Google Wins AI, According to Google AI
April 29, 2025
No AI. This old dinobaby just plods along, delighted he is old and this craziness will soon be left behind. What about you?
Wow, not even insecure pop stars explain how wonderful they are at every opportunity. But Google is not going to stop explaining that it is number one in smart software. Never mind the lawsuits. Never mind the Deepseek thing. Never mind Sam AI-Man. Never mind angry Googlers who think the company will destroy the world.
Just get the message, “We have won.”
I know this because I read the weird PR interview called “Demis Hassabis Is Preparing for AI’s Endgame,” which is part of the “news” about the Time 100 most wonderful and intelligence and influential and talented and prescient people in the Time world.
Let’s take a quick look at a few of the statements in the marketing story. Because I am a dinobaby, I will wrap up with a few observations designed to make clear the difference between old geezers like me and the youthful new breed of Time leaders.
Here’s the first passage I noted:
He believes AGI [Googler Hassabis] would be a technology that could not only solve existing problems, but also come up with entirely new explanations for the universe. A test for its existence might be whether a system could come up with general relativity with only the information Einstein had access to; or if it could not only solve a longstanding hypothesis in mathematics, but theorize an entirely new one. “I identify myself as a scientist first and foremost,” Hassabis says. “The whole reason I’m doing everything I’ve done in my life is in the pursuit of knowledge and trying to understand the world around us.”
First comment. Yep, I noticed the reference to Einstein. That’s reasonable intellectual territory for a Googler. I want to point out that the Google is in a bit of legal trouble because it did not play fair. But neither did Einstein. Instead of fighting evil in Europe, he lit out for the US of A. I mean a genius of the Einstein ilk is not going to risk one’s life. Just think. Google is a thinking outfit, but I would suggest that its brush with authorities is different from Einstein’s. But a scientist working at an outfit in trouble with authorities, no big deal, right? AI is a way to understand the world around us. Breaking the law? What?
The second snippet is this one:
When DeepMind was acquired by Google in 2014, Hassabis insisted on a contractual firewall: a clause explicitly prohibiting his technology from being used for military applications. It was a red line that reflected his vision of AI as humanity’s scientific savior, not a weapon of war.
Well, that red line was made of erasable market red. It has disappeared. And where is the Nobel prize winner? Still at the Google, that’s the outfit that is in trouble with the law and reasonably good at discarding notions that don’t fit with its goal of generating big revenue from ads and assorted other ventures like self driving taxi cabs. Noble indeed.
Okay, here’s the third comment:
That work [dumping humans for smart software], he says, is not intended to hasten labor disruptions, but instead is about building the necessary scaffolding for the type of AI that he hopes will one day make its own scientific discoveries. Still, as research into these AI “agents” progresses, Hassabis says, expect them to be able to carry out increasingly more complex tasks independently. (An AI agent that can meaningfully automate the job of further AI research, he predicts, is “a few years away.”)
I think that Google will just say, “Yo, dudes, smart software is efficient. Those who lose their jobs can re-skill like the humanoids we are allowing to find their future elsewhere.
Several observations:
- I think that the Time people are trying to balance their fear of smart software replacing outfits like Time with the excitement of watching smart software create a new way experiencing making a life. I don’t think the Timers achieved their goal.
- The message that Google thinks, cares, and has lofty goals just doesn’t ring true. Google is in trouble with the law for a reason. It was smart enough to make money, but it was not smart enough to avoid honking off regulators in some jurisdictions. I can’t reconcile illegal behavior with baloney about the good of mankind.
- Google wants to be seen as the big dog of AI. The problem is that saying something is different from the reality of trials, loss of trust among some customer sectors, floundering for a coherent message about smart software, and the baloney that the quantumly supreme Google convinces people to propagate.
Okay, you may love the Time write up. I am amused, and I think some of the lingo will find its way into the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show. Did you hear the one about Google’s AI not being used for weapons?
Stephen E Arnold, April 29, 2025
Apple and Meta: Virtual Automatic Teller Machines for the EU
April 29, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
I spotted this story in USA Today. You remember that newspaper, of course. The story “Apple Fined $570 Million and Meta $228 Million for Breaching European Union Law” reports:
Apple was fined 500 million euros ($570 million) on Wednesday and Meta 200 million euros, as European Union antitrust regulators handed out the first sanctions under landmark legislation aimed at curbing the power of Big Tech.
I have observed that to many regulators the brands Apple and Meta (Facebook) are converted to the sound of ka-ching. For those who don’t recognize the onomatopoeia for an old-fashioned cash register ringing up a sale. The modern metaphor might be an automatic teller machine emitting beeps and honks. That works. Punch the Apple and Meta logos and bonk, beep, out comes millions of euros. Bonk, beep.
The law which allows the behavior of what some Europeans view as “tech bros” to be converted first to a legal process and then to cash is the Digital Markets Act. The idea is that certain technology centric outfits based in the US operate without much regard for the rules, regulations, and laws of actual nation-states and their governing entities. I mean who pays attention to what the European Union says? Certainly not a geek à la sauce californienne.
The companies are likely to interpret these fines as some sort of deus ex machina, delivered by a third-rate vengeful god in a TikTok-type of video. Perhaps? But the legal process identified some actions by the fined American companies as illegal. Examples range from preventing an Apple store user from certain behaviors to Meta’s reluctance to conform to some privacy requirements. I am certainly not a lawyer, nor am I involved with either of the American companies. However, I can make several observations from my dinobaby point of view, of course:
- The ka-ching / bonk beep incentive is strong. Money talks in the US and elsewhere. It is not surprising that the fines are becoming larger with each go-round. How does one stop the cost creep? One thought is to change the behavior of the companies. Sorry, EU, that is not going to happen.
- The interpretation of the penalty as a reaction against America is definitely a factor. For those who have not lived and worked in other countries, the anti-American sentiment is not understood. I learned when people painted slurs on the walls of our home in Campinas, Brazil. I was about 13, and the anger extended beyond black paint on our pristine white, eight-foot high walls with glass embedded at the top of them. Inviting, right?
- The perception that a company is more powerful than a mere government entity has been growing as the concentration of eyeballs, money, and talented people has increased at certain firms. Once the regulators have worked through the others in this category, attention will turn to the second tier of companies. I won’t identify any entities but the increased scrutiny of Cloudflare by French authorities is a glimpse of what might be coming down the information highway.
Net net: Ka-ching, ka-ching, and ka-ching. Beep, bong, beep, bong.
Stephen E Arnold, April 29, 2025
China, Self-Amusement, and AI
April 29, 2025
China pokes fun at the United States whenever it can. Why? The Middle Kingdom wants to prove its superiority over the US. China is does have many technological advances over its western neighbor and now the country made another great leap forward with AI says Business Insider: “China’s Baidu Releases Ernie X1, A New AI Reasoning Model.”
Baidu is China’s equivalent of Google and the it released two new AI models. The first is Ernie X1 that is described as a reasoning model that delivers on par with Deepseek R1 at half the price. It also released a multimodal foundation model called Ernie 4.5 that could potentially outperform GPT-4.5 and costs only a fraction of the price. Baidu is also developing the Ernie Bot, a free chatbot.
Baidu wants to offer the world cheap AI:
“Baidu’s new releases come as Silicon Valley reckons with the cost of AI models, largely spurred by the latest drops from Deepseek, a Chinese startup launched by hedge fund High Flyer.
In December, Deepseek released a large language model called V3, and in January, it unveiled a reasoning model called R1. The models are considered as good or better than equivalent models from OpenAI but priced “anywhere from 20-40x cheaper,” according to analysis from Bernstein Research.”
China is smart to develop inexpensive AI, but did the country have to make fun of Sesame Street? I mean Big Bird?
Whitney Grace, April 29, 2025
The Only-Google-Can-Do-It Information Campaign: Repeat It, and It Will Be “True.” Believe Now!
April 28, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
After more than two decades of stomping around the digital world, the Google faces some unpleasant consequences of what it hath wrought. There is the European Union’s ka-ching factor; that is, Google is a big automatic teller machine capable of spitting out oodles of cash after the lawyers run out of gas. The US legal process is looking more like the little engine that could. If it can, Google may lose control of some of its big-time components; for example, the Chrome browser. I think this was acquired by the Google from someone in Denmark years ago, but I am a bit fuzzy about this statement. But, hey, let’s roll with it. Google “owns” the browser market, and if the little engine that could gets to the top of the hill (not guaranteed by any means, of course) then another outfit might acquire it.
Among the players making noises about buying the Google browser is OpenAI. I find this interesting because [a] Sam AI-Man wants to build his version of Telegram and [b] he wants to make sure that lots of people use his firm’s / organization’s smart software. Buy Chrome and Sam has users and he can roll out a browser enabled version of the Telegram platform with his very own AI system within.
Google is not too keen on losing any of its “do good” systems. Chrome has been a useful vector for such helpful functions as data gathering, control of extensions, and having its own embedded Google search system everywhere the browser user goes. Who needs Firefox when Google has Chrome? Probably not Sam AI-Man or Yahoo or whoever eyes the browser.
“Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company’s Browser Chief Tells Judge” reveals to me how Google will argue against a decision forcing Google to sell its browser. That argument is, not surprisingly, is anchored within Google’s confidence in itself, its wizards, its money, and its infrastructure. The Los Angeles Times’ article says:
Google is the only company that can offer the level of features and functionality that its popular Chrome web browser has today, given its “interdependencies” on other parts of the Alphabet Inc. unit, the head of Chrome testified. “Chrome today represents 17 years of collaboration between the Chrome people” and the rest of Google, Parisa Tabriz, the browser’s general manager, said Friday as part of the Justice Department’s antitrust case in Washington federal court. “Trying to disentangle that is unprecedented.”
My interpretation of this comment is typical of a dinobaby. Google’s browser leader is saying, “Other companies are not Google; therefore, those companies are mentally, technically, and financially unable to do what Google does.” I understand. Googzilla is supreme in the way it is quantumly supreme in every advanced technology, including content marketing and public relations.
The write up adds:
James Mickens, a computer science expert for the Justice Department, said Google could easily transfer ownership of Chrome to another company without breaking its functionality. … “The divestiture of Chrome is feasible from a technical perspective,” said Mickens, a computer science professor at Harvard University. “It would be feasible to transfer ownership and not break too much.”
Professor Mickens has put himself in the category of non-Googley people who lack the intelligence to realize how incorrect his reasoning is. Too bad, professor, no Google consulting gig for you this year.
Plus, Google has a plan for its browser. The write up reports:
In internal documents, Google said it intends to develop Chrome into an “agentic browser,” which incorporates AI agents to automate tasks and perform actions such as filling out forms, conducting research or shopping. “We envision a future of multiple agents, where Chrome integrates deeply with Gemini as a primary agent and one we’ll prioritize and enable users to engage with multiple 3P agents on the web in both consumer and enterprise settings,” Tabriz wrote in a 2024 email.
How will this play out? I have learned that predicting the outcome of legal processes is a tough job. Stick to estimating the value of a TONcoin. That’s an easier task.
What does seem clear to me are three points:
- Google’s legal woes are not going away
- Google’s sense of its technology dominance is rising despite some signals that that perception may not align with what’s happening in AI and other technical fields
- Google’s argument that only it can do its browser may not fly in the midst of legal eagles.
I don’t think the “browser chief” will agree with this dinobaby. That’s okay. Trust me.
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2025
Japan Alleges Google Is a Monopoly Doing Monopolistic Things. What?
April 28, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby himself.
The Google has been around a couple of decades or more. The company caught my attention, and I wrote three monographs for a now defunct publisher in a very damp part of England. These are now out of print, but their titles illustrate my perception of what I call affectionately Googzilla:
- The Google Legacy. I tried to explain why Google’s approach was going to define how future online companies built their technical plumbing. Yep, OpenAI in all its charm is a descendant of those smart lads, Messrs. Brin and Page.
- Google Version 2.0. I attempted to document the shift in technical focus from search relevance to a more invasive approach to using user data to generate revenue. The subtitle, I thought at the time, gave away the theme of the book: “The Calculating Predator.”
- Google: The Digital Gutenberg. I presented information about how Google’s “outputs” from search results to more sophisticated content structures like profiles of people, places, and things was preparing Google to reinvent publishing. I was correct because the new head of search (Prabhakar Version 2.0) is making little reports the big thing in search results. This will doom many small publications because Google just tells you what it wants you to know.
I wrote these monographs between 2002 and 2008. I must admit that my 300 page Enterprise Search Report sold more copies than my Google work. But I think my Google trilogy explained what Googzilla was doing. No one cared.
Now I learn “Japan orders Google to stop pushing smartphone makers to install its apps.”* Okay, a little slow on the trigger, but government officials in the land of the rising sun figured out that Google is doing what Google has been doing for decades.
Enlightenment arrives!
The article reports:
Japan has issued a cease-and-desist order telling Google to stop pressuring smartphone makers to preinstall its search services on Android phones. The Japan Fair Trade Commission said on Tuesday Google had unfairly hindered competition by asking for preferential treatment for its search and browser from smartphone makers in violation of the country’s anti-monopoly law. The antitrust watchdog said Google, as far back as July 2020, had asked at least six Android smartphone manufacturers to preinstall its apps when they signed the license for the American tech giant’s app store…
Google has been this rodeo before. At the end of a legal process, Google will apologize, write a check, and move on down the road.
The question for me is, “How many other countries will see Google as a check writing machine?”
Quite a few in my opinion. The only problem is that these actions have taken many years to move from the thrill of getting a Google mouse pad to actual governmental action. (The best Google freebie was its flashing LED pin. Mine corroded and no longer flashed. I dumped it.)
Note for the * — Links to Microsoft “news” stories often go dead. Suck it up and run a query for the title using Google, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2025
Banks and Security? Absolutely
April 28, 2025
The second-largest US bank has admitted it failed to recover documents lost to a recent data breach. The Daily Hodl reports, “Bank of America Discloses Data Breach After Customers’ Documents Disappear, Says Names, Addresses, Account Information and Social Security Numbers Affected.” Writer Mark Emem tells us:
“Bank of America says efforts to locate sensitive documents containing personal information on an undisclosed number of customers have failed. The North Carolina-based bank says it is unable to recover the documents, which were lost in transit and ‘resulted in the disclosure’ of personal information. [The bank’s notice states,] ‘According to our records, the information involved in this incident was related to your savings bonds and included your first and last name, address, phone number, Social Security number, and account number…We understand how upsetting this can be and sincerely apologize for this incident and any concerns or inconvenience it may cause. We are notifying you so we can work together to protect your personal and account information.’”
Banks are forthcoming and bad actors know there is money in them. It is no surprise Bank of America faces a challenge. The succinct write-up notes the bank’s pledge to notify affected customers of any suspicious activity on their accounts. It is also offering them a two-year membership to an identity theft protection service. We suggest any Bank of America customers go ahead and change their passwords as a precaution. Now. We will wait.
Cynthia Murrell, April 28, 2025
Geocoding Price Data
April 28, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Some data must be processed to add geocodes to the items. Typically the geocode is a latitude and longitude coordinate. Some specialized services add addition codes to facilitate height and depth measurements. However, a geocode is not just what are generally called “lat and long coordinates.” Here’s a selected list of some of the items which may be included in a for-fee service:
- An address
- A place identifier
- Boundaries like a neighborhood, county, etc.
- Time zone
- Points-of-interest data.
For organizations interested in adding geocodes to their information or data, pricing of commercial services becomes an important factor.
I want to suggest that you navigate to “Geocoding APIs Compared: Pricing, Free Tiers & Terms of Use.” This article was assembled in 2023. The fees presented are out of date. However, as you work through the article, you will gather useful information about vendors such as Google, MSFT Azure, and TomTom, among others.
One of the question-answering large language models can be tapped to provide pricing information that is more recent.
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2025
Innovation: America Has That Process Nailed
April 27, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
Has innovation slowed? In smart software, I read about clever uses of AI and ML (artificial intelligence and machine learning). But in my tests of various systems I find the outputs occasionally useful. Yesterday, I wanted information about a writer who produced an article about a security issue involving the US government. I tried five systems; none located the individual. I finally tracked the person down using manual methods. The smart software was clueless.
An example of American innovation caught my attention this morning (April 27, 2025 at 520 am US Eastern time to be exact). I noted the article “Khloé Kardashian Announces Protein Popcorn.” The write up explains:
For anyone khounting their makhros, reality star and entrepreneur Khloé Kardashian unveiled her new product this week: Khloud Protein Popcorn. The new snack boasts 7 grams of protein per serving—two more grams than an entire Jack Links Beef Stick—aligning with consumers’ recent obsession with protein-packed food and drinks. The popcorn isn’t covered in burnt ends—its protein boost comes from a proprietary blend of seasonings and milk protein powder called “Khloud dust” that’s sprinkled over the air-popped kernels.
My thought is that smart software may have contributed to the name of the product: Khloud Protein Popcorn, but I don’t know. The idea that enhanced popcorn has more protein than “an entire Jack Links Beef Stick” is quite innovative I think. Samuel Franklin, author of The Cult of Creativity, may have a different view. Creativity, he asserts, did not become a thing until 1875. I think Khloud Protein Popcorn demonstrates that ingenuity, cleverness, imagination, and artistry are definitely alive and thriving in the Kardashian’s idea laboratory.
I wonder if this type of innovation is going to resolve some of the problems which appear to beset daily life in April 2025. I doubt it unless one needs some fortification delivered via popcorn.
Without being too creative or innovative in my thinking, is AL/ML emulating Khloé Kardashian’s protein popcorn. We have a flawed by useful service: Web search. That functionality has been degrading for many reasons. To make it possible to find information germane to a particular topic, innovators have jumped on one horse and started riding it to the future. But the horse is getting tired. In fact, after a couple of years of riding around the barn, the innovations in large language models seems to be getting tired, slowing down, and in some cases limping along.
The big announcements from Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI focus on the number of users each has. I think the Google said it had 1.5 billion users of its smart software. Can Google “prove” it? Probably but is that number verifiable? Sure, just like the amount of protein in the Khloud dust sprinkled on the aforementioned popcorn. OpenAI’s ChatGPT on April 26, 2025, output a smarmy message about a system issue. The new service Venice was similarly uncooperative, unable in fact to locate information about a particular Telegram topic related to its discontinuing its Bridge service. Poor Perplexity was very wordy and very confident that its explanation about why it could not locate an item of information was hardly a confidence builder.
Here’s my hypothesis: AI/ML, LLMs, and the rest of the smart software jargon have embraced Ms. Kardashian’s protein popcorn approach to doing something new, fresh, creative, and exciting. Imagine AI/ML solutions having more value than an “entire Jack Links Beef Stick.” Next up, smart protein popcorn.
Innovative indeed.
Stephen E Arnold, April 27, 2025
The 10X Engineer? More Trouble Than They Are Worth
April 25, 2025
Dinobaby, here. No smart software involved unlike some outfits. I did use Sam AI-Man’s art system to produce the illustration in the blog post.
I like it when I spot a dinobaby fellow traveler. That happened this morning (March 28, 2025) when I saw the headline “In Praise of Normal Engineers: A Software Engineer Argues Against the Myth of the 10x Engineer.”
The IEEE Spectrum article states:
I don’t have a problem with the idea that there are engineers who are 10 times as productive as other engineers. The problems I do have are twofold.
Everyone is amazed that the 10X engineer does amazing things. Does the fellow become the model for other engineers in the office? Not for the other engineers. But the boss loves this super performer. Thanks, OpenAI, good enough.
The two “problems” — note the word “problems” are:
- “Measuring productivity.” That is an understatement, not a problem. With “engineers” working from home or in my case a far off foreign country, a hospital waiting room, or playing video games six fee from me productivity is a slippery business.
- “Teams own software.” Alas, that is indeed true. In 1962, I used IBM manuals to “create” a way to index. The professor who paid me $3 / hour was thrilled. I kept doing this indexing thing until the fellow died when I started graduate school. Since then, whipping up software confections required “teams.” Why? I figured out that my indexing trick was pure good fortune. After that, I made darned sure there were other eyes and minds chugging along by my side.
The write up says:
A truly great engineering organization is one where perfectly normal, workaday software engineers, with decent skills and an ordinary amount of expertise, can consistently move fast, ship code, respond to users, understand the systems they’ve built, and move the business forward a little bit more, day by day, week by week.
I like this statement. And here’s another from the article:
The best engineering orgs are not the ones with the smartest, most experienced people in the world. They’re the ones where normal software engineers can consistently make progress, deliver value to users, and move the business forward. Places where engineers can have a large impact are a magnet for top performers. Nothing makes engineers happier than building things, solving problems, and making progress.
Happy workers are magnets.
Now let’s come back to the 10X idea. I used to work at a company which provided nuclear engineering services to the US government and a handful of commercial firms engaged in the nuclear industry. We had a real live 10X type. He could crank out “stuff” with little effort. Among the 600 nuclear engineers employed at this organization, he was the 10X person. Everyone liked him, but he did not have much to say. In fact, his accent made what he said almost impenetrable. He just showed up every day in a plaid coat, doodled on a yellow pad, and handed dot points, a flow chart, or a calculation to another nuclear engineer and went back to doodling.
Absolutely no one at the nuclear engineering firm wanted to be a 10X engineer. From my years of working at this firm, he was a bit of a one-off. When suits visited, a small parade would troop up to his office on the second floor. He shared that with my close friend, Dr. James Terwilliger. Everyone would smile and look at the green board. Then they would troop out and off to lunch.
I think the presence of this 10X person was a plus for the company. The idea of trying to find another individual who could do the nuclear “stuff” like this fellow was laughable. For some reason, the 10X person liked me, and I got the informal job of accompanying to certain engagements. I left that outfit after several years to hook up with a blue chip consulting firm. I lost track of the 10X person, but I had the learnings necessary to recognize possible 10X types. That was a useful addition to my bag of survival tips as a minus 3 thinker.
Net net: The presence of a 10X is a plus. Ignoring the other 599 engineers is a grave mistake. The errors of this 10X approach are quite evident today: Unchecked privacy violations, monopolistic behaviors enabled by people who cannot set up a new mobile phone, and a distortion of what it means to be responsible, ethical, and moral.
The 10X concept is little more than a way to make the top one percent the reason for success. Their presence is a positive, but building to rely on 10X anything is one of the main contributing factors to the slow degradation of computer services, ease of use, and, in my opinion, social cohesion.
Engineers are important. The unicorn engineers are important. Balance is important. Without out balance “stuff” goes off the rails. And that’s where we are.
Stephen E Arnold, April xx, 2025
Synthetic Data: It Sucks, Says Designers
April 25, 2025
Some would argue taking actual customers out of market research is a bad idea. Smashing Magazine supports that reasonable perspective in, “How to Argue Against AI-First Research.” Yes, some AI enthusiasts praise synthetic user testing as a valuable new tool. The practice is exactly what it sounds like—using LLMs to build fake customers and performing market research on them. Admittedly, it is much faster and cheaper than surveying actual humans. But what good is that if the results are bad? Writer Vitaly Friedman explains:
“When ‘producing’ user insights, LLMs can’t generate unexpected things beyond what we’re already asking about. In comparison, researchers are only able to define what’s relevant as the process unfolds. In actual user testing, insights can help shift priorities or radically reimagine the problem we’re trying to solve, as well as potential business outcomes. Real insights come from unexpected behavior, from reading behavioral clues and emotions, from observing a person doing the opposite of what they said. We can’t replicate it with LLMs.”
But budgets are tight. Isn’t synthetic user data better than nothing? No. No it is not. We learn:
“Pavel Samsonov articulates that things that sound like customers might say them are worthless. But things that customers actually have said, done, or experienced carry inherent value (although they could be exaggerated). We just need to interpret them correctly. AI user research isn’t ‘better than nothing’ or ‘more effective.’ It creates an illusion of customer experiences that never happened and are at best good guesses but at worst misleading and non-applicable.”
Not only that, cutting real customers out of the equation means not catching AI errors. And there will be errors. Furthermore, emphasizes Friedman:
“Synthetic testing assumes that people fit in well-defined boxes, which is rarely true. Human behavior is shaped by our experiences, situations, habits that can’t be replicated by text generation alone. AI strengthens biases, supports hunches, and amplifies stereotypes.”
All of which could send marketing dollars down the wrong, unprofitable track. As suspicious as we are of AI hype, even we can admit the tech is good for some things. Market research perhaps is not a core competency.
Cynthia Murrell, April 25, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
