A Google Gem: Special Edition on 1-11-23
January 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I learned that the Google has swished its tail and killed off some baby Googlers. Giant creatures can do that. Thomson Reuters (the trust outfit) reported the “real” news in “Google Lays Off Hundreds in Assistant, Hardware, Engineering Teams.” But why? The Google is pulsing with revenue, opportunity, technology, and management expertise. Thomson Reuters has the answer:
"Throughout second-half of 2023, a number of our teams made changes to become more efficient and work better, and to align their resources to their biggest product priorities. Some teams are continuing to make these kinds of organizational changes, which include some role eliminations globally," a spokesperson for Google told Reuters in a statement.
On YCombinator’s HackerNews, I spotted some interesting comments. Foofie asserted: “In the last quarter Alphabet reported "total revenues of $76.69bn, an increase of 11 percent year-on-year (YoY). Google Cloud alone grew 22%.”
A giant corporate creature plods forward. Is the big beastie mindful of those who are crushed in the process? Sure, sure. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
BigPeopleAreOld observes: “As long as you can get another job and can get severance pay, a layoff feel like an achievement than a loss. That happened me in my last company, one that I was very attached to for what I now think was irrational reasons. I wanted to leave anyway, but having it just happen and getting a nice severance pay was a perk. I am treating my new job as the complete opposite and the feeling is cathartic, which allows me to focus better on my work instead of worrying about the maintaining the illusion of identity in the company I work for.”
Yahoo, that beacon of stability, tackled the human hedge trimming in “Google Lays Off Hundreds in Hardware, Voice Assistant Teams.” The Yahooligans report:
The reductions come as Google’s core search business feels the heat from rival artificial-intelligence offerings from Microsoft Corp. and ChatGPT-creator OpenAI. On calls with investors, Google executives pledged to scrutinize their operations to identify places where they can make cuts, and free up resources to invest in their biggest priorities.
I like the word “pledge.” I wonder what it means in the land of Googzilla.
And how did the Google RIF these non-essential wizards and wizardettes? According to 9to5Google.com:
This reorganization will see Google lay off a few hundred roles across Devices & Services, though the majority is happening within the first-party augmented reality hardware team. This downsizing suggests Google is no longer working on its own AR hardware and is fully committed to the OEM-partnership model. Employees will have the ability to apply to open roles within the company, and Google is offering its usual degree of support.
Several observations:
- Dumping employees reduces costs, improves efficiency, and delivers other MBA-identified goodies. Efficiency is logical.
- The competitive environment is more difficult than some perceive. Microsoft, OpenAI, and the many other smart software outfits are offering alternatives to Google search even when these firms are not trying to create problems for Google. Search sucks and millions are looking for an alternative. I sense fear among the Googlers.
- The regulatory net is becoming more and more difficult to avoid. The EU and other governmental entities see Google as a source of money. The formula seems to be to litigate, find guilty, and find. What’s not to like for cash strapped government entities?
- For more than a year, the Google has been struggling with its slip on sneakers. As a result, the Google conveys that it is not able to make a dash to the ad convenience store as it did when it was younger, friskier. Google looks old, and predators know that the old can become a snack.
See Google cares.
Stephen E Arnold, January 11, 2024
A Decision from the High School Science Club School of Management Excellence
January 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I can’t resist writing about Inc. Magazine and its Google management articles. These are knee slappers for me. The write up causing me to chuckle is “Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, Says Laying Off 12,000 Workers Was the Worst Moment in the Company’s 25-Year History.” Zowie. A personnel decision coupled with late-night, anonymous termination notices — What’s not to like. What’s the “real” news write up have to say:
Google had to lay off 12,000 employees. That’s a lot of people who had been showing up to work, only to one day find out that they’re no longer getting a paycheck because the CEO made a bad bet, and they’re stuck paying for it.
“Well, that clever move worked when I was in my high school’s science club. Oh, well, I will create a word salad to distract from my decision making.Heh, heh, heh,” says the distinguished corporate leader to a “real” news publication’s writer. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
I love the “had.”
The Inc. Magazine story continues:
Still, Pichai defends the layoffs as the right decision at the time, saying that the alternative would have been to put the company in a far worse position. “It became clear if we didn’t act, it would have been a worse decision down the line,” Pichai told employees. “It would have been a major overhang on the company. I think it would have made it very difficult in a year like this with such a big shift in the world to create the capacity to invest in areas.”
And Inc Magazine actually criticizes the Google! I noted:
To be clear, what Pichai is saying is that Google decided to spend money to hire employees that it later realized it needed to invest elsewhere. That’s a failure of management to plan and deliver on the right strategy. It’s an admission that the company’s top executives made a mistake, without actually acknowledging or apologizing for it.
From my point of view, let’s focus on the word “worst.” Are there other Google management decisions which might be considered in evaluating the Inc. Magazine and Sundar Pichai’s “worst.” Yep, I have a couple of items:
- A lawyer making babies in the Google legal department
- A Google VP dying with a contract worker on the Googler’s yacht as a result of an alleged substance subject to DEA scrutiny
- A Googler fond of being a glasshole giving up a wife and causing a soul mate to attempt suicide
- Firing Dr. Timnit Gebru and kicking off the stochastic parrot thing
- The presentation after Microsoft announced its ChatGPT initiative and the knee jerk Red Alert
- Proliferating duplicative products
- Sunsetting services with little or no notice
- The Google Map / Waze thing
- The messy Google Brain Deep Mind shebang
- The Googler who thought the Google AI was alive.
Wow, I am tired mentally.
But the reality is that I am not sure if anyone in Google management is particularly connected to the problems, issues, and challenges of losing a job in the midst of a Foosball game. But that’s the Google. High school science club management delivers outstanding decisions. I was in my high school science club, and I know the fine decision making our members made. One of those cost the life of one of our brightest stars. Stars make bad decisions, chatter, and leave some behind.
Stephen E Arnold, January 11, 2024
Can Technology Be Kept in a Box?
January 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
If true, this is a relationship worth keeping an eye on. Tom’s Hardware reports, “China Could Have Access to the Largest AI Chips Ever Made, Supercomputer with 54 Million Cores—US Government Investigates Cerebras’ UAE-Based Partner.” That United Arab Emirates partner is a holding company called G42, and it has apparently been collecting the powerful supercomputers to underpin its AI ambitions. According to reporting from the New York Times, that collection now includes the record-breaking processors from California-based Cerebras. Writer Anton Shilov gives us the technical details:
“Cerebras’ WSE-2 processors are the largest chips ever brought to market, with 2.6 trillion transistors and 850,000 AI-optimized cores all packed on a single wafer-sized 7nm processor, and they come in CS-2 systems. G42 is building several Condor Galaxy supercomputers for A.I. based on the Cerebras CS-2 systems. The CG-1 supercomputer in Santa Clara, California, promises to offer four FP16 Exaflops of performance for large language models featuring up to 600 billion parameters and offers expansion capability to support up to 100 trillion parameter models.”
That is impressive. One wonders how fast that system sucks down water. But what will the firms do with all this power? That is what the CIA is concerned about. We learn:
“G42 and Cerebras plan to launch six four-Exaflop Condor Galaxy supercomputers worldwide; these machines are why the CIA is suspicious. Under the leadership of chief executive Peng Xiao, G42’s expansion has been marked by notable agreements — including a partnership with AstraZeneca and a $100 million collaboration with Cerebras to develop the ‘world’s largest supercomputer.’ But classified reports from the CIA paint a different picture: they suggest G42’s involvement with Chinese companies — specifically Huawei — raises national security concerns.”
For example, G42 may become a clearinghouse for sensitive American technologies and genetic data, we are warned. Also, with these machines located outside the US, they could easily be used to train LLMs for the Chinese. The US has threatened sanctions against G42 if it continues to associate with Chinese entities. But as Shilov points out, we already know the UAE has been cozying up to China and Russia and distancing itself from the US. Sanctions may have a limited impact. Tech initiatives like G42’s are seen as an important part of diversifying the country’s economy beyond oil.
Cynthia Murrell, January 11, 2024
TikTok Weaponized? Who Knows
January 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
“TikTok Restricts Hashtag Search Tool Used by Researchers to Assess Content on Its Platform” makes clear that transparency from a commercial entity is a work in progress or regress as the case may be. NBC reports:
TikTok has restricted one tool researchers use to analyze popular videos, a move that follows a barrage of criticism directed at the social media platform about content related to the Israel-Hamas war and a study that questioned whether the company was suppressing topics that don’t align with the interests of the Chinese government. TikTok’s Creative Center – which is available for anyone to use but is geared towards helping brands and advertisers see what’s trending on the app – no longer allows users to search for specific hashtags, including innocuous ones.
An advisor to TikTok who works at a Big Time American University tells his students that they are not permitted to view the data the mad professor has gathered as part of his consulting work for a certain company affiliated with the Middle Kingdom. The students don’t seem to care. Each is viewing TikTok videos about restaurants serving super sized burritos. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
Does anyone really care?
Those with sympathy for the China-linked service do. The easiest way to reduce the hassling from annoying academic researchers or analysts at non-governmental organizations is to become less transparent. The method has proven its value to other firms.
Several observations can be offered:
- TikTok is an immensely influential online service for young people. Blocking access to data about what’s available via TikTok and who accesses certain data underscores the weakness of certain US governmental entities. TikTok does something to reduce transparency and what happens? NBC news does a report. Big whoop as one of my team likes to say.
- Transparency means that scrutiny becomes more difficult. That decision immediately increases my suspicion level about TikTok. The action makes clear that transparency creates unwanted scrutiny and criticism. The idea is, “Let’s kill that fast.”
- TikTok competitors have their work cut out for them. No longer can their analysts gather information directly. Third party firms can assemble TikTok data, but that is often slow and expensive. Competing with TikTok becomes a bit more difficult, right, Google?
To sum up, social media short form content can be weaponized. The value of a weapon is greater when its true nature is not known, right, TikTok?
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2024
Sci Fi or Sci Fake: A Post about a Chinese Force Field
January 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Imagine a force field which can deflect a drone or other object. Commercial applications could range from a passenger vehicles to directing flows of material in a manufacturing process. Is a force field a confection of science fiction writers or a technical avenue nearing market entry?
A Tai Chi master uses his powers to take down a drone. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
“Chinese Scientists Create Plasma Shield to Guard Drones, Missiles from Attack” presents information which may be a combination of “We’re innovating and you are not” and “science fiction.” The write up reports:
The team led by Chen Zongsheng, an associate researcher at the State Key Laboratory of Pulsed Power Laser Technology at the National University of Defence Technology, said their “low-temperature plasma shield” could protect sensitive circuits from electromagnetic weapon bombardments with up to 170kW at a distance of only 3 metres (9.8 feet). Laboratory tests have shown the feasibility of this unusual technology. “We’re in the process of developing miniaturized devices to bring this technology to life,” Chen and his collaborators wrote in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of National University of Defence Technology last month.
But the write up makes clear that other countries like the US are working to make force fields more effective. China has a colorful way to explain their innovation; to wit:
The plasma-based energy shield is a radical new approach reminiscent of tai chi principles – rather than directly countering destructive electromagnetic assaults it endeavors to convert the attacker’s energy into a defensive force.
Tai chi, as I understand the discipline is a combination of mental discipline and specific movements to develop mental peace, promote physical well being, and control internal force for a range of purposes.
How does the method function. The article explains:
… When attacking electromagnetic waves come into contact with these charged particles, the particles can immediately absorb the energy of the electromagnetic waves and then jump into a very active state. If the enemy continues to attack or even increases the power at this time, the plasma will suddenly increase its density in space, reflecting most of the incidental energy like a mirror, while the waves that enter the plasma are also overwhelmed by avalanche-like charged particles.
One question: Are technologists mining motion pictures, television shows, and science fiction for ideas?
Beam me up, Scotty.
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2024
Cheating: Is It Not Like Love, Honor, and Truth?
January 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I would like to believe the information in this story: “ChatGPT Did Not Increase Cheating in High Schools, Stanford Researchers Find.” My reservations can be summed up with three points: [a] The Stanford president (!) who made up datal, [b] The behavior of Stanford MBAs at certain go-go companies, and [c] How does one know a student did not cheat? (I know the answer: Surveillance technology, perchance. Ooops. That’s incorrect. That technology is available to Stanford graduates working at certain techno feudalist outfits.
Mom asks her daughter, “I showed you how to use the AI generator, didn’t I? Why didn’t you use it?” Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Pretty good today.
The cited write up reports as actual factual:
The university, which conducted an anonymous survey among students at 40 US high schools, found about 60% to 70% of students have engaged in cheating behavior in the last month, a number that is the same or even decreased slightly since the debut of ChatGPT, according to the researchers.
I have tried to avoid big time problems in my dinobaby life. However, I must admit that in high school, I did these things: [a] Worked with my great grandmother to create a poem subsequently published in a national anthology in 1959. Granny helped me cheat; she was a deceitful septuagenarian as I recall. I put my name on the poem, omitting Augustus. Yes, cheating. [b] Sold homework to students not in my advanced classes. I would consider this cheating, but I was saving money for my summer university courses at the University of Illinois. I went for the cash. [c] After I ended up in the hospital, my girl friend at the time showed up at the hospital, reviewed the work covered in class, and finished a science worksheet because I passed out from the post surgery medications. Yes, I cheated, and Linda Mae who subsequently spent her life in Africa as a nurse, helped me cheat. I suppose I will burn in hell. My summary suggests that “cheating” is an interesting concept, and it has some nuances.
Did the Stanford (let’s make up data) University researchers nail down cheating or just hunt for the AI thing? Are the data reproducible? Was the methodology rigorous, the results validated, and micro analyses run to determine if the data were on the money? Yeah, sure, sure.
I liked this statement:
Stanford also offers an online hub with free resources to help teachers explain to high school students the dos and don’ts of using AI.
In the meantime, the researchers said they will continue to collect data throughout the school year to see if they find evidence that more students are using ChatGPT for cheating purposes.
Yep, this is a good pony to ride. I would ask is plain vanilla Google search a form of cheating? I think it is. With most of the people online using it, doesn’t everyone cheat? Let’s ask the Harvard ethics professor, a senior executive at a Facebook-type outfit, and the former president of Stanford.
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2023
Google and the Company It Keeps: Money Is Money
January 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
If this recent report from Adalytics is accurate, not even Google understands how and where its Google Search Partners (GSP) program is placing ads for both its advertising clients and itself. A piece at Adotat discusses “The Google Exposé: Peeling Back the Layers of Ad Network Mysteries.” Google promises customers of this highly lucrative program their ads will only appear alongside content they would approve of. However, writer Pesach Lattin charges:
“The program, shrouded in opacity, is alleged to be a haven for brand-unsafe ad inventory, a digital Wild West where ads could unwittingly appear alongside content on pornography sites, right-wing fringe publishers, and even on sites sanctioned by the White House in nations like Iran and Russia.”
How could this happen? Google expands its advertising reach by allowing publishers to integrate custom searches into their sites. If a shady publisher has done so, there’s no way to know short of stumbling across it: unlike Bing, Google does not disclose placement URLs. To make matters worse, Google search advertisers are automatically enrolled GSP with no clear way to opt out. But surely the company at least protects itself, right? The post continues:
“Surprisingly, even Google’s own search ads weren’t immune to these problematic placements. This startling fact raises serious questions about the awareness and control Google’s ad buyers have over their own system. It appears that even within Google, there’s a lack of clarity about the inner workings of their ad technology. According to TechCrunch, Laura Edelson, an assistant professor of computer science at Northeastern University, known for her work in algorithmic auditing and transparency, echoes this sentiment. She suggests that Google may not fully grasp the complexities of its own ad network, losing sight of how and where its ads are displayed.”
Well that is not good. Lattin points out the problem, and the lack of transparency around it, mean Google and its clients may be unwittingly breaking ethical advertising standards and even violating the law. And they might never know or, worse, a problematic placement could spark a PR or legal nightmare. Ah, Google.
Cynthia Murrell, January 10, 2023
British Library: The Math of Can Kicking Security Down the Road
January 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a couple of blog posts about the security issues at the British Library. I am not currently working on projects in the UK. Therefore, I noted the issue and moved on to more pressing matters. Examples range from writing about the antics of the Google to keeping my eye on the new leader of the highly innovative PR magnet, the NSO Group.
Two well-educated professionals kick a security can down the road. Why bother to pick it up? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. I gave up trying to get you to produce a big can and big shoe. Sigh.
I read “British Library to Burn Through Reserves to Recover from Cyber Attack.” The weird orange newspaper usually has semi-reliable, actual factual information. The write up reports or asserts (the FT is a newspaper, after all):
The British Library will drain about 40 per cent of its reserves to recover from a cyber attack that has crippled one of the UK’s critical research bodies and rendered most of its services inaccessible.
I won’t summarize what the bad actors took down. Instead, I want to highlight another passage in the article:
Cyber-intelligence experts said the British Library’s service could remain down for more than a year, while the attack highlighted the risks of a single institution playing such a prominent role in delivering essential services.
A couple of themes emerge from these two quoted passages:
- Whatever cash the library has, spitting distance of half is going to be spent “recovering,” not improving, enhancing, or strengthening. Just “recovering.”
- The attack killed off “most” of the British Libraries services. Not a few. Not one or two. Just “most.”
- Concentration for efficiency leads to failure for downstream services. But concentration makes sense, right. Just ask library patrons.
My view of the situation is familiar of you have read other blog posts about Fancy Dan, modern methods. Let me summarize to brighten your day:
First, cyber security is a function that marketers exploit without addressing security problems. Those purchasing cyber security don’t know much. Therefore, the procurement officials are what a falcon might label “easy prey.” Bad for the chihuahua sometimes.
Second, when security issues are identified, many professionals don’t know how to listen. Therefore, a committee decides. Committees are outstanding bureaucratic tools. Obviously the British Library’s managers and committees may know about manuscripts. Security? Hmmm.
Third, a security failure can consume considerable resources in order to return to the status quo. One can easily imagine a scenario months or years in the future when the cost of recovery is too great. Therefore, the security breach kills the organization. Termination can be rationalized by a committee, probably affiliated with a bureaucratic structure further up the hierarchy.
I think the idea of “kicking the security can” down the road a widespread characteristic of many organizations. Is the situation improving? No. Marketers move quickly to exploit weaknesses of procurement teams. Bad actors know this. Excitement ahead.
Stephen E Arnold, January 9, 2024
Googley Gems: 2024 Starts with Some Hoots
January 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Another year and I will turn 80. I have seen some interesting things in my 58 year work career, but a couple of black swans have flown across my radar system. I want to share what I find anomalous or possibly harbingers of the new normal.
A dinobaby examines some Alphabet Google YouTube gems. The work is not without its AGonY, however. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
First up is another “confession” or “tell all” about the wild, wonderful Alphabet Google YouTube or AGY. (Wow, I caught myself. I almost typed “agony”, not AGY. I am indeed getting old.)
I read “A Former Google Manager Says the Tech Giant Is Rife with Fiefdoms and the Creeping Failure of Senior Leaders Who Weren’t Making Tough Calls.” The headline is a snappy one. I like the phrase “creeping failure.” Nifty image like melting ice and tundra releasing exciting extinct biological bits and everyone’s favorite gas. Let me highlight one point in the article:
[Google has] “lots of little fiefdoms” run by engineers who didn’t pay attention to how their products were delivered to customers. …this territorial culture meant Google sometimes produced duplicate apps that did the same thing or missed important features its competitors had.
I disagree. Plenty of small Web site operators complain about decisions which destroy their businesses. In fact, I am having lunch with one of the founders of a firm deleted by Google’s decider. Also, I wrote about a fellow in India who is likely to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged Googlers because he shoots videos of India’s temples and suggests they have meanings beyond those inculcated in certain castes.
My observation is that happy employees don’t run conferences to explain why Google is a problem or write these weird “let me tell you what life is really like” essays. Something is definitely being signaled. Could it be distress, annoyance, or down-home anger? The “gem”, therefore, is AGY’s management AGonY.
Second, AGY is ramping up its thinking about monetization of its “users.” I noted “Google Bard Advanced Is Coming, But It Likely Won’t Be Free” reports:
Google Bard Advanced is coming, and it may represent the company’s first attempt to charge for an AI chatbot.
And why not? The Red Alert hooted because MIcrosoft’s 2022 announcement of its OpenAI tie up made clear that the Google was caught flat footed. Then, as 2022 flowed, the impact of ChatGPT-like applications made three facets of the Google outfit less murky: [a] Google was disorganized because it had Google Brain and DeepMind which was expensive and confusing in the way Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First Routine” made people laugh. [b] The malaise of a cooling technology frenzy yielded to AI craziness which translated into some people saying, “Hey, I can use this stuff for answering questions.” Oh, oh, the search advertising model took a bit of a blindside chop block. And [c] Google found itself on the wrong side of assorted legal actions creating a model for other legal entities to explore, probe, and probably use to extract Google’s life blood — Money. Imagine Google using its data to develop effective subscription campaigns. Wow.
And, the final Google gem is that Google wants to behave like a nation state. “Google Wrote a Robot Constitution to Make Sure Its New AI Droids Won’t Kill Us” aims to set the White House and other pretenders to real power straight. Shades of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. The write up reports:
DeepMind programmed the robots to stop automatically if the force on its joints goes past a certain threshold and included a physical kill switch human operators can use to deactivate them.
You have to embrace the ethos of a company which does not want its “inventions” to kill people. For me, the message is one that some governments’ officials will hear: Need a machine to perform warfighting tasks?
Small gems but gems not the less. AGY, please, keep ‘em coming.
Stephen E Arnold, January 9, 2024
Remember Ike and the MIC: He Was Right
January 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
It used to be common for departing Pentagon officials and retiring generals to head for weapons makers like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But the hot new destination is venture capital firms, according to
the article, “New Spin on a Revolving Door: Pentagon Officials Turned Venture Capitalists” at DNYUZ. We learn:
“The New York Times has identified at least 50 former Pentagon and national security officials, most of whom left the federal government in the last five years, who are now working in defense-related venture capital or private equity as executives or advisers. In many cases, The Times confirmed that they continued to interact regularly with Pentagon officials or members of Congress to push for policy changes or increases in military spending that could benefit firms they have invested in.”
Yes, pressure from these retirees-turned-venture-capitalists has changed the way agencies direct their budgets. It has also achieved advantageous policy changes: The Defense Innovation Unit now reports directly to the defense secretary. Also, the prohibition against directing small-business grants to firms with more than 50% VC funding has been scrapped.
In one way this trend could be beneficial: instead of lobbying for federal dollars to flow into specific companies, venture capitalists tend to advocate for investment in certain technologies. That way, they hope, multiple firms in which they invest will profit. On the other hand, the nature of venture capitalists means more pressure on Congress and the military to send huge sums their way. Quickly and repeatedly. The article notes:
“But not everyone on Capitol Hill is pleased with the new revolving door, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, who raised concerns about it with the Pentagon this past summer. The growing role of venture capital and private equity firms ‘makes President Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex seem quaint,’ Ms. Warren said in a statement, after reviewing the list prepared by The Times of former Pentagon officials who have moved into the venture capital world. ‘War profiteering is not new, but the significant expansion risks advancing private financial interests at the expense of national security.’”
Senator Warren may have a point: the article specifies that many military dollars have gone to projects that turned out to be duds. A few have been successful. See the write-up for those details. This moment in geopolitics is an interesting time for this change. Where will it take us?
Cynthia Murrell, January 9, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
