Skip to content
About these ads

The promise and peril of automation: now everyone sees the challenge

27 August 2014

Summary: It was long denied,  but now everybody sees the coming of the next industrial revolution. We enter the next phase, when experts assure us that the obvious will not happen, that the dynamics of past industrial revolutions would not repeat (although they don’t explain why). Today we look at experts grappling with these issues, and see some simple truths.

Robot-human partnership

Don Klumpp | Photographer’s Choice | Getty Images


Now that the 3rd industrial revolution has appeared on the front pages, Pew Research polls experts to learn its consequence: “AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs“, Aaron Smith and Janna Anderson, 6 August 2014 — Excerpt:

The vast majority of respondents to the 2014 Future of the Internet canvassing anticipate that robotics and artificial intelligence will permeate wide segments of daily life by 2025, with huge implications for a range of industries such as health care, transport and logistics, customer service, and home maintenance. But even as they are largely consistent in their predictions for the evolution of technology itself, they are deeply divided on how advances in AI and robotics will impact the economic and employment picture over the next decade.

… Some 1,896 experts responded to the following question: Will networked, automated, artificial intelligence (AI) applications and robotic devices have displaced more jobs than they have created by 2025?

Half of these experts (48%) envision a future in which robots and digital agents have displaced significant numbers of both blue- and white-collar workers — with many expressing concern that this will lead to vast increases in income inequality, masses of people who are effectively unemployable, and breakdowns in the social order.

The other half of the experts who responded to this survey (52%) expect that technology will not displace more jobs than it creates by 2025. To be sure, this group anticipates that many jobs currently performed by humans will be substantially taken over by robots or digital agents by 2025. But they have faith that human ingenuity will create new jobs, industries, and ways to make a living, just as it has been doing since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Most of the answers are exercises in making stuff up, just faith-based guessing (see examples here). Which is sad, as they disregard the painfully gained knowledge from previous industrial revolutions. History, economics, political science, and sociology give insights as to what we can expect from the massive increase in productivity that might loom ahead. But using our imagination is more fun.

There are others with a more scholarly approach, such as the study described by Matthew Yglesias in “Robots won’t destroy jobs, but they may destroy the middle class“, VOX, 23 August 2014 — Excerpt:

Read more…

About these ads

The long-simmering conflict in the Middle East breaks out, surprising US experts

26 August 2014

Summary: In our multi-media flood of news it’s easy to miss important inflection points. One might have just happened; something long predicted by experts in 4GW: the outbreak of complex violent conflicts in the Middle East as the conservative regimes respond to the jihadist ideologies sweeping through region.

Muslims victory



  1. The oligarchs strike back
  2. Watch this story. It’s just starting.
  3. Update
  4. Who will win?
  5. For More Information

(1)  The oligarchs strike back

With the aid of the Western nations, since WW2 corrupt oligarchs have dominated their peoples. Now a competing ideology has arise to oppose the free-market democracy ideologies which have failed those peoples. The oligarchs maintained a delicate balance, upset by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan by foreign infidels which set the region aflame.

In response these regimes have adopted different strategies, hoping to suppress the coming revolutions.

How will this play out? We can only guess. But we do have a model for a worst-case scenario: the 30 Years War (1618-1648), in which a dozen themes of evolving western society metastasized in a complex war — destroying Germany, creating the modern political regime of nation-states still ruling today.

This conflict has long simmered, and appears to be breaking out into a visible and more violent form. Oligarchs against their peoples. Different ethnic groups against each other (e.g., Kurds against Arabs, Arabs against Persians). Sunni against Shia.  Like the 30 Years War, strange alliances will form and shatter. Reliable predictions are impossible.

Western pseudo-experts will reduce this conflict to fairy tale simplicity to suit their domestic political agendas, involving us in conflicts we don’t understand — only to be mocked by events, leaving us to mourning our wasted money and heroic dead sacrificed in futile causes.

(2)  Watch this story. It’s just starting.

To learn what’s happen today we turn to this excellent reporting, an example of America’s journalism at its best: “Arab Nations Strike in Libya, Surprising U.S.“, New York Times, 25 August 2014 — Opening:

Twice in the last seven days, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have secretly launched airstrikes against Islamist-allied militias battling for control of Tripoli, Libya, four senior American officials said, in a major escalation of a regional power struggle set off by Arab Spring revolts.

The United States, the officials said, was caught by surprise: Egypt and the Emirates, both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines. Egyptian officials explicitly denied to American diplomats that their military played any role in the operation, the officials said, in what appeared a new blow to already strained relations between Washington and Cairo.

The strikes in Tripoli are another salvo in a power struggle defined by old-style Arab autocrats battling Islamist movements seeking to overturn the old order.

… Egypt’s role, the American officials said, was to provide bases for the launch of the strikes. … The officials said the U.A.E. — which boasts one of the most effective air forces in the Arab world, thanks to American equipment and training — provided the pilots, warplanes and aerial refueling planes necessary for the fighters to bomb Tripoli out of bases in Egypt.

This will be a complex story, as conservative Arab oligarchs take different paths to ride the tsunamis sweeping through their world (which the Western nations prefer not to see):

Read more…

The core of the climate debate: how much of the past warming did we cause?

25 August 2014

Summary:  Today we have a post by Judith Curry, a leading climate scientist, going to the very heart of the debate: how much of the warming since 1950 results from us? Before making predictions, how confidently can we see our past?

Climate change presents one of the greatest challenges in humanity’s history. To accurately assess long slow changes in Earth’s biosphere, discerning the effects of our effects from natural cycles. Equally difficult, our political machinery must accurately see the conclusions of climate scientists, and take appropriate steps. These are largely sociological processes, called upon to work on a level seldom seen in our past.

Voltaire: Doubt & Certainty



  1. The 50-50 argument
  2. About Judith Curry
  3. Vital info about climate change
  4. For More Information
  5. Advice from Bertrand Russell


The 50-50 argument

by Judith Curry, at her website Climate Etc
24 August 2014
Posted here under her Creative Commons license

(a)  Choose which hypothesis you prefer

Pick one:

  1. Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%)  caused by humans.
  2. Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes.

When faced with a choice between 1 and 2,  I respond:  ‘I can’t choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50-50′.  Gavin thinks I’m ‘making things up’ {see the discussion in comments here}, so I promised yet another post on this topic.

For background and context, see my previous 4 part series Overconfidence in the IPCC’s detection and attribution.

(b)  Framing

The IPCC’s AR5 (2014) attribution statement:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

I’ve remarked on the ‘most’ (previous incarnation of ‘more than half’, equivalent in meaning) in my Uncertainty Monster paper: “Further, the attribution statement itself is at best imprecise and at worst ambiguous: what does “most” mean – 51% or 99%?” Whether it is 51% or 99% would seem to make a rather big difference regarding the policy response.  It’s time for climate scientists to refine this range.

I am arguing here that the ‘choice’ regarding attribution shouldn’t be binary, and there should not be a break at 50%; rather we should consider the following terciles for the net anthropogenic contribution to warming since 1950: >66%, 33% – 66%, <33%.  Hence 50-50 refers to the tercile 33-66% (as the midpoint)

Note:   I am referring only to a period of overall warming, so by definition the cooling argument is eliminated.  Further, I am referring to the NET anthropogenic effect (greenhouse gases + aerosols + etc).   I am looking to compare the relative magnitudes of net anthropogenic contribution with net natural contributions.

Further, by global warming I refer explicitly to the historical record of global average surface temperatures.  Other data sets such as ocean heat content, sea ice extent, whatever, are not sufficiently mature or long-range (see Climate data records: maturity matrix).   Further, the surface temperature is most relevant to climate change impacts, since humans and land ecosystems live on the surface.  I acknowledge that temperature variations can vary over the earth’s surface, and that heat can be stored/released by vertical processes in the atmosphere and ocean.  But the key issue of societal relevance (not to mention the focus of IPCC detection and attribution arguments) is the realization of this heat on the Earth’s surface.

Read more…

“Edge of Tomorrow”: Cruise, Again and Again

24 August 2014

Summary:  Today we have another guest post by film critic Locke Peterseim, reviewing Edge of Tomorrow. He shows how it provides a mirror into which we can see ourselves, in effect a riveting documentary about modern warfare (as we see it from the homeland). Battle scenes crammed full to the frames with CGI armament and hyper-gritty destruction splayed out against a backdrop of overblown escapist realism. It embodies everything and signifies nothing. It’s almost the opposite in nature of films made during WW2. Post your comments about the film — and this review!

“Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.”
— Words we find inspiring on the screen, showing our lack of self-confidence and fears of inauthenticity. It’s a common attitude held before wars (e.g., before WWI).

Edge Of Tomorrow


Edge of Tomorrow: Cruise, Again and Again

By Locke Peterseim

Posted at the film blog of Open Letters Monthly
25 June 2014
Reposted here with his generous permission


I once reveled in mocking and deriding Tom Cruise for the obvious reasons: the shallow All-American Super-Jock swagger; the intense self-deprecatingly positivity; the mish-mash of film choices from soggily pretentious Oscar-lickers (Born on the Fourth of July, Rain Man, The Last Samurai) to cloying, image polishers (A Few Good Men, Jerry McGuire) to silly popcorn pandering (The Firm, Mission Impossible, and of course Interview with the Vampire).

Even when the actor took otherwise admirable steps to try something relatively daring with Eyes Wide Shut and Vanilla Sky, it still felt like the ridiculously handsome and charismatic quarterback slumming it in the theater department’s avant-garde spring production. (Like Glee’s Finn, without all the overdosing.) (To be fair, Kubrick reduced Cruise to a prop, but Kubrick reduced nearly all his actors to props.)

In the midst of this came the one truly brilliant Tom Cruise performance—the only post-Risky Business role that shows actual acting ability, as opposed to the usual wind-up charm masquerading in dress-up costumes as “Serious Acting!”

That was in P.T. Anderson’s Magnolia, and of course the irony there is that Cruise is so genuinely good in it because he appears to show us a glimpse of what I suspect is the Real Thomas Cruise Mapother IV: A vicious, insecure huckster constantly attacking at full speed to hide the dark emptiness within. In other words, his best came from simply letting slip the carefully constructed mask for a moment.

(The Runner Up would be his hilarious – and once again, I suspect self-revealing – Tropic Thunder cameo as a profane mad-dog studio exec.)

Read more…

Events in Ferguson show why we read the news: entertainment

23 August 2014

Summary:  When the hysteria began following the revelations about NSA surveillance, I predicted that we’d have an enjoyable hissy fit — then nothing would change (details here). And 14 months later little has changed (perhaps nothing). Now the events in Ferguson MO have sparked a new cycle of outrage over the militarization of police. My prediction is that again little or nothing will change. Here we consider why public outrage has so little effect: news is just entertainment.


Citizens read news in order to become well-informed, and so able to help manage the Republic’s business, as well as their own. Why do subjects read the news? That is, why bother if we don’t act on what we learn? Entertainment! Scandals give us the thrill of righteous indignation. The excitement of a two minute hate at the designated bad guys. The thrill of submission before power, when we realize our Leaders pretend to care about our opinion, but in fact ignore us.

Then back to our lives, refreshed, glowing with the knowledge that reform is impossible — so we need do nothing but dream of the great day when we arise and smite our unworthy rulers.

What connects the news with our actions? A sense of responsibility, of citizenship. Otherwise the news provides insights of use for personal and business use, but little else. The news is a product, manufactured by professionals to meet our desires for fun mock-serious light entertainment, plus personally useful information. Journalists and editors are masters of constructing emotional narratives that feed our prejudices and excite our emotions.

When we change, journalists will change to accommodate our new needs. Their business is giving us what we want.

Other perspectives on these events

The fault lies not in the news, but in ourselves. The most common response in comments to these stories is pre-emptive surrender. It’s hopeless, so we need not do anything.

Read more…

Before we start a new war with ISIS, let’s remember how we stumbled into the last two

21 August 2014

Summary: As we gear up for new wars in Syria and Africa, and rejoining old wars in Iraq, let’s a pause to think. Success will depend on learning from our failures since 9-11. Our greatest failures have been our initial failures: seeing the situation incorrectly and beginning before we have accurate information about our foe. The combination creates almost insurmountable barriers to success, barriers that we construct. We can do better.

Learn from mistakes


  1. Familiar bad news about our new wars
  2. Reminders from the past
  3. We’re winning! Like always.
  4. Let’s remember the great advice we need the most
  5. For More Information

(1)  Familiar bad news about our new wars

It’s become the one of the two standard themes for the starts of our wars: US intelligence tells us that we know little about our enemies. As Eli Lake explains in “ISIS Baffling U.S. Intelligence Agencies“, The Daily Beast, 14 August 2014 — “It’s been two months since ISIS took over Iraq’s second-largest city. But U.S. analysts are still trying to figure out how big the group is and the real identities of its leaders.” Excerpt:

The U.S. intelligence community is still trying to answer basic questions about the jihadists who tried to wipe out Iraq’s remaining Yazidis and who now threaten to overrun the capital of the country’s Kurdish provinces.

In a briefing for reporters Thursday, U.S. intelligence officials said the government is re-evaluating an estimate from early this year that said the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) had only 10,000 members. These officials also said intelligence analysts were still trying to determine the real names of many of the group’s leaders …

While many U.S. officials have warned publicly in the last year about the dangers posed by ISIS, the fact that the U.S. intelligence community lacks a consensus estimate on its size and the true identities of the group’s leadership may explain why President Obama over the weekend said the U.S. was caught off-guard by the ISIS advance into Kurdish territory.

{the usual fear-mongering follows, presented as analysis}

The second theme which marks the start of our wars: errors and outright lies about the wars. The sinking of the USS Maine and the Spanish-American War, the Tonkin Gulf Incident, Saddam’s WMDs and alliance with al Qaeda, and Afghanistan’s key role in 9-11. Let’s hope that what we are told about our enemies in this new phase of the Long War is more accurate than what we’ve been told so far.

Read more…

A senior US general expains that we’re learning to fight 4GWs, but slowly

20 August 2014

Summary: We’ve slowed the intensity of our efforts in the Long War, following failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the momentum shifts to our foes, as the fires we’ve sparked across the Middle East spread. Success in the next phase depends on what our military leaders have learned from their failures. Today a senior general gives a demonstration.

I’ve killed them by the tens of thousands, scoured their countryside at will, pried their allies away, and humiliated them day after day. I have burned their crops and looted their wealth. I’ve sent a whole generation of their generals into the afterworld … Have I changed nothing? They are stronger now than before. They are more than before. They fight more sensibly than before. They win when they used to lose.
— Hannibal, in David Anthony Durham’s novel Pride of Carthage (2005)

{From the start the insurgents} made a decision to attack our tactical mobility … and they’ve chosen the IED as the way to do that.  This is the first war where we’ve faced an enemy that’s adapted better than we have at a tactical and operational level. We had IEDs from Day 1. … What have we done to adapt? Nothing.
— Anthony Zinni (General, USMC, retired; former chief of the U.S. Central Command), quoted in USA Today, 15 July 2007

From Encyclopedia Mythica



  1. What have our generals learned after 14 years of 4th Generation War?
  2. We still crank the Darwinian Ratchet, empowering our foes
  3. Why our strategy fails
  4. For More Information


(1)  What have our generals learned after 14 years of 4GW?

Interview by Breaking Defense with Michael Flynn (Lt. General, US Army), retiring chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency. See his Wikipedia entry.  He shows what might be the defining characteristics of senior US military thinking in our Long War: blindness about the effects of our actions and obliviousness about the intents of jihadist groups.

I know that’s a scary thought, but in 2004, there were 21 total Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 18 countries. Today, there are 41 Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 24 countries. A lot of these groups have the intention to attack Western interests, to include Western embassies and in some cases Western countries. Some have both the intention and some capability to attack the United States homeland.

The general’s analysis has the sophistication of a boy explaining how the cookie jar “just broke”.

In 2000 the Middle East was relatively calm. There was, as there has been since WW2, turmoil about Israel. The Iraq-Iran War was over. The Taliban had brought peace to Afghanistan. There was persistent low-lever conflict in Lebanon, and small attacks on US personnel based in Saudi Arabia (1995 & 1996). The general does not mention what happened in the years before 2004 to set the region afire.  We invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, toppling a row of dominoes that’s still falling.

What makes this quite sad is the US military’s blindness to their role as useful idiots in bin Laden’s plan to incite a war between Islam and the infidel invader (that’s us) that would unify his people — as Bismarck used wars to unify small States to create Germany. We took the bait: invading Iraq and Afghanistan, attacking Pakistan, Yemen and now others in Africa.

(2) We still crank the Darwinian Ratchet, empowering our foes

Read more…

Events from Ferguson explain why we are weak

19 August 2014

Summary: Events in Ferguson display some of the problems plaguing the Republic — our unresolved racial conflicts, sclerotic governing institutions, and most importantly our weakness as citizens. Decades of propaganda have erased from our minds our history of successful collective action, and replaced it with a mostly false belief in markets and individuals. It’s left us as atomized consumers, incapable of effectively becoming leaders and followers and so governing ourselves. It makes us sheep. We can do better.

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
— Edmund Burke (English statesman and philosopher), Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770)


Ferguson: molotov cocktail.

Citizenship in Ferguson. Scott Olson/Getty Images


  1. Tinderbox: a racially charged community
  2. Poor leadership
  3. Why we’re weak
  4. Other posts about events in Ferguson
  5. For More Information


(1)  Tinderbox: a racially charged community

Slowly we gather information so as to piece together some of the puzzle that is Ferguson MO.

(a)  Racial mistrust

Note the common mention of “outside agitators”, although there’s no evidence of this as yet (update: the police have given evidence if at least a small number of outsiders arrested).

“The protesters like seeing themselves on TV,” her friend added.  “It’s just a small group of people making trouble,” said another.

“The kid wasn’t really innocent,” chimed in a woman at the other end of the table (they all declined to give their names). “He was struggling with the cop, and he’s got a rap sheet already, so he’s not that innocent.” (While the first point is in dispute, the second isn’t: The police have said that Michael Brown had no criminal record.)

If anything, the people here were disdainful and, mostly, scared — of the protesters, and, implicitly, of black people. “I don’t think it’s about justice for Michael Brown’s family,” said the teenage boy. “It’s just an excuse for people to do whatever they want to do.”

One man I talked to, a stay-at-home dad who is a landlord to three black tenants and one white one in Ferguson (“my black tenants would never do that,” he clarified) was more sympathetic to Brown and also had the sense that the police had overdone it a bit. But he was scared of the protests. I told him that the protest that day was entirely peaceful, festive almost. “You know,” he said. “I have a wife and three children, and if something were to happen to me, that would be very bad.”

As for the protests, well, they weren’t about justice; they were just an excuse. “People are just taking the opportunity to satisfy their desire for junk,” said one woman, knowingly. As if black people, the lust for theft encoded in their DNA, are just barely kept in line by authority.

“When they kill each other, we never hear about it,” one of the Starbucks women said. This, she meant, was a good thing. “When it’s black-on-black violence, we never hear about it.” I asked why she thought that was. “Because, basically, they hate whites!” her friend chimed in. “Prejudice, reverse prejudice. Prejudice goes both ways.”

The others signalled their agreement. “It’s not Ferguson people. It’s a lot of outside people coming in.” {The New Republic}

(b)  White leaders for a Black town

Read more…

The protesters at Ferguson might have won, but choose to lose

18 August 2014

Summary: 4GW is the dominant form of warfare in our time, allowing materially weaker peoples to defeat stronger opponents. Such victories are not free; they require a group to become morally strong: cohesive, disciplined, behaving so as to gather support from others. Mere violence accomplishes nothing, as African-Americans will learn again in Ferguson MO.

Ferguson: police car


“Our immediate goal is to make sure that the residents of Ferguson are safe, that the looting stops, that the vandalism stops, that the people who are living in the community are confident that justice will be done.”
— Valerie Jarrett (Senior Advisor to Obama) interviewed by American Urban Radio Networks, 17 August 2014

“A number of locals have told NPR that they’re increasingly frustrated that Ferguson residents are being represented by small handfuls of looters and rioters, who they suspect are from out of town.”
— “More Mayhem In Ferguson: Tear Gas, Looting, Gunshots“, NPR, 18 August 2014


Technology has given us superpowers, but not to the extent that we know what’s going on in Ferguson. There has been looting and burning. But how much? By whom: locals or outsiders? How violent have the protests been?

What we do know is that the people of Ferguson MO, especially its African-American members, had the moral high ground after the shooting of the unarmed Michael Brown by local police for still-unclear but probably insufficient reasons. The moral high ground has often provided a decisive advantage in conflicts — even in war. America proved in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, gaining vital support in both from the UK and Farnce). It’s even more important in 4GWs.

The Ferguson shooting might have been the equivalent of the 1955 arrest of Rosa Parks, which sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott , which led to the founding of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference — from which still greater events came. These triumphs came through non-violent protests, requiring great discipline by large numbers of people — achieved by organizations and leadership built over generations. (I’ve been unable to find details about how they maintained such tight discipline during these protests).

Read more…

Ender’s Game: Playing at Shock and Awe

17 August 2014

Summary:  Today we have another guest post by film critic Locke Peterseim, a review of Ender’s Game. He shows how it provides a mirror into which we can see ourselves, 21st C America in all its glory. In this case, we see a nation increasingly fascinated by war, especially our massacre of innocents. Ender’s Game gives a glossy and faux serious look at such issues. Post your comments about the film — and this review.

Ender's Game



  1. The review
  2. About the author
  3. Background information about the book, film & author
  4. For More Information
  5. The Trailer


(1) The review

Ender’s Game: Playing at Shock and Awe
By Locke Peterseim

Posted at the film blog of Open Letters Monthly
6 November 2013

Reposted here with his generous permission

I was struggling a bit with my reactions to the new film adaptation of Ender’s Game. No, not because of the loud, kinda silly, kinda self-righteous, kinda deserved finger wagging and soap-boxing about novel author Orson Scott Card’s outspoken anti-gay brain vomitings. (To be clear, Card’s views on marriage equality deserve derision and mockery, but the “outrage” over them and calls for a boycott of the film feel a little too self-servingly easy and convenient, as do most “causes” centered on disposable pop culture.)

Instead, I was struggling with what I’m coming to see as the Gravity Effect. A few weeks ago, while still under the immediate spell of its stunning synthesis imagery and filmmaking dexterity ago, I declared Gravity a “near-masterpiece.” What I should have written was, “a near-masterpiece of visual and visceral thrills, not of ideas or themes.”

And that got me thinking about how easy it is, in these days of watching movies on our Dick Tracy wristwatches, to get overly seduced by simple big-screen awe. There’s certainly some of that at work in writer-director Gavin Hood’s very competent, watchable Ender’s Game.

The film, of course, adapts Card’s 1985 “shocking” and “disturbing” novel about pre-teen children in the future being recruited and trained to launch a preventive strike on the mysterious insectoid alien beings that unsuccessfully tried to invade Earth a few generations earlier. Young Andrew “Ender” Wiggins (Hugo’s Asa Butterfield) is singled out by head of the military program Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) to spend years training with other children on a space station, learning and being sometimes brutally tested on battle tactics and strategy.

Along the way, Ender (who is equal parts sensitive, competitive, and ruthless) is manipulated, isolated, and tormented by both the program directors and his peers — all of it supposedly grooming the young, nimble, innovative boy into the ultimate war leader in the effort to defeat the aliens and save the human race.

But then a few days ago another film brought my Ender’s Game discontent into sharper focus. I re-watched Star Trek Into Darkness, a film that had me so chasing my own Trekkie tail last spring that I wrote not one, but two long-winded pieces about it and still wasn’t sure if I really “liked” it or not. Watching it a second time was a surprisingly and sadly laborious endeavor.

Read more…


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,481 other followers