intercepted two incoming ballistic missiles early Monday morning. A Houthi military spokesman claimed responsibility for the attack, adding the Iran-backed militia will continue launching missiles “as long as attacks on the Yemeni people continue.” Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said that 39 Chinese aircraft—including 34 fighter jets, four electronic warfare aircraft, and one bomber—flew into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone on Sunday, the largest such incursion since October. Momentum for updating the Electoral Count Act of 1887 continues to grow, with 16 senators—including nine Republicans and 7 Democrats—meeting on Monday to chart a path forward on bipartisan legislation that could earn at least 60 votes. New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced yesterday he plans to combat rising gun violence in the city by launching new NYPD Neighborhood Safety Teams, putting more police officers on patrol, and increasing coordination between NYPD and New York State Police, among other initiatives.

Whose Side is Germany On, Anyway?

The Dispatch: (Photo by Jesco Denzel/Bundesregierung via Getty Images.) In a Monday morning press conference, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that several members of the military alliance were stepping up their efforts to deter a Russian reinvasion of Ukraine. Denmark will send a frigate to the Baltic Sea and fighter jets to Lithuania. Spain is dispatching ships to the Black and Mediterranean Seas. The Netherlands is committing aircraft to Bulgaria, and France is prepared to send troops to Romania. President Joe Biden said last week the United States has already shipped $600 million worth of arms to Kyiv, and the United Kingdom has airlifted thousands of short-range antitank missiles to Ukraine in recent days, plus 30 “elite British troops” to train Ukrainians to use them. Germany—the third-largest NATO member by population—has been notably absent from this unified show of force. Citing the country’s long-standing, “very clear stance on weapons exports,” Olaf Scholz—the country’s new chancellor—told reporters late last week Germany would likely abstain from supporting Ukraine militarily. A few hours later, The Wall Street Journal reported Berlin had blocked Estonia from doing so as well, because the Cold War-era howitzers the small NATO ally had planned to supply Kyiv originated in East Germany. The British planes carrying antitank missiles to Ukraine last week took a long detour through Denmark to avoid German airspace. (Initial reports indicated Germany had denied the planes’ request to take a more direct route, but both German and UK officials later clarified the UK didn’t bother to ask permission in the first place.) Berlin’s reluctance to export weapons—or be even tangentially associated with exporting weapons—is just one sliver of Germany’s broader caginess toward the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Scholz is saying many of the right things—“Borders must not be moved by force,” a Russian invasion of Ukraine will “have a high cost”—but he has proven unwilling to publicly commit to hardline sanctions on Russia’s prized (but not-yet-operational) Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the event of an incursion. “It is clear that there will be a high cost and that all this will have to be discussed if there is a military intervention against Ukraine,” Scholz said last Tuesday when pressed on the nearly-finished natural gas pipeline, which connects Russia and Germany while bypassing Ukraine. A few weeks earlier, he described Nord Stream 2 as a “private-sector project” and sought to de-link its regulatory approval from the Ukraine situation—a position Germany’s defense minister echoed earlier this month. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has opposed the pipeline in the past, but dodged a question on it in a joint press conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken last week. Yesterday, she said the “hardest stick” may not always yield the best results. Why all the equivocation? Two main reasons: Germany’s increasing reliance on Russian energy, and the long and fraught history between the two countries.

Russian Amphibious Preparation for Ukraine Invasion…

THOMAS NEWDICK View Thomas Newdick's Articles @CombatAir A group of Russian amphibious warfare vessels — three of which left the Baltic Sea region yesterday, preceded by another three the day before — have started to enter the English Channel. Some expect that their journey will eventually take them to the Black Sea to participate in an invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. Multiple reports confirm that all six of the Russian Navy warships have begun their passage through the English Channel, after which they will enter the Atlantic Ocean. The vessels comprise the Project 775 Ropucha class amphibious warfare ships Olenegorskiy Gornyak and Georgiy Pobedonosets, as well as the Project 11711 Ivan Gren class landing ship Pyotr Morgunov, from the Northern Fleet, plus three other Ropuchas, the Korolev, Minsk, and Kaliningrad, from the Baltic Fleet.

Frustrated by the Senate’s “Filibuster Vote” Marxist Socialist Democratic Party will not be able to control the National Vote & legality continue using sleazy tricks, dodgy mail-in voting & criminal activities used in the 2020 Presidential Election to seize control of the United States. They now seek to accuse the various States of rigging elections by requiring Voter Identification, Proof of Citizenship & other measures to insure the integrity of the Vote.

ANDREW TRUNSKY POLITICAL REPORTER January 19, 2022 10:52 PM ET FONT SIZE: The Senate late Thursday rejected a Democratic effort to alter the filibuster in order to pass their long-sought voting bills over unanimous Republican opposition, capping one of the most consequential days in the history of the chamber. The change, had it been adopted, would have established a “talking filibuster,” allowing any senator to speak for or against the bill for as long as they wanted but lowering the 60-vote threshold for passage to a simple majority. Democrats’ attempt to change Senate rules concluded a marathon day of debating in the chamber that saw nearly half of the body speak about the voting bills. They failed, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer moved to change the rules soon after. Though senators engaged in genuine debate throughout the day, most expressed disdain for how deliberation seemed to have faded from the world’s greatest deliberative body. “I don’t know what happened to the good old days,” said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, “but I can’t tell you they aren’t here now.” The Senate late Thursday rejected a Democratic effort to alter the filibuster in order to pass their long-sought voting bills over unanimous Republican opposition, capping one of the most consequential days in the history of the chamber. The vote failed 48-52 after Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema voted as they said they would for months, joining a unanimous Republican caucus in opposition and denying their party the necessary support for the change to take effect. The change, had it been adopted, would have established a “talking filibuster” pertaining to the voting bills only, allowing any senator to speak for or against them for as long as they wanted but lowering the 60-vote threshold for passage to a simple majority. “What we have now … is not a filibuster,” Maine Sen. Angus King, and independent who caucuses with Democrats, said ahead of the vote. “It doesn’t require any effort. It doesn’t require any speeches. It doesn’t require to hold the floor.” “Strom Thurmond would have loved this filibuster,” King added, invoking the late segregationist senator who set the record for the longest filibuster speech ever while speaking against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. (RELATED: Democrats Double-Down On Sure-To-Fail Strategy To Pass Voting Bills) Activists gather to support Democrats’ voting bills Wednesday. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images) Democrats’ attempt to change Senate rules concluded a marathon day of debating in the chamber that saw nearly half of the body speak either for the John Lewis Voting Rights Reauthorization Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, the twin bills that passed the House Thursday with a quirk that prevented Senate Republicans from blocking debate on them as they had in the past. (RELATED: House Passes Two Democratic Voting Bills – With A Quirk That Allows Them To Skirt One Filibuster Vote) The voting bills failed to garner 60 Senate votes earlier Wednesday night even though Manchin and Sinema voted in favor, sparking Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s motion to change Senate rules to allow them to pass without GOP support. “For those who believe bipartisanship is possible, we have proven them wrong,” Manchin said ahead of the vote. “Ending the filibuster would be the easy way out. I cannot support such a perilous course for this nation when elected leaders are sent to Washington to unite our country by putting politics and party aside.” Democrats have said the bills are necessary to counter election reform laws that Republican state legislatures across the country have passed in the wake of the 2020 election that allegedly suppress people’s ability to vote. As a result, nearly all have endorsed altering the filibuster to ensure their passage even if done on a partisan basis. “I share with many of you … a vision of the Senate that collaborates and negotiates the most important issue of our time,” Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said. “I believe in bipartisanship. But at what cost? Who is being asked to foot the bill for this bipartisanship and is liberty itself the cost?” (RELATED: ‘A Perilous Course For This Nation’: Manchin Breaks With Democrats, Reaffirms Support For The Filibuster Ahead Of Critical Vote) Sen. Tim Kaine speaks to the press about Wednesday’s votes and Democrats’ plan to push for a “talking” filibuster. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) Republicans, however, have countered that the federal legislation, which sets uniform voting standards and outlaws partisan gerrymandering, will invite voter fraud and infringe on states’ rights to oversee their own elections. “The president and his party will try to use fear and panic to smash the Senate, silence millions of Americans and size control of our democracy,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday. (RELATED: McConnell Blasts ‘The Left’s Big Lie’ As Schumer Prepares Another Voting Bill Push) McConnell said hours later that while the day was one of the most consequential in the history of the Senate, it really boiled down to a simple question: “Will it take 60 votes to pass massive changes or a simple majority to ram them through? That’s what’s at stake here.” Though senators engaged in genuine debate throughout the day, most expressed disdain for how deliberation seemed to have faded from the world’s greatest deliberative body. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican who backed the John Lewis voting bill, said Wednesday that the rhetoric surrounding voting has become very concerning. “I was part of a very troubling conversation last evening,” she said. “It was shared depending on which side you’re on in this body today on this issue, you’re either a racist or a hypocrite. Really, is that where we are?” Manchin echoed her hours later in his speech, criticizing the lack of bipartisanship as he has time and time again throughout his filibuster defenses. “I don’t know what happened to the good old days,” he said, “but I can’t tell you they aren’t here now.”