= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The Gentle Seduction by Marc Stiegler ; search strategy was [short story about technological change saturn]
You develop a system for setting up and running a day care center, in the same way that Starbucks has a system for running coffee shops. That gives you economies of scale, because you only need to develop the system once, and then you can copy it across the country. What are the best toys? How do you physically set up the center? How do you manage the pickup transition (what do you do if a parent is chronically late to pickup?) Do you include a transportation (bus/van) service to get kids to the center?
Then you also develop a brand, which gives you a huge marketing advantage. New parents wonder where to send their kids to day care, and the LironCare brand is already at the top of their mind.
Having a brand also makes you more trustworthy, for game theory reasons, and there's nothing more important in day care than trust. Parents know that if there's a fiasco at any one LironCare center, that's going to be a huge black mark for the entire company, and they know you know that too, and so will work 100% to make sure there's no fiasco.
This is ridiculous. Arguing that 234 stars is a tiny number and therefore it was aliens...
On the contrary, 234 is 234. If something has been found in 234 stars, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.
This is exactly as ridiculous as ID in human biology. In fact it is the same thing, just applied to a different area.
I'm surprised to find such rhetoric on this site. There is an image now popularized by certain political activists and ideologically-driven cartoons, which depict the colonization of the Americas as a mockery of the D-Day landing, with peaceful Natives standing on the shore and smiling, while gun-toting Europeans jump out of the ships and start shooting at them. That image is even more false than the racist depictions in the late 19th century glorifying the westward expansion of the USA while vilifying the natives.
The truth is much more complicated than that.
If you look at the big picture, there was no such conquest in America like the Mongol invasion. There wasn't even a concentrated "every newcomer versus every native" warfare. The diverse European nations fought among themselves a lot, the Natives also fought among themselves a lot, both before and after the arrival of the Europeans. Europeans allied themselves with the Natives at least as often as they fought against them. Even the history of the unquestionably ruthless conquistadors like Cortez didn't feature an army of Europeans set out to exterminate a specific ethnicity. He only had a few hundred Europeans with him, and had tens of thousands of Native allies. If you look at the whole history from the beginning, there was no concentrated military invasion with the intent to conquer a continent. Everything happened during a relatively long period of time. The settlements coexisted peacefully with the natives in multiple occasions, traded with each other, and when conflict developed between them it was no more different than any conflict at any other place on the planet. Conflict develops sooner or later, in the new world just as in the old world. Although there certainly were acts of injustice, the bigger picture is that there was no central "us vs them", not in any stronger form than how the European powers fought wars among themselves. The Natives had the disadvantage of the diseases as other commenters have already stated, but also of the smaller numbers, of the less advanced societal structures (the civilizations of the Old World needed a lot of time between living in tribes and developing forms of governments sufficient to lead nations of millions) and of inferior technology. The term out-competed is much more fitting than exterminated, which is a very biased and politically loaded word.
You cannot compare the colonization of the Americas to the scenario when a starfleet arrives to the planet and proceeds with a controlled extermination of the population.
Hell yes this is a problem! Hours worked and hourly pay are very much correlated (it costs a lot to get someone to work that 80th or 120th hour in a week) and part time jobs often don't come with health benefits. Many workers have the opposite problem - the local retail store won't increase their hours and they never hire anyone full time ever because then they would have to provide health insurance.
Sorry, can't see why situation III is so bad. I generally like the fact that I like spending time with my husband. On the other hand, I can almost imagine the 'and then zombie apocalypse happened and she had to bash his head in with the frying pan' end of story. What exactly did you have in mind?
The development of Native Americans has been stunted and they simply exist within the controlled conditions imposed by the new civilization now. They aren't all dead, but they can't actually control their own destiny as a people. Native American reservations seem like exactly the sort of thing aliens might put us in. Very limited control over our own affairs in desolate parts of the universe with the addition of welfare payments to give us some sort of quality of life.
The Europeans did not "proceed with a controlled extermination of the population". Yet, what happened to that population?
They still exist... so they were not exterminated? They did not carry out purposeful extermination, and in fact the indigenous people were not exterminated. So what exactly are you arguing?
The only thing that was very truly devastating to indigenous populations was smallpox exposure, and that was an accident. Also lots of internal wars, famine, civilization collapse, etc. But most of that was triggered by the smallpox plague 30+% die-off.
The fact that Europeans outnumber indigenous people 100:1 in north america (less so in central and south america) isn't some purposeful, master plan of the European colonialists. It's just the inevitable outcome of a number of historical accidents with compounding effects.
You misunderstood my point.
The Europeans did not "proceed with a controlled extermination of the population". Yet, what happened to that population?
You don't need to start with a deliberate decision to exterminate in order to end up with almost none of the original population. Sometimes you just need to not care much.
designing technology is a special case of prediction
It's possible to be very good at prediction but still rather bad at design. Suppose you have a black box that does physics simulations with perfect accuracy. Then you can predict exactly what will happen if you build any given thing, by asking the black box. But it won't, of itself, give you ideas about what things to ask it about, or understanding of why it produces the results it does beyond "that's how the physics works out".
(To be good at design you do, I think, need to be pretty good at prediction.)
To the speed section, you might want to add examples of parallel learning. Parallelizing learning of robot arm manipulation, or parallel playing of Atari games, which are both (much) faster in terms of wallclock time and also can be more sample and resource efficient (A3C actually can be more sample-efficient than DQN with multiple independent agents, and it doesn't need to waste a great deal of RAM and computation on the experience replay).
This.
Also, schlep alert: this might be the densest regulatory thicket outside of healthcare, with huge variation in standards at (at least?) the state/province level. In my little environment of 13 million Ontarians, a recent arbitrary change of the teacher/child ratio allegedly drove a good many daycares out of business.
Also, parents are insane (source: am parent).
Seconding resuf's comments: both that this is a pretty good, professional looking video, but also that it's another instance of you seeming to listen to some of the exact-letter-of-the-request when people ask you to stop or do things differently, without understanding the underlying reasons why people are upset.
And that this is especially important if your goal is to be a public-facing outreach organization.
Can someone here come up with any sort of realistic value system a foreign civilisation might have that would result in it not destroying the human race, or at least permanently stunting our continued development, should they become aware of us?
Not being bored. Living systems (and presumably more so for living systems that include intelligence) show more complex behavior than dead systems.
The part about healthcare is USA-specific, but the relationship between total hours and total pay is nonlinear at other places, too.
In Slovakia, the healthcare is set up so that everyone pays a fixed fraction of their income, and then everyone receives exactly the same healthcare regardless of how much they paid. So it shouldn't have any impact on hourly rate.
Yet, it is difficult to find a part-time work on the market. When I tried it, I had to work for 50% of my previous salary just to reduce the work to 4 days a week, and the employer still believed they were doing me a favor. (After a few weeks I decided that getting 50% of money for 80% of time is not a smart deal, so I quit.)
I believe the problem is signalling. Almost everyone is okay with working full-time; especially men. (Women can use having small kids as an excuse for a part-time job, but that also dramatically reduces their hourly rate, which is an important part of the pay gap.) If you are a man unwilling to work full-time, it makes you weird.
So it's not like the employer literally needs you there 5 days a week. It's simply a decision to not hire a weirdo, when there are non-weird candidates available. If you differ from the majority by not willing to work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, who knows what else is weird about you? Why take the unnecessary risk? Also, well-paid employees are supposed pretend they love their job; and by asking for a part-time job you show too clearly that you actually care about something else more.
Thus, I sometimes had jobs where I was able to spend up to 50% of my working time just browsing websites from the company computer. But no comparably well paid option where I could officially work 4 days a week, or 6 hours a day, and then simply go home.
(I was also trying to get home office, so that instead of browsing the web I could do something useful. But the companies where the employees spend much time online are usually on some level aware of what is happening, so they don't allow home office. As long as everyone must stay in the building the whole day, the management can keep pretending that people are actually working.)
I believe that if for example 50% of people working in some profession would demand part-time work, this problem would mostly disappear. Then, wanting to work part-time would simply be normal. But that's a coordination problem, and I don't even know how many people would actually be interested in working part-time if that would be a legitimate option (with the same hourly rate).
If we developed practical interstellar travel, and went to a star system with an intelligent species somewhat below our technological level, our first choice would probably not be annihilating them. Why? Because it would not fit into our values to consider exterminating them as the primary choice. And how did we develop our values like this? I guess at least in some part it's because we evolved and built our civilizations among plenty of species of animals, some of which we hunted for food (and not all of them to extinction, and even those which got extinct, wiping them out was not our goal), some of which we domesticated, and plenty of which we left alone. We also learned that other species besides us have a role in the natural cycle, and it was never in our interest to wipe out other species (unless in rare circumstances, when they were a pest or a dangerous disease vector).
Unless the extraterrestrial species are the only macroscopic life-form on their planet, it's likely they evolved among other species and did not exterminate them all. This might lead to them having cultural values about preserving biodiversity and not exterminating species unless really necessary.
Should probably have been posted in the open thread (not meant as a reproach)
The premise this article starts with is wrong. The argument goes that AIs can't take over the world, because they can't predict things much better than humans can. Or, conversely, that they will be able to take over because they can predict much better than humans.
Well so what if they can predict the future better? That's certainly one possible advantage of AI, but it's far from the only one. My greatest fear/hope of AI is that it will be able to design technology much better than humans. Humans didn't evolve to be engineers or computer programmers. It's really just an accident we are capable of it. Humans have such a hard time designing complex systems, keeping track of so many different things in our head, etc. Already these jobs are restricted to unusually intelligent people.
I think there are many possible optimizations to the mind to improve at these kinds of tasks. There are rare humans that are very good at these tasks, showing that human brains aren't anywhere near the peak. An AI that is optimized for them, will be able to design technologies we can't even dream of. We could theoretically make nanotechnology today, but there are so many interacting parts and complexities, humans are just unable to manage it. The internet has so much bugged software running it. It could probably be pwned in a weekend by a sufficiently powerful programming AI.
And the same is perhaps true with designing better AI algorithms, an AI optimized towards AI research, would be much better at it than humans.
Along the lines of my earlier GCTA, I've written a Wikipedia article on genetic correlations.
what's the most annoying part of your life/job?
Pain. Moderate but constant pain from old sports injuries makes me: spend money on pain meds and counter irritants, work longer hours because the pain is distracting and reduces my productivity, limit physical activity and travel, deviate from an optimal exercise routine, fall into a black hole of grumpiness occasionally.
how much would you pay for a solution?
If by "solution" you mean an easy, one-time, guaranteed fix: $10,000
It sounds pretty spectactular!
I found one paper about comets crashing into the sun, but unfortunately they don't consider as big comets as you do--the largest one is a "Hale-Bopp sized" one, which they take to be 10^15 kg (which already seems a little low, Wikipedia suggests 10^16 kg.)
I guess the biggest uncertainty is how common so big comets are (so, how often should we expect to see one crash into the sun). In particular, I think the known sun-grazing comets are much smaller than the big comet you consider.
Also, I wonder a bit about your 1 second. The paper says,
The primary response, which we consider here, will be fast formation of a localized hot airburst as solar atmospheric gas passes through the bow-sock. Energy from this airburst will propagate outward as prompt electromagnetic radiation (unless or until bottled up by a large increase in optical depth of the surrounding atmosphere as it ionizes), then in a slower secondary phase also involving thermal conduction and mass motion as the expanding hot plume rises.
If a lot of the energy reaching the Earth comes from the prompt radiation, then it should arrive in one big pulse. On the other hand, if the comet plunges deep into the sun, and most of the energy is absorbed and then transmitted via thermal conduction and mass motion, then that must be a much slower process. By comparison, a solar flare involves between 10^20 and 10^25 J, and it takes several minutes to develop.
Do the exercise where you look into the other person's eyes for 10 minutes by the clock, that's a fun social skills building exercise that brings you closer to the person you do it with.
Do pre-mortems of things. I.e. supposing we're 5 years in the future and we look back at the problems we had, what do we expect those problems to have been? Can we change them?
Define "rationality things"...
they're full of guys who'll hit on her no doubt!
So what? Do you think that is different in any street or store? On the opposite I would say that rationality meetups would tend to be more respectful of boundaries than the average group of human beings.
It is on the bets registry. I am Unknown with a new username.
I would appreciate a service that would provide long-term guidance to programmers. More like a guild than like a job agency.
I imagine something like this: You would pay a small yearly membership fee. In return you would get an access to a guild forum (where members provide information to each other), and a subscription to a digital newspaper (where the guild provides the most important information to the members). For a higher fee, you could get some personal counseling or training. The guild would provide information about the job market; e.g. which technologies are currently in demand, and how much salary get the people who know them. It would also provide information about new technologies; e.g. a short description and a link to more resources, with an expert opinion about why this is an important thing, and how is it connected with other technologies.
Essentially, the problem I am trying to solve here is that as long as I work in a company, it is easy to lose the sight of the larger picture. My company may use a technology X, while the rest of the world is moving towards Y, but I don't notice it because I spend most of my time reading about X and solving problems related to X; the nature of my work creates a huge selection bias. And the people I talk with most often, i.e. my colleagues, have a selection bias in exactly the same direction.
Of course, once in a while I will hear about Y; but I don't know whether it is really a trend, or just another hype. Even looking at the job market, which technologies are most required, provides a distorted picture: sometimes companies are looking for X because it's the new trend, and sometimes companies are looking for X because it's a crappy technology no one wants to use, so those job positions remain open forever.
I would also love to be able to get better background info about my possible future employers; to be blunt, how much "what they tell you at the job interview" differs from how things are actually done once you are there. (I realize this would be difficult, probably impossible. First, there is a risk of the bad employers suing you for libel. Second, people may have various incentives to provide false information; e.g. to astroturf for their own company, or to badmouth competition.) Or some insider info; for example if the company is working on a several large projects, you may want to get to the project A, but you should really avoid the project B.
Some of these things can be (at least partially) solved by other ways, such as specialized websites (e.g. stack exchange, including their workplace forum) or tech conferences or knowing the right people and keeping in touch with them. But it would be convenient to have everything in one package, also with some coaching. Someone you could ask to help you with your career, to identify some blind spots you may have, to give you a honest estimate of how much money you could make with your skills if you apply for the right job or learn the additional technology that is currently missing in your portfolio. In best case, to also give you some advice about passive investment and early retirement, work-life balance, etc.
That assumes that AIs maximize things, and in my opinion they won't, just as humans don't. But in any case, if you think that the AI is simply implementing the true extrapolation of human values, then it can only do that if it is the true extrapolation of human values. Which can hardly be called an accident.
Such things exist (e.g. Action Day Primary Plus where I live). They are among the more expensive options. One reason is that the brand allows them to price themselves higher, but it is also true that their costs are fundamentally higher. Their competition is home daycares that not only don't pay for added rent and employees, but take a tax write-off for using their home as their business location.
The reason daycare is expensive is because of state laws regulating daycares that mandate a certain number of kids (e.g. 6) per licensed adult. Divide a living wage for your area by that number and you'll realize there really isn't much overhead at all.
The native American thing isn't analogous to paperclipping because they weren't exterminated as part of a deliberate plan.
The alien encounter thing isn't all that analogous, either. It makes a little sense for paperclippers to take resources from humans, because humans are at least nearby. How much sense does it make sense to cross interstellar space to take resources from a species that is likely to fight back?
The ready made economic answer to intra species conflict is to make use of the considerable amounts of no-mans-land the universe has provided you with to stay out if each other's way.
I think Val's argument is that "no realistic value system implies not destroying alien civilizations" implies "either our value system is unrealistic, or we would take the first opportunity to destroy any alien civilization we came across." Perhaps you intended your comment to imply that we would do that, but I am skeptical. And if we would not do that, Val's argument is a good one. The only intelligent species we know does not desire to wipe out aliens, so it is more likely than not that alien species will not be interested in wiping us out.
Can someone here come up with any sort of realistic value system a foreign civilisation might have that would result in it not destroying the human race, or at least permanently stunting our continued development, should they become aware of us?
As has come to light with research on super intelligences, an actor does not have to hate us to destroy us, but rather realise we conflict, even in a very minor way, with its goals. As a rapidly advancing intelligent civilisation, it is likely our continued growth and existence will hamper the goals of other intelligent civilisations, so it will be in their interests to either stunt our growth or wipe us out. They don't have to hate us. They might be very empathetic. But if their goals are not exactly the same as ours, it seems a huge liability to leave us to challenge their power. I know that I would stop the development of any other rapidly advancing intelligent species if I could, simply because struggles over our inevitably conflicting goals would be best avoided.
So, my question is, can you see any realistic value system a superintelligent alien civilisation might hold that would result in them not stopping us from going on growing and developing our power as a civilisation in a self-directed way? I cannot.
Given this, why is it in any way legal to broadcast our existence and location? There have been efforts in the past to send radio signals to distant solar systems. A superintelligent civilisation may well pick these up and come on the hunt for us. I think that this is one of the biggest existential threats we face, and our only real advantage is the element of stealth and surprise, which several incomprehensibly stupid individuals seem to threaten with their attempts to contact other actors in the universe. Should the military physically bomb and attack installations that attempt to broadcast our location? How do we get the people doing this stuff to stop?
Well so what if they can predict the future better? That's certainly one possible advantage of AI, but it's far from the only one. My greatest fear/hope of AI is that it will be able to design technology much better than humans.
The way I think of it, designing technology is a special case of prediction. E.g. to design a steam engine, you need to be able to predict how steam behaves in different conditions and whether, given some candidate design, the pressure from the steam will be transformed into useful work or not.
I have trouble falling asleep at normal times and have been blocking blue light at night sometimes by wearing blue-blocking glasses but also by having red lights in my home office. I would like a bright lamp whose light would automatically change based on the time of day. I recently spent $75 buying smart light bulbs whose color can be changed by my iPad but I have to change the color myself several times each day.
This is what annoys me the most currently in my life: perfectly fine things going to the trash.
I've read that comic series, and probably won't pick it up again. What do I do? I do not have the storage space to save them indefinitely, nor anybody is going to accept it (comics are at an all time low marketing value where I live). So I throw them away.
The same thing for books, old hdds, modems, keyboards, laptop, cd's, etc.
There's an enormous waste of material goods.
Haha the problem is that even if you have a pretty souped up gaming desktop, its computing power is probably worth less than the power costs, so you'd basically be selling just your room's power.
Maybe you live in a dorm and you don't have to pay for that power, but even then, we're talking about pennies.
The problem of "college students are annoyingly poor" is a big niche. What do you know about converting your time to money through your computer?
I don't think there's a business model there at all. Once anyone sells a forecast to anyone it's OUT THERE and hard to sell again, and this is a HARD problem, basically the definition of chaos, severely limited by supercomputer time and raw data from dedicated satellites and thousands if not millions of instruments around the world and subject to exponentially diminishing returns. Weather forecasts basically perfectly fit the definition of a public good.
Now, if you were talking establishing a new network of weather sensors and selling that DATA to institutions...
That's why I am glad I reached sexual maturity during the age of high speed internet pornography....it "teaches" how not to put women on the pedestal and deal with them like you would deal with a man : money upfront and contracts to regulate every exchange and most importantly not to ever trust them ..... evolution selected for traits and behaviors necessary to procure resources for their future offspring , they would not hesitate to do so at other agents expenses
I've found it best to avoid the word "truth" whenever possible. The concept of "truth" implies an objective reality exists and that you know about it. Since we may be in a simulation, in the imagination of a god, or just hallucinating, we can never really be sure about "truth" and I find it boring to play semantic games in order to better hedge the word.
I find it much better to just focus on predictions and beliefs with explicit levels of confidence.
If you're talking about whether the sun rises tomorrow, and you say you predict that it will rise with high confidence, and your interlocutor responds, "That's not my truth," then you can just ask them to break that down into a prediction. Are they saying the sun won't rise? If so, okay, you can test that.
If the disagreement is over something that can't practically be tested, you can still interrogate their concrete predictions and see where they disagree with yours.
Religious people love talking about Truth because it is so confusing. I can't nail you down and show where you're wrong if you refuse to be concrete, so if you don't want to be shown to be wrong, just talk about abstract Truth.
Any insights about the following calculation?
If 100 km size body will fall on the Sun it would produce the flash 1000 times stronger than the Sun’s luminosity for 1 second, which would result in fires and skin burns for humans on day side of Earth.
The calculation is just calculation of energy of impact, and many “ifs” are not accounted, which could weaken consequences or increase them. Such body could be from the family of Sun grazing comets which originate from Oort cloud. The risk is not widely recognized and it is just my idea.
The basis for this calculation is following: Comets hit the Sun with speed of 600 km/s, and mass of 100 km size body (the comets of this size do exist) is 10e18 kg, so the energy of impact is 3.6x10e29 J, while Sun’s luminosity is 3x10e26 W.
A lot of humans care (or at least signal that they care in far-mode) about what happens in the future. That doesn't make it sane or reasonable.
Why does it matter to anyone today whether the beings inhabiting Earth's solar system in 20 centuries are descended from apes, or made of silicon, or came from elsewhere?
I am pretty sure this is not the main issue, nor is being "weird." But it is the fact that you want to work unusually few hours. That shows, as Viliam said, that you are less interested in working than on average. Employers would prefer not to have people unusually disinterested in working. The guy paying 50% of the money for 80% of the time was probably being reasonable, in terms of the expected value of a worker disinterested in working.
I agree that if everyone worked less, the supposed problem would go away. But that could only happen if everyone became less interested in working. I note that the average work week used to be much longer than 40 hours. So the fact that it has gone down somewhat, but not more, shows that people are not infinitely interested in working, but also not totally disinterested.
Tyler Cowen, talking about why the standard work week hasn't gone down to even less than 40 hours, says it is because people "like money, and like working," but that the reason they like working is that they don't like their personal lives that much. If he is right, then future improvements to personal life, as well as to the ability of less money to buy things, might end up leading to shorter work weeks. But it does not look like there is any short term solution that works well for people who are simply less interested in working than on average.
I really like that you mention world government as an existential risk. It's one of the biggest ones. Competition is a very good risk reduction process. It has been said before that if we all lived in North Korea, it may well be that the future of humanity would be quite bleak indeed. North Korea is less stable now than it would be if it was the world's government because all sorts of outside pressure contribute to its instability (technology created by more free nations, pressure from foreign governments, etc).
No organisation can ever get it right all the time. Even knowing what right is is pretty hard to do and the main way humans do it is with competition. We know certain things work and certain things don't simply because of policy diversity between nations - we can look and see which countries are successful and which aren't. A world government would destroy this. Under a world government I would totally write off humanity. I suspect we would all be doomed to die on this rock. People very much forget how precarious our current civilisation is. For thousands of years humanity floundered until Britain hit upon the ability to create continued progress through the chance development of certain institutions (rule of law, property rights, contracts, education, reading, writing, etc).
There have been wars over land since humans have existed. And non interaction, even if initially widespread, clearly eventually stopped when it became clear the world wasn't infinite and that particular parts had special value and were contested by multiple tribes. Australia being huge and largely empty didn't stop European tribes from having a series of wars increasing in intensity until we had WW1 and WW2, which were unfathomably violent and huge clashes over ideology and resources. This is what happened in Europe, where multiple tribes of comparable strength grew up near each other over a period of time. In America, settlers simply neutralized Native Americans while the settlers' technological superiority was overwhelming, a much better idea than simply letting them grow powerful enough to eventually challenge you.
The problem is, you have rigged the example to explode and so, naturally enough it exploded.
Specifically: you hypothesise an AI that is given a goal, but a term used in that goal has been left underspecified (by an assumption that you inserted, without explanation ... voila! the ticking time bomb), and then you point out that since the term has an underspecified definition, the AI could decide to maximize its performance by adjusting the term definition so as to make the goal real easy to achieve.
Besides which, all definitions are "incomplete". (See the entire literature on the psychology of concepts)
But notice: real intelligent systems like humans are designed to work very well in the absence of "perfectly complete" definitions of pretty much everything they know. They are not in the least fazed by weak definitions, and they do not habitually go crazy and exploit the weakness of every definition in the universe.
Well, okay, teenagers do that. ("I took out the garbage: look, the wastebasket in my room is empty!"). But apart from that, real humans perform admirably.
As far as I can tell the only AIs that would NOT perform that well, are ones that have been especially constructed to self-destruct. (Hence, my Maverick Nanny paper, and this comment. Same basic point in both cases).
Not what you were asking for, but: have you encountered Eliezer's list of sleep interventions? It's the last section of this author's note at HPMOR. There might be a different helpful intervention there.
According to the Mayo clinic swimming in clorinated water is a risk factor for dry skin. To me that suggest this might be an issue that's about the bacteria that live on your skin.
https://ubiome.com/ used to provide a skin kit but might not do it anymore (their website currently only shows the gut product).
It might be possible to develop a probiotics solution.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}