Canada vs. Google: Not a Fair Hockey Game
October 9, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t2.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I get a bit of a thrill when sophisticated generalist executives find themselves rejected by high-tech wizards. An amusing example of “Who is in charge here?” appears in “Google Rejects Trudeau’s Olive Branch, Threatens News Link Block Over New Law.”
A seasoned high-tech executive explains that the laptop cannot retrieve Canadian hockey news any longer. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. Nice maple leaf hat.
The write up states:
Alphabet Inc.’s Google moved closer to blocking Canadians from viewing news links on its search engine, after it rejected government regulations meant to placate its concerns about an impending online content law.
Yep, Canada may not be allowed into the select elite of Google users with news. Why? Canada passed a law with which Google does not agree. Imagine. Canada wants Google to pay for accessing, scraping, and linking to Canadian news.
Canada does not understand who is in charge. The Google is the go-to outfit. If you don’t believe me, just ask some of those Canadian law enforcement and intelligence analysts what online system is used to obtain high-value information. Hint. It is not yandex.ru.
The write up adds:
Google already threatened to remove links to news, and tested blocking such content for a small percentage of users in Canada earlier this year. On Friday, it went further, implying a block could be imminent as the current regulations would force the company to participate in the mandatory bargaining process while it applies for exemption.
Will the Google thwart the Canadian government? Based on the importance of the Google system to certain government interests, a deal of some sort seems likely. But Google could just buy Canada and hire some gig workers to run the country.
Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2023
Is Google Setting a Trap for Its AI Competition
October 6, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
The litigation about the use of Web content to train smart generative software is ramping up. Outfits like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Amazon and its new best friend will be snagged in the US legal system.
But what big outfit will be ready to offer those hungry to use smart software without legal risk? The answer is the Google.
How is this going to work?
simple. Google is beavering away with its synthetic data. Some real data are used to train sophisticated stacks of numerical recipes. The idea is that these algorithms will be “good enough”; thus, the need for “real” information is obviated. And Google has another trick up its sleeve. The company has coveys of coders working on trimmed down systems and methods. The idea is that using less information will produce more and better results than the crazy idea of indexing content from wherever in real time. The small data can be licensed when the competitors are spending their days with lawyers.
How do I know this? I don’t but Google is providing tantalizing clues in marketing collateral like “Researchers from the University of Washington and Google have Developed Distilling Step-by-Step Technology to Train a Dedicated Small Machine Learning Model with Less Data.” The author is a student who provides sources for the information about the “less is more” approach to smart software training.
And, may the Googlers sing her praises, she cites Google technical papers. In fact, one of the papers is described by the fledgling Googler as “groundbreaking.” Okay.
What’s really being broken is the approach of some of Google’s most formidable competition.
When will the Google spring its trap? It won’t. But as the competitors get stuck in legal mud, the Google will be an increasingly attractive alternative.
The last line of the Google marketing piece says:
Check out the Paper and Google AI Article. All Credit For This Research Goes To the Researchers on This Project. Also, don’t forget to join our 30k+ ML SubReddit, 40k+ Facebook Community, Discord Channel, and Email Newsletter, where we share the latest AI research news, cool AI projects, and more.
Get that young marketer a Google mouse pad.
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2023
Google and Its Embarrassing Document: Sounds Like Normal Google Talk to Me
October 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “DOJ Finally Posted That Embarrassing Court Doc Google Wanted to Hide.” I was surprised that the anti-trust trial exhibit made its way to this link. My initial reaction was that the judge was acting in a non-Googley way. I am not sure some of the people I know want Google’s activities to be impaired in any way.
The senior technology executive who seems to look like a gecko lizard is explaining how a business process for an addictive service operates. Those attending the meeting believe that a “lock in” approach is just the ticket to big bucks in the zippy world of digital trank. Hey, MidJourney, nice lizard. Know any?
That geo-fencing capability is quite helpful to some professionals. The second thing that surprised me was… no wait. Let me quote the Ars Technica article first. The write up says:
The document in question contains meeting notes that Google’s vice president for finance, Michael Roszak, “created for a course on communications,” Bloomberg reported. In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google’s search advertising “is one of the world’s greatest business models ever created” with economics that only certain “illicit businesses” selling “cigarettes or drugs” “could rival.” At trial, Roszak told the court that he didn’t recall if he ever gave the presentation. He said that the course required that he tell students “things I don’t believe as part of the presentation.” He also claimed that the notes were “full of hyperbole and exaggeration” and did not reflect his true beliefs, “because there was no business purpose associated with it.”
Gee, I believe this. Sincere, open comment about one’s ability to “recall” is in line with other Google professionals’ commentary; for example, Senator, thank you for the question. I don’t know the answer, but we will provide your office with that information. (Note: I am paraphrasing something I may have heard or hallucinated with Bard, or I may not “recall” where and when I heard that type of statement.)
Ars Technica is doing the he said thing in this statement:
A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak’s statements “don’t reflect the company’s opinion” and “were drafted for a public speaking class in which the instructions were to say something hyperbolic and attention-grabbing.” The spokesman also noted that Roszak “testified he didn’t believe the statements to be true.” According to Bloomberg, Google lawyer Edward Bennett told the court that Roszak’s notes suggest that the senior executive’s plan for his presentation was essentially “cosplaying Gordon Gekko”—a movie villain who symbolizes corporate greed from 1987’s Wall Street.
I think the Gordon Gekko comparison is unfair. The lingo strikes me as normal Silicon Valley sell-it-with-sizzle lingo.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2023
Have You Tried to Delete Chat or Any Other Information from a Google System?
September 29, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-6.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Several years ago, I mistyped my email address on an Android device I was testing. When I set up another Android mobile, the misspelled email appeared. We searched available files on the mobile, Google’s email list for the account, and even poked under the hood to locate the misspelled email. There was no “delete” function, but its omission would not have made a difference. The misspelled email was there but not there. SMS messages are often equally slippery. Delete a thread and bang, it’s back. Somewhere, somehow, the wizards at Google have the ability to “find” information even thought the user cannot. Innovation, oversight, carelessness, or a stupid user? My thought is that the blame falls upon the stupid user.
A young engineer strokes the controls of the deletion and online tracking subsystem. With some careful knob twisting, the giant machine can output a reality shaped by the operator’s whims, fancies, and goals. Hey, MidJourney, how about that circular picture?
“History Is Turned Off”: What Google’s (Deleted) Chats Mean for Its Antitrust Battle with the DOJ”, if accurate, suggests a different capability exists for some Googlers. The article asserts:
lawyers for the U.S. government have tried to draw attention to a giant black hole at the center of the trial: a “remarkable” number of deleted employee chat conversations apparently about issues relevant to its lawsuit and others. “[A]lso can we change the setting of this group to history off,” CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in an October 2021 chat to one of his lieutenants ahead of a “leaders circle” meeting. History off meant their conversation would be deleted from the servers after 24 hours. Nine seconds later, Pinchai apparently tried to delete his message. When asked later under oath about the attempted deletion, he answered, “I don’t recall.”
True or false? The article adds this assertion:
In defending its auto-deletions, Google told the court that not saving all of those old chats would have been too burdensome, but it couldn’t prove that Google lawyers also argued that Chat was used primarily for nonbusiness, casual conversations, but the court found that the company does in fact use it to discuss “substantive business.”
The cited article contains additional information about missing data, deletions, or lapses of one sort or another. Googlers, it appears, are human.
Several observations:
- Those deletion tools appear to exist and work.
- Google’s storage subsystems do not contain certain information.
- Googler’s operate in a dimension which is different from the one in which users and possibly some non-Googley lawyers and advisors fellow travelers do not.
But will this assertion about “managing” information or “shaping” data matter? With the redacted documents and the restrictions placed on information reaching the public humming along, it seems as if a Silicon Valley reality distortion field is online and working. History is not turned off; it is framed and populated with filtered information. Thus, what Google does is the reality for many.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2023
YouTube and Those Kiddos. Greed or Weird Fascination?
September 26, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google and its YouTube subsidiary are in probably in trouble again because they are spying on children. Vox explores if “Is YouTube Tracking Your Kids Again?” and sending them targeted ads. Two reports find that YouTube continues to collect data on kids despite promises not to do so. If YouTube is collecting data and sending targeted ads to young viewers it would violate the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection act (COPPA) and Google’s consent decree with the FTC.
Google agreed to the consent decree with the FTC to stop collecting kids’ online activity and selling it to advertisers. In order to regulate and comply with the decree and COPPA, YouTube creators must say if their channels or individual videos are kid friendly. If they are designated kid friendly then Google doesn’t collect data on the viewers. This only occurs on regular YouTube and not YouTube Kids.
Fairplay and Analytics researched YouTube data collection and released compromising reports. Fairplay, a children’s online safety group, had an ad campaign on YouTube and asked for it to target made for kids videos. The group discovered their ads played on videos that were kids only, basically confirming that targeted ads are still being shown to kids. Analytics found evidence that supports kid data collection too:
“The firm found trackers that Google uses specifically for advertising purposes and what appear to be targeted ads on “made for kids” videos. Clicking on those ads often took viewers to outside websites that definitely did collect data on them, even if Google didn’t. The report is careful to say that the advertising cookies might not be used for personalized advertising — only Google knows that — and so may still be compliant with the law. And Adalytics says the report is not definitively saying that Google violated COPPA: ‘The study is meant to be viewed as a highly preliminary observational analysis of publicly available information and empirical data.’”
Google denies the allegations and claims the information in the reports are skewed. YouTube states that ads on made for kids videos are contextual rather than targeted, implying they are shown to all kids instead of individualizing content. If Google and YouTube are to be in violation of the FTC decree and COPPA, Alphabet Inc would pay a very expensive fine.
It is hard to define what services and products that Google can appropriately offer kids. Google has a huge education initiative with everything from laptops to email services. Republicans and Democrats agree that it is important to protect kids online and hold Google and other companies liable. Will Google pay fines and not worry about the consequences? I have an idea. Let’s ask Meta’s new kid-oriented AI initiative. That sounds like a fine idea.
Whitney Grace, September 26, 2023
Gemini Cricket: Another World Changer from the Google
September 19, 2023
AI lab DeepMind, acquired by Google in 2014, is famous for creating AlphaGo, a program that defeated a human champion Go player in 2016. Since then, its developers have been methodically honing their software. Meanwhile, ChatGPT exploded onto the scene and Google is feeling the pressure to close the distance. Wired reports, “Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis Says Its Next Algorithm Will Eclipse ChatGPT.” We learn the company just combined the DeepMind division with its Brain lab. The combined team hopes its Gemini software will trounce the competition. Someday. Writer Will Knight tells us:
“DeepMind’s Gemini, which is still in development, is a large language model that works with text and is similar in nature to GPT-4, which powers ChatGPT. But Hassabis says his team will combine that technology with techniques used in AlphaGo, aiming to give the system new capabilities such as planning or the ability to solve problems. … AlphaGo was based on a technique DeepMind has pioneered called reinforcement learning, in which software learns to take on tough problems that require choosing what actions to take like in Go or video games by making repeated attempts and receiving feedback on its performance. It also used a method called tree search to explore and remember possible moves on the board.”
Not ones to limit themselves, the Googley researchers may pilfer ideas from other AI realms like robotics and neuroscience. Hassabis is excited about the possibilities AI offers when wielded for good, but acknowledges the need to mitigate potential risks. The article relates:
“One of the biggest challenges right now, Hassabis says, is to determine what the risks of more capable AI are likely to be. ‘I think more research by the field needs to be done—very urgently—on things like evaluation tests,’ he says, to determine how capable and controllable new AI models are. To that end, he says, DeepMind may make its systems more accessible to outside scientists.”
Transparency in AI? That may be the CEO’s most revolutionary idea yet.
Cynthia Murrell, September 19, 2023
Google: Privacy Is Number One?
September 19, 2023
Big tech companies like Google do not respect users’ privacy rights. Yes, these companies have privacy statements and other legal documents that state they respect individuals’ privacy but it is all smoke and mirrors. The Verge has the lowdown on a privacy lawsuit filed against Google and a judge’s recent decision: “$5 Billion Google Lawsuit Over ‘Incognito Mode’ Tracking Moves A Step Closer To Trial.”
Chasom Brown, Willian Byatt, Jeremy Davis, Christopher Castillo, and Monique Trujillo filed a class action lawsuit against Google for collecting user information while in “incognito mode.” Publicly known as Chasom Brown, et. Al v. Google, the plaintiffs seek $5 billion in damages. Google requested a summary judgment, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of California denied it.
Judge Gonzalez noted that statements in the Chrome privacy nonie, Privacy Policy, Incognito Splash Screen, and Search & Browse Privately Help page explains how Incognito mode limits information and how people can control what information is shared. The judge wants the court to decide if these notices act as a binding agreement between Google and users that the former would not collect users’ data when they browsed privately.
Google disputes the claims and state that every time a new incognito tab is opened, Web sites might collect user information. There are other issues the plaintiffs and judge want to discuss:
“Another issue going against Google’s arguments that the judge mentioned is that the plaintiffs have evidence Google ‘stores users’ regular and private browsing data in the same logs; it uses those mixed logs to send users personalized ads; and, even if the individual data points gathered are anonymous by themselves, when aggregated, Google can use them to ‘uniquely identify a user with a high probability of success.’’
She also responded to a Google argument that the plaintiffs didn’t suffer economic injury, writing that ‘Plaintiffs have shown that there is a market for their browsing data and Google’s alleged surreptitious collection of the data inhibited plaintiffs’ ability to participate in that market…Finally, given the nature of Google’s data collection, the Court is satisfied that money damages alone are not an adequate remedy. Injunctive relief is necessary to address Google’s ongoing collection of users’ private browsing data.’”
Will Chasom Brown, et. Al v. Google go anywhere beyond the California court? Will the rest of the United States and other countries that have a large Google market, the European Union, do anything?
Whitney Grace, September 19, 2023
YouTube and Click Fraud: A Warning Light Flashing?
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I spotted a link to a 16 minute YouTube long form, old-fashioned video from Lon.TV titled YouTube Invalid Traffic. The person who does Lon.TV usually reviews gadgets, but this video identifies a demonetization procedure apparently used by the non-monopoly Google. (Of course, I believe Google’s assertion that almost everyone uses Google because it is just better.)
The creator reads an explanation of an administrative action and says, “What does this mean?” Would a non-monopoly provide a non explanation? Probably a non not. Thanks, MidJourney, the quality continues to slip. Great work.
Lon.TV explains that the channel received a notice of fraudulent clicks. The “fix”, which YouTube seems to implement unilaterally and without warning, decreases a YouTuber’s income. The normal Google “help” process results in words which do not explain the details of the Google-identified problem.
Click fraud has been a tricky issue for ad-supported Google for many years. About a decade ago, a conference organizer wanted me to do a talk about click fraud, a topic I did not address in my three Google monographs. The reports for a commercial company footing the bill for my research did get information about click fraud. My attorney at the time (may he rest in peace) advised me to omit that information from the monographs published by a now defunct publisher in the UK. I am no legal eagle, but I do listen to them, particularly when it costs me several hundred dollars an hour.
Click fraud is pretty simple. One can have a human click on a link.l If one is serious, one can enlist a bunch of humans using an ad in Craigslist.com. A more enterprising click fraud player would write a script and blast through a target’s ad budget, rack up lots of popularity points, or make a so-so video into the hottest sauce pan on the camp fire.
Lon.TV’s point is that most of his site’s traffic originates from Google searches. A person looking for a camera review runs a query on Google. The Google results point to a Lon.TV video. The person clicks on the Google generated link, and the video plays. The non-monopoly explains, as I understand it, that the fraudulent clicks are the fault of the YouTuber. So, the bad actor is the gadget guy at Lon.TV.
I think there is some useful information or signals in this video. I shall share my observations:
- Click fraud, based on my research a decade ago, was indeed a problem for the non-monopoly. In fact, the estimable company was trying to figure out how to identify fraudulent clicks and block them. The work was not a path to glory, so turnover often plagued those charged with stamping out click fraud. Plus, the problem was “hard.” Simple fixes like identifying lots of clicks in a short time were easily circumvented. More sophisticated ones like figuring out blocks of IP addresses responsible for lots of time spaced clicks were okay until the fraudsters figured out another approach. Thus, cat-and-mouse games began.
- The entire point of YouTube.com is to attract traffic. Therefore, it is important to recognize what is a valid new trend like videos of females wearing transparent clothing is recognized and clicks on dull stuff like streaming videos of a view of an erupting volcano are less magnetic. With more clicks, many algorithmic beavers jump in the river. More clicks means more ads pushed. The more ads pushed means more clicks on those ads and, hence, more money. It does not take much thought to figure out that a tension exists between lots of clicks Googlers and block those clicks Googlers. In short, progress is slow and money generation wins.
- TikTok has caused Google to undermine its long form videos to deal with the threat of the China-linked competitor. The result has been an erosion of clicks because one cannot inject as many ads into short videos as big boy videos. Oh, oh. Revenue gradient decline. Bad. Quick fix. Legitimize keeping more ad revenue? Would a non monopoly do that?
- The signals emitted by Lon.TV indicate that Google’s policy identified by the gadget guy is to blame the creator. Like many of Google’s psycho-cognitive methods used to shift blame, the hapless creator is punished for the alleged false clicks. The tactic works well because what’s the creator supposed to do? Explain the problem in a video which is not pushed?
Net net: Click fraud is a perfect cover to demonetized certain videos. What happens to the ad money? Does Google return it to the advertiser? Does Google keep it? Does Google credit the money back to the advertiser’s account and add a modest “handling fee”? I don’t know, and I am pretty sure the Lon.TV fellow does not either. Furthermore, I am not sure Google “knows” what its different units are doing about click fraud. What’s a non-monopoly supposed to do? I think the answer is, “Make money.” More of these methods are likely to surface in the future.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
We Are from a Big Outfit. We Are Here to Help You. No, Really.
September 7, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
“Greetings, creators,” says the sincere (if smarmy voice of the Google things). “We are here to help you.”
Better listen up. The punishment may range from becoming hard to find (what’s new?) or loss of revenue.
The cheerful young and well paid professional, smiles at the creator and says, “Good morning, I am from a certain alleged monopoly. I am definitely here to help you.” Thanks, MidJourney. The gradient descent is allowing your coefficient of friction to be reduced.
I read “YouTube Advertising Formats.” I love the lack of a date on the write up. Metadata are often helpful. I like document version numbers too. As a dinobaby, I like the name of a person who allegedly wrote the article; for example, Mr. Nadella signs his blog posts about the future of the universe.
The write up makes one big point in my opinion: Creators lose control over ads shown before, during, and after their content is pushed to a user of YouTube and whatever other media the new, improved “smart” Google will offer its “users.”
Here’s how the Google makes sure a creator spots the important “fewer controls” message:
I love those little triangles and the white exclamation points. Very cool.
Why is this change taking place at this time? Here are my thoughts:
- Users of YouTube are not signing up for ad-free YouTube. The change makes it possible for Google to hose more “relevant” ads into the creators’ content.
- Users of YouTube are clicking the “skip” button far too frequently. What’s the fix? You cannot skip so much, pal.
- Google is indeed concerned about ad revenue flow. Despite the happy talk about Google’s revenue, the push to smart software has sparked an appetite for computation. The simple rule is: More compute means more costs.
Is there a fix? Sure, but those adjustments require cash to fund an administrative infrastructure and time to figure out how to leverage options like TikTok and the Zuckbook. Who has time and money? Perhaps a small percentage of creators?
Net net: In an unregulated environment and with powerless “creators,” the Google is here to help itself and maybe some others not so much.
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2023
Google: An Ad Crisis Looms from the Cancer of Short Videos
September 7, 2023
The weird orange newspaper ran a story which I found important. To read the article, you will need to pony up cash; I suggest you consider doing that. I want to highlight a couple of key points in the news story and offer a couple of observations.
An online advertising expert looks out his hospital window and asks, “I wonder if the cancer in my liver will be cured before the cancer is removed from my employer’s corporate body?” The answer may be, “Liver cancer can be has a five year survival rate between 13 to 43 percent (give or take a few percentage points).” Will the patient get back to Foosball and off-site meetings? Is that computer capable of displaying TikTok videos? Thanks, Mother MJ. No annoying red appeal this banners today.
The article “Shorts Risks Cannibalising Core YouTube Business, Say Senior Staff” contains an interesting (although one must take with a dollop of mustard and some Dead Sea salt):
Recent YouTube strategy meetings have discussed the risk that long-form videos, which produce more revenue for the company, are “dying out” as a format, according to these people.
I am suspicious of quotes from “these people.” Nevertheless, let’s assume that the concern at the Google is real like news from “these people.”
The idea is that Google has been asleep at the switch as TikTok (the China linked short video service) became a go-to destination for people seeking information. Yep, some young people search TikTok for information, not just tips on self-harm and body dysmorphia. Google’s reaction was slow and predictable: Me too me too me too. Thus, Google rolled out “Shorts,” a TikTok clone and began pushing it to its YouTube faithful.
The party was rolling along until “these people” sat down and looked at viewing time for longer videos and the ad revenue from shorter videos. Another red alert siren began spinning up.
The orange newspaper story asserted:
In October last year, YouTube reported its first-ever quarterly decline in ad revenue since the company started giving its performance separately in 2020. In the following two quarters, the platform reported further falls compared with the same periods the previous year.
With a decline in longer videos, the Google cannot insert as many ads. If people watch shorter videos, Google has reduced ad opportunities. Although Google would love to pump ads into 30 second videos, viewers (users) might decide to feed their habit elsewhere. And where one may ask? How about TikTok or the would be cage fighter’s Meta service?
Several observations:
- Any decline in ad revenue is a force multiplier at the Google. The costs of running the outfit are difficult to control. Google has not been the best outfit in the world in creating new, non ad revenue streams in the last 25 years. That original pay-to-play inspiration has had legs, but with age, knees and hips wear out. Googzilla is not as spry as it used to be and its bright idea department has not found sustainable new revenue able to make up for a decline in traditional Google ad revenue… yet.
- The cost of video is tough to weasel out of Google’s financial statements. The murky “cloud” makes it easy to shift some costs to the enabler of the magical artificial intelligence push at the company. In reality, video is a black hole of costs. Storage, bandwidth, legal compliance, creator hassles, and overhead translate to more ads. Long videos are one place to put ads every few minutes. But when the videos are short like those cutting shapes dance lessons, the “short” is a killer proposition.
- YouTube is a big deal. Depending on whose silly traffic estimates one believes, YouTube is as big a fish in terms of eyeballs as Google.com search. Google search is under fire from numerous directions. Prabhakar Raghavan has not mounted much of a defense to the criticisms directed at Google search’s genuine inability to deliver relevant search results. Now the YouTube ad money flow is drying up like streams near Moab.
Net net: YouTube has become a golden goose. But short videos are a cancer and who can make fois gras out of a cancerous liver?
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
