Homeowner’s Panic Begins When a Huge Python Finds Its Way Inside—’He’s in My House’ 70%

By Sayantan47%

7/20/2026, 11:51:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, False Dilemma, and Appeal to Authority, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 861 faulty-reasoning hits from 490 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.6% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,735 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.20% of the article peer group.

A video shared to X by the account @SusieM414141 shows an unidentified woman reacting in shock after spotting what appears to be a large reticulated python with its head poking through a gap in her ceiling. 
Only the snake’s head is visible in the footage, though its size suggests a long body remains hidden above. 
Struggling to catch her breath in the clip, the woman kept expressing her disbelief throughout the video. 
“You’re joking! 
I literally can’t breathe!” 
she said, later adding, “He’s in my house!” 
This is the exact time where you decide to burn the place down. 
How do you even go about getting that python out of your ceiling? 
Nope!! 
pic.twitter.com/Yoqzw0SXRR 
- Suzee Q (@SusieM414141) July 19, 2026 
Captioning the video, the X user who shared it wrote that the moment was “the exact time where you decide to burn the place down,” and asked how anyone would go about getting a python like that out of a ceiling. 
One X user asked how anyone could sleep in the house knowing the snake was still up there. 
They wrote, “Can you even imagine having to fall asleep knowing that it is up there? 
I could not do it.” 
Another argued for a more direct solution, saying they would just shoot the snake and patch the resulting hole in the roof afterward, “Why does nobody just shoot them. 
I can fix a hole in the roof from a 30.06. 
Then burn it. 
One user was too skeptical to even return to the home again. 
They wrote, “No way would I step foot in that house until it was removed and I saw the proof.” 
Lightening the mood, one commenter recalled a pet python owned by a family member, joking, “My brother had a python named Shaft, and surprisingly, he was not FERAL. 
 
The post does not mention if the python was removed safely, or if there was an infestation. 
Reticulated pythons turning up inside homes through ceilings has been a common occurrence around the world. 
Why does nobody just shoot them. 
I can fix a hole in the roof from a 30.06. 
Then burn it. 
- Mark Angle (@MarkAng38855922) July 19, 2026 
A 15-year-old girl in Malaysia found a 132-pound reticulated python hiding above her bathroom after noticing cracks in the ceiling, and Yahoo News reported the snake had likely entered through a nearby durian tree before civil defense officers removed it. 
In a separate incident reported by Newsweek , a Malaysian family watching television had a 10-foot reticulated python drop into their kitchen, prompting a half-hour rescue operation by the country’s civil defense force. 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify the events described in this video. 
The details above reflect the woman’s reaction and the account’s caption, as shared on X. 
The woman’s identity and location have not been confirmed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.5%Sayantan: 6.9%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.8%Sayantan: 6.4%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic19.8%This article: 3.9%Sayantan: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Sayantan: 3.2%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias4.5%This article: 11.2%Sayantan: 3.6%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect11.2%This article: 4.1%Sayantan: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Sayantan: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias5.7%This article: 11.2%Sayantan: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias11.2%This article: 19.8%Sayantan: 11.8%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias19.8%This article: 1.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.3%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 2.9%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.5%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.9%Sayantan: 3.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority14.9%This article: 18.2%Sayantan: 2.2%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma18.2%This article: 3.9%Sayantan: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.9%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.3%Sayantan: 16.4%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization3.3%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%Sayantan: 4.7%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 2.1%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.4%Sayantan: 5.1%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof8.4%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.2%Sayantan: 14.3%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal9.2%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.7%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Sayantan: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.5%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity3.5%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 7.9%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.9%Sayantan: 4.0%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 8.4%Sayantan: 2.1%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice8.4%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

490 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers2.9%attributed speech476writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageSuzee Q • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMark Angle • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Angle

0%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words50% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Mark Angle: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Mark Angle: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.