Unrelated to the incident you're referring to, but during the 2020 wildfires here in oregon, proudboys and maga types were out searching the countryside for BLM activists. They'd heard via police scanners that BLM were setting up checkpoints and denying entry to fire-affected areas. Which was absolutely true - since that's what the Bureau of Land Management is supposed to do.
I’ve heard “BLM Land” used as an example of affirmative action by an older family member. He scoffed at how ridiculous it was that there was land reserved for BLM and the blacks weren’t even using it.
Wonder if it ever occurred to him that the “BLM Land” had been there for decades, but the “Black Lives Matter” movement has only been around under that name in recent years.
So what’s your point, genius? That we shouldn’t view her how she deserves to be viewed, I.e. a horrible person who shouldn’t be near any kind of grown up profession?
I mean yeah if I saw her or one of the other MAGAts dying in a ditch after a car accident, I’d pump my fist and continue on my merry way. Just being honest here.
Not really a distinction worth making when surrendering or adopting out a dog is just a pipeline to Euthanization anyways. This dog bit a human being, killed small animals for sport, it’s far too late to salvage.
I can’t count the number of times l have had to wait 30 effing days to get my refund for a cancelled work flight that I paid for and couldn’t get reimbursed for. Sometimes I needed it for bills, it sucked.
Same, fucking delta offered my us $90 refund per ticket for a $400 flight that was cancelled…and then wanted us to rebook it for the next week…i just wanted my damn money back.
I can empathize that this sucks to go through because I haven’t read anything to suggest she had murderous intent, but even accidents have consequences. There have to be penalties for setting up dangerous conditions to make sure that happens as rarely as possible. It’s why charges like “involuntary manslaughter” exist.
While this was technically an accident, I put it in the same league as driving drunk and killing someone. It was preventable by doing the bare minimum of what her job responsibilities were.
I agree and that’s why I finished by saying even these situations, where there’s no intent, have to be prosecuted and punished. While I empathize with making mistakes (having made my own albeit none nearly so serious) I still think there’s a good reason she’s headed to prison.
It’s “an accident” in the same way getting shit faced and going for a cross country drive and wrecking is “an accident”.
She violated pretty much every safety regulation, and I believe was even getting drunk and shooting the prop guns on set with live bullets. She was definitely shooting them on set, I just don’t know if they proved she was doing it while drunk.
A drunk driver doesn’t mean to kill anyone either. But most don’t say it was just an accident and try to emphasize with the irresponsible sociopath who got someone killed because they thought they knew more than the law.
I’m not sure how much experience you have with alcoholics, but when they say they’re “hungover” they’re usually still legally drunk too. Often they had a drink first thing after waking up to take off the edge.
She (correctly) beat an evidence tampering charge on reasonable doubt, because the person Reed handed a white baggie of powder to, threw it away - after the shooting happened.
If she’s actively using narcotics (why else have it on her?) and working as a set armorer, that is a massive dereliction of duty irrespective of drug laws. She needs treatment absolutely, but as set armorer it is your responsibility ultimately, and there was live ammo that fired on set that day. That is her responsibility, Baldwin’s culpability for firing/“pointing” the gun remains to be determined.
Back in 2010 an Officer in my state killed 1 motorcyclist and injured two others while drunk driving on the job. He was eventually sentenced to 4 years in prison for that.
By comparison 18 months seems reasonable for her crime.
She wasn’t qualified to do a very specific job she was hired specifically to do. The people who hired her are also at fault, but her very actions and incompetence at her duties lead to a shooting and death. You don’t just shrug and say oops, accidents happen if a certified electrician or utility worker messes up so badly they burn your house down.
My cousin in the Schengen area got breast cancer and went off to get treatment with 80% of her salary. After the first rounds feeling much better asked the social worker to go back and the answer was, not until you get to the last round and get medical clearance.
Try that in the US.
That shit radicalized me.
I’m from Australia, not some poncy nordic utopia. I wouldn’t describe the US as a shithole country per se, but I sure as shit wouldn’t want to move there.
The whole republican thing does make me apoplectic, and admittedly that’s pretty much all we see from this far away, but I acknowledge that its probably not a big part of daily life. For example, there’s some 4x4 youtube channels I watch and the people just seem like cool normal people who I’d probably like to know in real life, but I’d bet they vote republican anyway.
During his presidency, it actually was a part of daily life. We all had to endure a constant drumbeat of headlines about horrible things he did or said until you almost stopped caring. It would be like that again if he gets reelected.
Alternately, you're talking as if facilitating the whole network, including the torturing and killing, is somehow better than doing the actual torturing and killing.
A ringleader in a global monkey torture network exposed by the BBC has been charged by US federal prosecutors.
Michael Macartney, 50, who went by the alias "Torture King", was charged in Virginia with conspiracy to create and distribute animal-crushing videos.
Mr Macartney was one of three key distributors identified by the BBC Eye team during a year-long investigation into sadistic monkey torture groups.
Two women have also been charged in the UK following the investigation.
Warning: This article contains disturbing content
Mr Macartney, a former motorcycle gang member who previously spent time in prison, ran several chat groups for monkey torture enthusiasts from around the world on the encrypted messaging app Telegram.
The groups were used to share ideas for custom-made torture videos, such as setting live monkeys on fire, injuring them with tools and even putting one in a blender.
The ideas were then sent, along with payments, to video-makers in Indonesia who carried them out, sometimes killing the baby long-tailed macaque monkeys in the process.
According to charging documents, Mr Macartney, who lives in the US state of Virginia, is accused by prosecutors of collecting funds from his chat groups and distributing videos depicting the "torture, murder, and sexually sadistic mutilation of animals, specifically juvenile and adult monkeys".
Mr Macartney has cooperated with investigators from the Department of Homeland Security and agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy charges. He will formally make a plea later this month and is facing up to five years in prison.
Speaking to the BBC Eye investigations team last year, Mr Macartney confessed to his role in the torture network, describing himself as the "king of this demented world".
"I was the man," he said. "You want to see monkeys get messed up? I could bring it to you."
Mr Macartney also described the moment he joined his first Telegram monkey group.
"They had a poll set up," he said. "Do you want a hammer involved? Do you want pliers involved? Do you want a screwdriver?"
The resulting videos were "the most grotesque thing I have ever seen", Mr Macartney said, and yet he went on to become a key player in the monkey torture groups.
The BBC understands that more charges are expected to follow soon for other key players in the monkey torture network. At least 20 people were placed under investigation last year globally, following the BBC's investigation.
Three participants have already been charged in the US, including Mr Macartney. Two torturers were arrested and jailed in Indonesia, and three women have been arrested in the UK, two of whom have been charged.
Holly LeGresley, 37, of Kidderminster and Adriana Orme, 55, of Upton-upon Severn were charged last month with publishing an obscene article and causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.
Ms LeGresley and Ms Orme were high-profile members of the online torture groups. Ms LeGresley, who went by the screen name "The Immolator", was a moderator in a group run by Mr Macartney and was involved in commissioning some of the most extreme videos.
In the US, two others have been charged with the same counts as Mr Macartney.
David Christopher Noble, 48, a former US Air Force officer who was previously court-martialed and dismissed from the military, and Nicole Devilbiss, 35. They are both facing up to five years in prison.
Yeah, how about YOU try again. If you can’t see what’s wrong with being the distributor, coordinator, enabler, promoter, etc., of such horrible acts, then something’s really wrong with you. Argue all you want, you’re still WRONG.
Why not? If you do the act yourself it’s worse than asking someone. Just like it would be for murder, the murderer gets longer behind bars, this is not surprising.
Willingly and knowingly promoting and distributing and organizing inhumane acts is as equally bad as commiting the core inhumane act directly. The goal and impact are equal.
In my opinion there is no spectrum for comparison in inhumane acts. It simple is or isn’t.
Hitler was just as inhumane as the ones he ordered to commit the acts.
Those are fair points. Would, hypothetically, someone who is off the deep end be punished just as badly as someone who decided to follow those words? Or would it depend on their position of authority?
I’d leave that up to judge and jury with real details rather than hypotheticals, but I do think for justice to be accurate the state of mind, intentions, and many other factors should be considered.
I do think a person who was mentally competent, understanding the act is inhumane would get a more harsh justice than a person who wasn’t.
I think authority doesn’t have a direct role in deciding justice
I don’t think following orders is an excuse, each of us has a duty to understand what we are doing and are responsible for the results. but if a person was incapable of understanding the results of their actions that is different from a person who was.
A person who has authority likely is knowing and competent and intentional, and the wider impact of their actions will implicitly have harsher justice without directly considering their authority
Most countries have protections for people disobeying illegal orders, and most countries make inhumane acts illegal so I feel like this well covered.
This type of comment always really bothers me. You are misrepresenting what is being compared. It’s not running chatrooms that is being judged. It’s facilitating and organizing the creation and distribution of animal torture content. If he was running chatrooms about my little pony no one would care. Framing it as running chat rooms is dishonest. Flying planes isn’t bad. Flying planes into buildings is. Say out loud the part you are trying to to minimize.
How so? I didn’t say he ran some innocent or general chat groups, they were obviously involved in horrific shit. You are misrepresenting what I am saying.
No one is saying that’s not true. You are not making a point there. Connecting the people willing to do it to the people willing to view it increases demand and increases the occurrence.
You don’t seem to be making a very different point here. Yes, it increases demand, but, as I said, those committing the violence are the ones who should be held more to account in my opinion, which is what start this conversation chain.
The start of the conversation seems to be someone saying that what he did was fucked up and he deserves more than 5 years for it. Then you wanted to make a distinction about his role in the torture for entertainment industry. If your point was that the people committing the torture directly should receive longer sentences than him then you did just about the worst job possible to convey that.
No you didn’t. That doesn’t make your supposed point that the people that did the torture directly deserve more time in jail than him. You took a weird stand at a weird time and communicated it very poorly the whole way through.
Then what exactly were you addressing? You haven’t made the intent of your initial comment clear at all. SeaJ said that what the guy did was fucked up and deserves more jail time. What does that have to do with your comment? He didn’t say anything about the sentencing for the others.
I think you are projecting. I don’t see that anywhere. Just people saying that the sentence should be longer. Which it should be. It should be considered as something like federal trafficking with a minimum of 5 years and up to 40 years. I bet they would have sentenced him with more than 5 years if it was CP he was trafficking.
Lol that’s actually really funny. I know exactly what I said and why. I don’t think you have the reading comprehension to actually understand my words and attempts at using them.
Which adds a while other level of hypocrisy. Why can’t he have good ol’ Americans do the job? Are they not good enough for him?
Also don’t care that he did not directly do it. He was facilitating it and it would not have happened on the same scale without his help. So in essence, he absolutely caused the torture of monkeys. Should someone who goes a hitman not be charged with anything? The hit man isn’t killing the victim without pay so obviously the person hiring one should be charged.
This was the example which came to mind, where the original person was sentenced with the strongest punishment, then the subsequent people each received subsequently lighter ones.
However this disagrees with my stance, and gave the person who requested a hitman a longer sentence than the two who committed the murder (24, v 16 and 20 years respectively).
I upvoted you, by the way, in case you thought it was me who downvoted.
The comment you originally responded to didn’t say that he did the torturing himself, so your unsolicited response that “he didn’t do the actual stuff though” absolutely comes across as an attempt to minimize the things that he is accused of doing according to the article.
That sounds like a defense to me. You think we should give him slack because of his distance to the violence he was orchestrating.
LMAO, they’ll call him a legitimate businessman running a legitimate business, why is the government getting in the way of a stand-up American’s monkey-torture distribution network!
Reynold’s attorney said they offered to swap her their lot right next door or sell her the house at a discount. But she has refused both offers. “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.
I’d also tell them to fuck off. The only reasonable option would be giving her the house (which she is now paying taxes on and requires work to make it usable because of the shit) or to bulldoze the thing (or uproot the house and move it; whatever gets it off the property) and get the lot back to its prior state.
Keaau Development Partnership sued PJ’s Construction, the architect, the prior property owner’s family, and the county, which approved the permits.
They also sued Reynolds.
The developer knows they fucked up and are hoping one of the people they are suing is poor enough or dumb enough to cave so they can recoup some of the massive legal cost they are looking at. Also suing the kids of a dead person is a little fucked up. Like “Hey sorry that your dad died but we can’t sue him so we’ll sue you instead.”
The only reasonable option would be giving her the house
No need. The house is already hers if the laws over there work as they do where I live. Anything somebody else builds on your land becomes your ownership automatically. The developer knows this and tries to bully and cajole her into getting his money back or at least cut some of the losses.
There’s a quote from the realator involved to the effect of “we need to resolve this”. Notice the language technically is just saying we’ll work this out, but it’s worded with the implication that it’s on her to make good. Which, no, it isn’t.
Her correct response would be “my lawyer will be in touch”, and looks like she did that. I don’t know if this is going to get her into Fuck You Money or not, but either way, she seems to be smart enough to let her lawyer do the talking.
And it still won’t look like anything to them even after they find out the handgun wasn’t registered to him. And after they find out the suicide note (pro tip: real suicides generally ) was written super-generically.
That assumes there will always be a good alternative to choose from.
From where I live to go back home to my parents there is exactly one provider that flies directly. All other connections have stop-overs. Not even talking about price difference.
I am actually at the point where I will avoid Boeing 737-MAX at booking, ask again at check-in to confirm the plane type, and if I saw one at the gate, I would refuse to board and accept the money as a loss. Unfortunately not everyone can afford re-booking like that. So f*ck Boeing and I just hope that Airbus won’t ever be that corrupt (chances are they are or will be at some point).
I’m no pilot, but I can’t imagine these particular variants have been around so long for retraining to be a serious issue. Not when mass death is on the line and older, reliable Boeing planes still exist.
I am not sure what you are trying to say exactly, however the re-certification that should be required for the 737-MAX was exactly the reason for introducing the MCAS software to prevent the crew certified for older 737 models from pushing the nose into the ground on take-off. That, together with glossing over the major design change so that no pilot would flag “hey, this is a new plane, we should get a proper new certification for this” contributed to the two crashes, murdering 350something people over profit.
Boeing wanted to sell a new plane model with significantly altered aerodynamic behavior as a “variant” of an existing one so airlines could save cost on not having to re-certify pilots.
I’m saying if the newer, problematic planes aren’t going to be forced to ground by regulators, pilots should refuse to fly them. Surely there are plenty of planes still flying built by Boeing before they sold souls. Surely those won’t require massive retraining. Fly them instead.
Because most older Boeing models are actually robust aircraft & when the maintenance is in the hand of a capable airline, there’s nothing wrong with them from the perspective of safety. But as Boeing continues to fuck this up, and murder whistleblowers - I doubt there will be Boeing airplanes left to safely board in the future.
Because its kind of possible to organize such mass boycotts without groups set up to manage it, and none are coming forward on this.
I mean hell, even the republicunt boycott of beer couldn’t be arsed to actually make a difference, and MAN the mixture of beer and queerness is the exact trigger to rile those bigots.
Why don’t news organizations address the elephant in the room? They can say there is no evidence of foul play but the circumstances warrant further investigation as his death is quite convenient for Bowing. I don’t see how that could be libelous.
They can be sued if they claim Boeing executives murdered a guy unless there are court records showing Boeing executives were convicted for murdering a guy. However, I guarantee you people like Trevor Noah and John Oliver will absolutely run with this bit if they get the chance.
“WhY iSN’t ThE MEdiA CoVEriNG tHe NeWs” people scream in the comments of a news feed that alerted them to this exact issue.
You absolutely did not. The question was not: “Why don’t news organizations claim Boeing execs murdered a guy…?” The commenter was clearly aware of the problem of libel, which you completely ignored. They asked why news orgs aren’t discussing the fact that the death comes at a suspiciously convenient time - because they aren’t. This is not the same as claiming that he was murdered by Boeing.
He claimed it shouldn’t be libelous and I explained that it would be libelous. You’re implying that journalists are somehow dancing around the issue, which is silly because we’re all pretty well informed that the whistleblower was probably murdered.
If you say a person or entity with a public image did something really bad that they haven’t been strictly proven to have done, with exceptions for things such as parody, then that is defamation. So, yes, it can be libelous to talk about the fucking elephant.
That’s simply not true. Defamation/libel against a public company requires “actual malice”, which essentially means that the news outlet would have to have evidence that what they’re saying is not true.
Fox was going to lose to Dominion because they 100% knew they were lying about the company, and there were records proving it. It’s not actually common at all for cases regarding defamation against public figures or corporations to go anywhere.
Moscow Mitch should have been shown the door years ago, this system sucks. He and his friends have damaged America far more than any foreign enemy could ever hope to.
Hey, now! Moscow Mitch hates being called Moscow Mitch, so we probably shouldn't call him Moscow Mitch because the nickname Moscow Mitch might become popular again and that would upset Moscow Mitch on the day that Moscow Mitch announced that he's stepping down from Moscow Mitch's leadership role.
Hey guys, be fair. Maybe he was just stealing to support the baby he had with a child who was "over 14, so it wasn’t statutory rape, we totally swear.’
He was 17. IIRC, it would’ve still been illegal for him to have sex with her if she was 14 or younger, so they were very careful to specify that she was “over 14.”
Every time anyone shares information about someone they are dating they lead with unsolicited information of why the relationship is technically legal. It’s how you know the love is pure. \s
For each CAMEO Video (other than a Business CAMEO Video), you hereby grant to the User and the Recipient a non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid, worldwide, sublicensable, and perpetual license to use, reproduce, distribute, and publicly display the CAMEO Video, in each case, solely in accordance with the Site Terms, in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter invented or devised (including social media channels and third-party websites and platforms).
I’m only a humbly country space chicken lawyer but the terms explicitly say that Kimmel can do whatever the fuck he wants with the recording.
I'm really not surprised. They wouldn't even want to limit commercial use, because I'd assume companies paying celebrities for little blurbs for company parties and stuff like that is a meaningful chunk of their business.
Hard to take a lawyer seriously when the language is so clear and the direct premise of the site, though. It's not some obscure power grab in the EULA of a site focused on something different. It's what you're getting paid for.
This is what happens when your education is CEO-pandering articles on Forbes and Fortune shoving “the workers are the problem and work-from-home is lazy and will kill your business” agenda so they get more views
working in office culture = more people in his city spending money day to day + more offices needed because workers are expected to be there + more property value from more property demand due to return to office culture.
Mayors of cities have a vested interest in having full office buildings which provide more funding to the city through worker/poor tax (sales tax) instead of corporate tax hikes.
If the ownership class stands to benefit from the status quo continuing they will 100% impose the status quo.
He seems like an OK mayor for the city tbh but shit has gone downhill under him like the George Floyd thing which Domino’d to chaos over time.
This is probably a cascade from businesses wanting to end their lease on downtown offices, which is due to remote workers, which is why this dude is spazzing. It’s directly affecting the city income, budget, planning, etc. Just pushing it more towards chaos.
I see the reasons, but instead of putting everything back maybe try to move forward? I’m no city planner so I have no idea what another solution would be. Cheaper business startup costs to increase local markets?
A city is sort of like a business because there are budgets, income, expenses, etc. When you have no offices being leased, you will, as the city, lose.
Addition: he said it was a joke. It could’ve been. It could not have been. As I said before, he’s done an OK job. I’d feel inclined to belive it was a joke in poor taste. Perhaps a half joke. Idk man. It’s not super important in the grand scheme.
Good god. Thank you for bringing a sane, thoughtful take on the situation.
A city is sort of like a business because there are budgets, income, expenses, etc. When you have no offices being leased, you will, as the city, lose.
Yes. There are real monetary issues here and memes aren’t going to change that overnight.
And the real monetary issues are that the free market has spoken and the businesses, instead of listening to this Free Market that they worship so much, have instead propped up a failure of a decision for no reason other than they’ve already spent a bunch of money on it.
If MY business failed because I stuck too hard to a sunk cost fallacy, nobody would give a shit. So why is it a problem here? They should have invested better, or at the very least, seen which way the wind is blowing and adapt appropriately.
Presumably he is invested in getting people back into the office, so you would have thought that he would have tried something a little bit more likely to succeed than insulting people.
Politicians these days are just bad at being corrupt.
This is the guy who showed up to a protest for the murder of George Floyd and everyone switched to chanting “Go home Jacob, go home” and “shame”. Dude just sucks.
OK is making it easy a threat worth doing something about, or simply making public info easier to find? You’re trying to have it both ways. Is it “just easier” or a real threat?
What the actual fuck is wrong with you? Taylor Swift isn’t your friend. She isn’t creeping around forums making a list of users that defend her. Her success was purchased by her rich father, her music is written and produced by a team of professionals who use scientifically proven methods to make sure the music is palatable to make the most money… Goddamn. Who defends the ultra rich?
You don’t walk in her shoes. You don’t know what is or should be important to her. She may be wealthy, but maybe her personal value is something other than what you think it should be.
I don’t walk in her shoes. Yeah duh, if I did I wouldn’t be, because if I ever made 5 million I’d retire, buy a house, and live off interest comfortably the rest of my life. I don’t need any more than that (and technically don’t even need that, considering I don’t have it now and I’m not dead).
That’s you, not her. Like most successful people I suspect she has higher aspirations. Although I find her music a bit jingleistic, I suspect making it is important to her, perhaps even more than her bank account.
But making music doesn’t require her to charge so much money to make more money, only to break even.
In my opinion Higher aspiration doesn’t absolve someone of taking advantage of others, even if it is “fair price” according to capitalism.
Sure it could be important to her. In my opinion that changes her desires from “wanting to make music” to “wanting to make more money”.
I have yet to understand how it is “moral” for someone in a society to gather such disparate worth, and then call them “successful”. Is society success defined by how much you take advantage of others?
Wealth is a funny thing. Especially these days with so much money at the top. I don’t begrudge someone being wealthy. I begrudge those that make money on their money and call it work.
Even if it is. I don’t personally feel that “CEO” does as much benefit as the multi millions a year they “earn”.
Even then. I think my upper limit to "earnings"with the value of the dollar now would probably be ~200k. And only then if I got more specialized and did more projects for more people/companies with it.
It’d take me 25 years at that to get to my “5M”. And I doubt I have that much left in me.
The reason CEOs make the money they do is because they have proven their judgemental value and there are few of them. Another reason is that it’s a tough job to get, so you have to bail hay while the sun shines. Most CEOs don’t find an equal job if replaced.
I’ve managed engineers. It’s not easy, but most of them knew they didn’t want my job. Now you take that and multiply the effort accross business disciplines and you have to have good judgement to be successful.
That still doesn’t match the current state of affairs in my opinion.
Just because effort is more does not inherently mean value generated from said effort is more.
Not to mention the huge jump in compensation for said “effort” by each level.
You say you don’t like people who just live off the interest their money collects, I can respect that ideology. I feel that people who are actively funneling more money away from the people doing the useful work are worse than those just living off interest.
In a perfect world we would all die broke, and be born with equal opportunity. This isn’t a perfect world.
Edit: thinking about this further. I also have to disagree about the “effort” a CEO puts in to be inherently more or less than any other position. Every job requires effort. I guarantee a server working a double is pouring a ton of effort into that job. For me that job would be a lot of effort, likely more than I ever have exerted in my work. It’s what makes me not want that position. Does that mean a server should inherently make more money than I do?
Same with my boss’ position. It would take a lot of effort from me, different than the server position would take, but still probably about the same effort in my opinion. Yet he gets easily 5x the pay a server gets (and more than I get)…
Compensation is one of those things you juggle when you decide to take a job that’s offered. You, or anyone else, wants as much as you can get. Usually, if the company has anything on the ball, they know the compensation of someone with your experience and ability that other companies offer. Same thing is true with CEOs. It’s up to you to accept or not. Maybe the perks you get are worth aa lower offer. It’s up to you. CEOs do get tied to performance, though, so if you are successful you get bonuses for that but if you’re meh, you don’t. If you continue to be meh, you may not be a CEO for long. Getting another CEO job isn’t easy.
I can begrudge the wealthy. Look at where Taylor Swift came from. She’s the child of two wealthy investment bankers who moved to Nashville to support their daughters music career when she was still a tween. Taylor Swift has always been a marketing project, it’s all she literally knows how to be since she was a literal child.
Billionaires also don’t just have “I can live on this comfortably for the rest of my life” money they have “I can impact the world if I want to” money. If she never played another concert ever again she could travel the world and eat out at the world’s most expensive restaurants and clothe herself in the most over expensive folies for the rest of her days and still leave a massive fortune to her children. Cupidity has no upper limit though so she’s still focused on accruing money by changing the playing field to her advantage.
And instead she makes money for everyone around her venues and gives money to food banks everywhere she goes. I mean, I am envious of her wealth too, but I’m not jealous about it. Some people catch breaks in life, some don’t
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.