(Photo: Blogspot)

Break out the champagne, guys! According to a report published by porn search engine PornWatchers.com, humans have successfully watched 1.2 million years worth of porn since 2006. Congratulations, humanity.

The caveat? That number accounts for just two of the Internet's favorite porn sites, XHamster and YouPorn. What of PornHub or RedTube or XTube? Surely if we counted those, and also all of the weird fetish sites, that number would be at least tripled. So proud of us right now.

The report also states that the platforms have reached 93 billion views, which equals approximately 15 views for each human on earth. There have also been 158 million ratings and 8 million comments, a number so large that it kind of defeats the theory that only weirdos comment on porn videos.

If you're going to any holiday parties tonight, make sure you have a proper toast: To porn. To us. Cheers!

(h/t HuffPo)

This comes up when you Google "Nate Silver baller." (Photo: Mashable)

Statistical genius and maybe-witch Nate Silver popped by Gawker Media's sports site, Deadspin, today for a little Q&A session. Mr. Silver answered some interesting questions that have been bouncing around the web ever since his mic drop moment, wherein he accurately predicted the electoral outcome of all 50 states.

Mr. Silver wrote that he does plan to make predictions for the elections in 2014 and 2016, and that being suddenly famous is "Completely terrifying. Still, file under 'Good Problems to Have.'"

The most fascinating moment, however, came when an enterprising Deadspin commenter named blackjack870 asked the question everyone else wanted to but decided against in order to preserve their dignity. "What is the statistical probability that a 28 y/o male gets laid this weekend?" he asked, before clarifying, "Specifically, me."

Though many have assumed his mathematical wizardry lends itself innately to social awkwardness, Mr. Silver replied with what was really the only appropriate response:

It's inversely correlated with your likelihood of asking this question.

To that, poor blackjack870 did not respond.

Mitt Romney (Getty Images)

Sometime around July 21, Mitt Romney's Twitter account saw a bizarre spike in follower numbers, to the tune of 150,000 or so new accounts in about 48 hours. The presidential candidate's opponents might be quick to blame Mr. Romney or his campaign, but Mr. Romney's digital director already told Buzzfeed the campaign had nothing to do with it. Either way, someone clearly fluffed the former Massachusetts governor's follower count with fakes and The Atlantic crunched the numbers to prove it. The post by Alexander Furnas and Devin Gaffney is densely detailed:

According to a random sample of 1000 followers from the candidates' accounts, 26.9% of Romney's 150,000 newest followers had fewer than 2 followers. For other accounts of similar size, only 9.6% of new followers had less than 2 followers themselves. The median number of followers for Romney's new followers was 5, whereas the median for the comparison group was 27. This represents a stark, and statistically significant difference. If you are a statistics nerd, like us, you might want to know that the p-value on this was 0.0000. For the rest of the world, this means that there is, essentially, a zero percent chance that the underlying characteristics of Romney's followers are actually the same as the comparison users.

TechCrunch helpfully explains the p-value statement by noting that the p-value of 0.0000 means "Romney is about as likely to get hit by a meteor as his is to get 150,000 followers" in just 2 days.

A quick glance at Mr. Romney's Twitter followers today suggests new fake accounts continue to follow the candidate. Multiple accounts with no tweets and no followers, following the governor and perhaps 3 or 4 other political Twitter feeds, always yielded an account creation date of July 31.

The most intriguing explanation for why someone might be inflating Mr. Romney's social media profile was offered by TechCrunch's Gregory Ferenstein, who wrote that no one knows if followers were bought "by someone at Camp Romney, a clueless PR flack, or a conspirator trying to make him look bad."

Mr. Romney's campaign or a misguided Romney supporter purchasing followers would be a pretty minor embarrassment. A Romney opponent purchasing fake followers in an attempt to make the Republican nominee "look bad" might be a much more interesting tale of Twittery political intrigue.