Social Media: A Glimpse of What Ignorance Fosters
September 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The US Federal Trade Commission has published a free report. “A Look Behind the Screens Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services” is about 80 pages comprising the actual report. The document covers:
- A legal framework for social media and streaming services
- Some basic information about the companies mentioned in the report
- The data “practices” of the companies (I would have preferred the phrase “procedures and exploitation”)
- Advertising practices (my suggestion is to name the section “revenue generation and maximization”)
- Algorithms, Data Analytics, or AI
- Children and teens
The document includes comments about competition (er, what?), some conclusions, and FTC staff recommendations.
From the git-go, the document uses an acronym: SMVSSs which represents Social Media and Video Streaming Services. The section headings summarize the scope of the document. The findings are ones which struck me as fairly obvious; specifically:
- People have no idea how much data are collected, analyzed, and monetized
- Revenue is generated by selling ad which hook to the user data
- Lots of software (dumb and smart) are required to make the cost of operations as efficient as possible
- Children’s system use and their data are part of the game plan.
The report presents assorted “should do” and “must do.” These too are obvious; for example, “Companies should implement policies that would ensure greater protection of children and teens.”
I am a dinobaby. Commercial enterprises are going to do what produces revenue and market reach. “Should” and “would” are nice verbs. Without rules and regulations the companies just do what companies do. Consequences were needed more than two decades ago. Now the idea of “fixing up” social media is an idea which begs for reasonable solutions. Some countries just block US social media outfits; others infiltrate the organizations and use them and the data as an extension of a regime’s capabilities. A few countries think that revenue and growth are just dandy. Do you live in one of these nation states?
Net net: Worth reading. I want a T shirt that says SMVSSs.
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2024
The Zuck: Limited by Regulation. Is This a Surprise?
September 25, 2024
Privacy laws in the EU are having an effect on Meta’s actions in that region. That’s great. But what about the rest of the world? When pressed by Australian senators, a the company’s global privacy director Melinda Claybaugh fessed up. “Facebook Admits to Scraping Every Australian Adult User’s Public Photos and Posts to Train AI, with No Opt-Out Option,” reports ABC News. Journalist Jake Evans writes:
“Labor senator Tony Sheldon asked whether Meta had used Australian posts from as far back as 2007 to feed its AI products, to which Ms Claybaugh responded ‘we have not done that’. But that was quickly challenged by Greens senator David Shoebridge. Shoebridge: ‘The truth of the matter is that unless you have consciously set those posts to private since 2007, Meta has just decided that you will scrape all of the photos and all of the texts from every public post on Instagram or Facebook since 2007, unless there was a conscious decision to set them on private. That’s the reality, isn’t it? Claybaugh: ‘Correct.’ Ms Claybaugh added that accounts of people under 18 were not scraped, but when asked by Senator Sheldon whether public photos of his own children on his account would be scraped, Ms Claybaugh acknowledged they would. The Facebook representative could not answer whether the company scraped data from previous years of users who were now adults, but were under 18 when they created their accounts.”
Why do users in Australia not receive the same opt-out courtesy those in the EU enjoy? Simple, responds Ms. Claybaugh—their government has not required it. Not yet, anyway. But Privacy Act reforms are in the works there, a response to a 2020 review that found laws to be outdated. The updated legislation is expected to be announced in August—four years after the review was completed. Ah, the glacial pace of bureaucracy. Better late than never, one supposes.
Cynthia Murrell, September 25, 2024
Consistency Manifested by Mr. Musk and the Delightfully Named X.com
September 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
You know how to build credibility: Be consistent, be sort of nice, be organized. I found a great example of what might be called anti-credibility in “Elon Rehires lawyers in Brazil, Removes Accounts He Insisted He Wouldn’t Remove.” The write up says:
Elon Musk fought the Brazilian law, and it looks like the Brazilian law won. After making a big show of how he was supposedly standing up for free speech, Elon caved yet again.
The article interprets the show of inconsistency and the abrupt about face this way:
So, all of this sounds like Elon potentially realizing that he did his “oh, look at me, I’m a free speech absolutist” schtick, it caused ExTwitter to lose a large chunk of its userbase, and now he’s back to playing ball again. Because, like so much that he’s done since taking over Twitter, he had no actual plan to deal with these kinds of demands from countries.
I agree, but I think the action illustrates a very significant point about Mr. Musk and possibly sheds light on how other US tech giants who get in regulatory trouble and lose customers will behave. Specifically, they knock off the master of the universe attitude and adopt the “scratch my belly” demeanor of a French bulldog wanting to be liked.
The failure to apply sanctions on companies which willfully violate a nation state’s laws has been one key to the rise of the alleged monopolies spawned in the US. Once a country takes action, the trilling from the French bulldog signals a behavioral change.
Now flip this around. Why do some regulators have an active dislike for some US high technology firms? The lack of respect for the law and the attitude of US super moguls might help answer the question.
I am certain many government officials find the delightfully named X.com and the mercurial Mr. Musk a topic of conversation. No wonder some folks love X.com so darned much. The approach used in Brazil and France hopefully signals consequences for those outfits who believe no mere nation state can do anything significant.
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2024
Why Governments May Not Adore Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuck
September 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
When I was in grade school, my family lived in Campinas, Brazil. Today, Campinas is a quasi suburb of São Paulo. In the 1950s, not too many non-Brazilians called the small city home. I remember messages painted on the stucco walls surrounding our house. Most of them were saying, “Yanqui, vá para casa.” We had a few caricatures of Uncle Sam too. My father arranged for the walls to be repainted every two weeks, but the message was clear. Whatever the US was up to in the 1950s, some of the residents of Campinas were not too happy my family had arrived.
Two self-important young professionals find themselves excluded from a party with many important people in attendance. Neither can understand why the people throwing the party from Australia, Brazil, and the UK did not invite them. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
What do American companies do to engender such negative responses. There may be some clues
Flash forward to today, the sentiment of some Brazilians is unchanged. In fact, a group of Brazilian judges effectively kicked Mr. Elon Musk’s companies out of the country. The decision was adjusted to enable Mr. Musk to pay some fines. I don’t think he will be trying to hit the beach in Guaruja for some time. I learned that Mr. Musk is unhappy with Australia. “Elon Musk Outraged by Australia’s Proposed Misinformation Law” reports:
Musk dubs the Australian government ‘fascist’ for proposing a law that would require all social media platforms to comply with stricter content moderation rules.
My thought is that Mr. Musk may find that some Australians in positions of authority in the government may determine that Mr. Musk is a person who perceives himself as above the law in the country. My few experiences with the Australian government left me with the understanding that one should not kick a sleeping kangaroo.
But it is not just Mr. Musk taking actions which create pushback for the US.
Consider Mark Zuckerberg or in my lingo Mr. Zuck.
Smart software and disinformation are of concern in many countries. In some countries, one can end up in a very unpleasant rehabilitation program or just dead for creating unauthorized or off-the-reservation disinformation. “Meta Hides ‘AI Info’ Labels for Edited Content on Facebook, Instagram” reports:
Meta is reducing the visibility of "AI Info" labels on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Starting next week, for content modified or edited using AI tools, the label will be found in the post’s menu, the company announced in an updated blog post on Thursday. This means the labels won’t be quite as visible as before. The revised policy only applies to AI-edited content, the company says. For content generated using an AI tool, Meta will continue to display the "AI Info" label under the username and share whether media is labeled "because of industry-shared signals or because someone self-disclosed." Once the update rolls out, to check whether the content was altered using AI, users will have to tap the menu button at the top right of a post and pick "AI Info."
My thought is that this policy is likely to be scrutinized by governments in a number of other countries. Even thought Mr. Zuck is in active dialog with the EU and the UK, this policy may raise some eyebrows. In nation states assumed to be allies of the US, social disorder is evident. Thus, a service which might spark more unrest is not likely to be viewed as a net positive social good. But Mr. Zuck has his own vision, and it does not linger too long on some rules or what I would call common sense actions.
What do these two high-technology leaders think about other countries’ laws?
I would suggest that these two example illustrate behaviors which are likely to be viewed as contentious. Let’s assume the citizens of the countries with annoyed regulators rebel and protest? The answer is some strong sentiment for and against the US, its ability to control commercial enterprises operating in America may increase the likelihood of anti-US feelings.
Net net: One will have to present some solid evidence that taking actions which either directly or indirectly go against the laws in many countries is a good thing. I do know that if these behaviors escalate, the sale of spray paint will go up and America will not be among the most popular countries in some nation states. Do Mr. Musk or Mr. Zuck care? I don’t think so, but that is just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 18, 2024
Pay Up Time for Low Glow Apple
September 16, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who noticed the flip side of Apple’s big AI event? CNBC did. “Apple Loses EU Court Battle over 13 Billion Euro Tax Bill in Ireland” makes clear that the EU regulators were not awed by snappy colors, “to be” AI, and Apple’s push to be the big noise in hearing aids. Nope. The write up reported:
Europe’s top court on Tuesday ruled against Apple in the tech giant’s 10-year court battle over its tax affairs in Ireland. The pronouncement from the European Court of Justice comes hours after Apple unveiled a swathe of new product offerings, looking to revitalize its iPhone, Apple Watch and Air Pod line-ups.
Those new products will need to generate some additional revenue. The monetary penalty ascends to $14 billion. Packaged as illegal tax benefits, Apple will go through the appeal drill, the PR drill, and the apology drill. The drills may not stop the EU’s desire to scrutinize the behaviors of US high technology companies. It seems that the EU is on a crusade to hold the Big Dogs by their collars, slip on choke chains, and bring the beasts to heel.
An EU official hits a big rock and finds money inside. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I have worked in a couple of EU countries. I recall numerous comments from my clients and colleagues in Europe who suggested US companies were operating as if they were countries. From these individuals’ points of view, their observations about US high technology outfits were understandable. The US, according to some, refused to hold these firms accountable for what some perceived as ignoring user privacy and outright illegal behavior of one sort or another.
What does the decision suggest?
- Big fines, recoveries, and judgments are likely to become more common
- Regulations to create market space for European start ups and technologies are likely to be forthcoming
- The Wild West behavior, tolerated by US regulators, will not be tolerated.
There is one other possible consequence of this $14 billion number. The penalty is big, even for a high tech money machine like Apple. The size of the number may encourage other countries’ regulators to think big as well. It is conceivable that after years of inaction, even US regulators may be tempted to jump into the big money when judgments go against the high technology outfits.
With Google on the spot for alleged monopolistic activities in the online advertising market, those YouTube ads are going to become more plentiful. Some Googlers may have an opportunity to find their future elsewhere as Xooglers (former Google employees). Freebies may be further curtailed in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy which guides Google’s organizational set up.
I found the timing of the news about the $14 billion number interesting. As the US quivered from the excitement of more AI in candy bar devices in rainbow colors, the EU was looking under the rock. The EU found nerve and a possible pile of money.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
Trust AI? Obvious to Those Who Do Not Want to Think Too Much
September 16, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who wants to evaluate information? The answer: Not too many people. In my lectures, I show a diagram of the six processes an analyst or investigator should execute. The reality is that several of the processes are difficult which means time and money are required to complete the processes in a thorough manner. Who has time? The answer: Not too many people or organizations.
What’s the solution? The Engineer’s article “Study Shows Alarming Level of Trust in AI for Life and Death Decisions” reports:
A US study that simulated life and death decisions has shown that humans place excessive trust in artificial intelligence when guiding their choices.
Interesting. Perhaps China is the poster child for putting “trust” in smart software hooked up to nuclear weapons? Fortune reported on September 10, 2024, that China has refused to sign an agreement to ban smart software from controlling nuclear weapons.
Yep, I trust AI, don’t you? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I trusted you to do a great job. What did you deliver? A good enough cartoon.
The study reported in The Engineer might be of interest to some in China. Specifically, the write up stated:
Despite being informed of the fallibility of the AI systems in the study, two-thirds of subjects allowed their decisions to be influenced by the AI. The work, conducted by scientists at the University of California – Merced.
Are these results on point? My experience suggests that not only do people accept the outputs of a computer as “correct.” Many people when shown facts that contradict the computer output defend the computer as more reliable and accurate.
I am not quite such a goose. Machines and software generate errors. The systems have for decades. But I think the reason is that the humans with whom I have interacted pursue convenience. Verifying, analyzing, and thinking are hot processes. Humans want to kick back in cool, low humidity environments and pursue the least effort path in many situations.
The illusion of computer accuracy allows people to skip reviewing their Visa statement and doubting the validity of an output displayed in a spreadsheet. The fact that the smart software hallucinates is ignored. I hear “I know when the system needs checking.” Yeah, sure you do.
Those involved in preparing the study are quoted as saying:
“Our project was about high-risk decisions made under uncertainty when the AI is unreliable,” said Holbrook. “We should have a healthy skepticism about AI, especially in life-or-death decisions. “We see AI doing extraordinary things and we think that because it’s amazing in this domain, it will be amazing in another. We can’t assume that. These are still devices with limited abilities.”
These folks are not going to be hired to advise the Chinese government I surmise.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
The UK Says, “Okay, Google, Get Out Your Checkbook”
September 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “British Competition Regulator Objects to Google’s Ad Tech Practices.” The UK is expressing some direct discontent with the Google. The country is making clear that it is not thrilled with the “let ‘em do what they want, pardner” approach of US regulatory agencies. Not surprisingly, like the Netherlands, the government officials are putting the pedal to the metal. The write up reports:
In a statement, the Competition and Markets Authority alleged that the U.S. internet search titan “has harmed competition by using its dominance in online display advertising to favor its own ad tech services.”
I suppose to some the assertion that Google favors itself is not exactly a surprise. The write up continues:
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of Google Ads, said that the company disagreed with the CMA’s view and “will respond accordingly.” “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Taylor said in an emailed statement. “Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The core of this case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector.”
Good enough illustration, MSFT Copilot.
The explanation from a Googler sounds familiar. Will the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority be convinced? My hunch is that the CMA will not be satisfied with Google’s posture on this hard metal chair. (Does that chair have electrodes attached to its frame and arm rests?)
The write up offers this statement:
In the CMA’s decision Friday, the watchdog said that, since 2015, Google has abused its dominant position as the operator of both ad buying tools “Google Ads” and “DV360,” and of a publisher ad server known as “DoubleClick For Publishers,” in order to strengthen the market position of its advertising exchange, AdX.
Oh, not quite a decade.
Why are European entities ramping up their legal actions? My opinions are:
- Google can produce cash. Ka-ching.
- The recent ruling that Google is a monopoly is essentially interpreted as a green light for other nation states to give the Google a go.
- Non-US regulators are fed up with Google’s largely unchecked behavior and have mustered up courage to try and stop a rolling underground car by standing in front of the massive conveyance and pushing with their bare hands to stop the momentum. (Good luck, folks.)
Net net: More Google pushback may be needed once the bold defiers of mass time velocity are pushed aside.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2024
More Push Back Against US Wild West Tech
September 12, 2024
I spotted another example of a European nation state expressing some concern with American high-technology companies. There is not wind blown corral on Leidsestraat. No Sergio Leone music creeps out the observers. What dominates the scene is a judicial judgment firing a US$35 million fine at Clearview AI. The company has a database of faces, and the information is licensed to law enforcement agencies. What’s interesting is that Clearview does not do business in the Netherlands; nevertheless, the European Union’s data protection act, according to Dutch authorities, has been violated. Ergo: Pay up.
“The Dutch Are Having None of Clearview AI Harvesting Your Photos” reports:
“Following investigation, the DPA confirmed that photos of Dutch citizens are included in the database. It also found that Clearview is accountable for two GDPR breaches. The first is the collection and use of photos….The second is the lack of transparency. According to the DPA, the startup doesn’t offer sufficient information to individuals whose photos are used, nor does it provide access to which data the company has about them.”
Clearview is apparently unhappy with the judgment.
Several observations:
First, the decision is part of what might be called US technology pushback. The Wild West approach to user privacy has to get out of Dodge.
Second, Clearview may be on the receiving end of more fines. The charges may appear to be inappropriate because Clearview does not operate in the Netherlands. Other countries may decide to go after the company too.
Third, the Dutch action may be the first of actions against US high-technology companies.
Net net: If the US won’t curtail the Wild West activities of its technology-centric companies, the Dutch will.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2024
Telcos Lobby to Eliminate Consumer Protection
September 12, 2024
Now this sounds like a promising plan for the telcos. We learn from TechDirt, “Big Telecom Asks the Corrupt Supreme Court to Declare All State and Federal Broadband Consumer Protection Illegal. They Might Get their Wish.” Companies lie AT&T and Comcast have been persuading right-leaning courts, including SCOTUS, to side with them against net neutrality rules and broadband protections generally. To make matters worse, the FCC’s consumer-protection authority was hollowed out during the Trump administration.
Fortunately, states have the authority to step in and act when the federal government does not. But that could soon change. Writer Karl Bode explains:
“For every state whose legislature telecoms have completely captured (Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee), there’s several that have, often imperfectly, tried to protect broadband consumers, either in the form of (California, Oregon, Washington, Maine), crackdowns on lies about speeds or prices (Arizona, Indiana, Michigan), or requiring affordable low income broadband (New York). In 2021 at the peak of COVID problems, New York passed a law mandating that heavily taxpayer subsidized telecoms provide a relatively slow (25 Mbps), $15 broadband tier only for low-income families that qualified. ISPs have sued (unsuccessfully so far) to kill the law, which was upheld last April by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, reversing a 2021 District Court ruling. … Telecoms like AT&T are frightened of states doing their jobs to protect consumers and market competition from their bad behavior. So a group of telecom trade groups this week petitioned the Supreme Court with a very specific ask. They want the court to first destroy FCC broadband consumer protection oversight and net neutrality, then kill New York’s effort, in that precise order, in two different cases.”
The companies argue that, if we want consumer broadband protections, it is up to Congress to pass specific legislation that provides them. The same Congress they reportedly lobby with about $320,000 daily. This is why we cannot have nice things. Bode believes the telcos are likely to get their way. He also warns the Chevron decision means other industries are sure to follow suit, meaning an end to consumer protections in every sphere: Banking, food safety, pollution, worker safeguards… the list goes on. Is this what it means to make the nation great?
Cynthia Murrell, September 12, 2024
See How Clever OSINT Lovers Can Be. Impressed? Not Me
September 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
See the dancing dinosaur. I am a dinobaby, and I have some precepts that are different from those younger than I. I was working on a PhD at the University of Illinois in Chambana and fiddling with my indexing software. The original professor with the big fat grant had died, but I kept talking to those with an interest in concordances about a machine approach to producing these “indexes.” No one cared. I was asked to give a talk at a conference called the Allerton House not far from the main campus. The “house” had a number of events going on week in and week out. I delivered my lecture about indexing medieval sermons in Latin to a small group. In 1972, my area of interest was not a particularly hot topic. After my lecture, a fellow named James K. Rice waited for me to pack up my view graphs and head to the exit. He looked me in the eye and asked, “How quickly can you be in Washington, DC?
An old-time secure system with a reminder appropriate today. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I will eliminate the intermediary steps and cut to the chase. I went to work for a company located in the Maryland technology corridor, a five minute drive from the Beltway, home of the Beltway bandits. The company operated under the three letter acronym NUS. After I started work, I learned that the “N” meant nuclear and that the firm’s special pal was Halliburton Industries. The little-known outfit was involved in some sensitive projects. In fact, when I arrived in 1972, there were more than 400 nuclear engineers on the payroll and more ring knockers than I had ever heard doing their weird bonding ritual at random times.
I learned three things:
- “Nuclear” was something one did not talk about… ever to anyone except those in the “business” like Admiral Craig Hosmer, then chair of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
- “Nuclear” information was permanently secret
- Revealing information about anything “nuclear” was a one-way ticket to trouble.
I understood. That was in 1972 in my first day or two at NUS. I have never forgotten the rule because my friend Dr. James Terwilliger, a nuclear engineer originally trained at Virginia Tech said to me when we first met in the cafeteria: “I don’t know you. I can’t talk to you. Sit somewhere else.”
Jim and I became friends, but we knew the rules. The other NUS professionals did too. I stayed at the company for five years, learned a great deal, and never forgot the basic rule: Don’t talk nuclear to those not in the business. When I was recruited by Booz Allen & Hamilton, my boss and the fellow who hired me asked me, “What did you do at that little engineering firm?” I told him I worked on technical publications and some indexing projects. He bit on indexing and I distracted him by talking about medieval religious literature. In spite of that, I got hired, a fact other Booz Allen professionals in the soon-to-be-formed Technology Management Group could not believe. Imagine. Poetry and a shallow background at a little bitty, unknown engineering company with a meaningless name and zero profile in the Blue Chip Consulting world. Arrogance takes many forms.
Why this biographical background?
I read “Did Sandia Use a Thermonuclear Secondary in a Product Logo?” I have zero comment about the information in the write up. Read the document if you want. Most people will not understand it and be unable to judge its accuracy.
I do have some observations.
First, when the first index of US government servers was created using Inktomi and some old-fashioned manual labor, my team made sure certain information was not exposed to the public via the new portal designed to support citizen services. Even today, I worry that some information on public facing US government servers may have sensitive information exposed. This happens because of interns given jobs but not training, government professionals working with insufficient time to vet digital content, or the weird “flow” nature of digital information which allows a content object to be where it should not. Because I had worked at the little-known company with the meaningless acronym name, I was able to move some content from public-facing to inward-facing systems. When people present nuclear-related information, knowledge and good judgment are important. Acting like a jazzed up Google-type employee is not going to be something to which I relate.
Second, the open source information used to explain the seemingly meaningless graphic illustrates a problem with too much information in too many public facing places. Also, it underscores the importance of keeping interns, graphic artists, and people assembling reports from making decisions. The review process within the US government needs to be rethought and consequences applied to those who make really bad decisions. The role of intelligence is to obtain information, filter it, deconstruct it, analyze it, and then assemble the interesting items into a pattern. The process is okay, but nuclear information should not be open source in my opinion. Remember that I am a dinobaby. I have strong opinions about nuclear, and those opinions support my anti-open source stance for this technical field.
Third, the present technical and political environment frightens me. There is a reason that second- and third-tier nation states want nuclear technology. These entities may yip yap about green energy, but the intent, in my view, is to create kinetic devices. Therefore, this is the wrong time and the Internet is the wrong place to present information about “nuclear.” There are mechanisms in place to research, discuss, develop models, create snappy engineering drawings, and talk at the water cooler about certain topics. Period.
Net net: I know that I can do nothing about this penchant many have to yip yap about certain topics. If you read my blog posts, my articles which are still in print or online, or my monographs — you know that I never discuss nuclear anything. It is a shame that more people have not learned that certain topics are inappropriate for public disclosure. This dinobaby is really not happy. The “news” is all over a Russian guy. Therefore, “nuclear” is not a popular topic for the TikTok crowd. Believe me: Anything that offers nuclear related information is of keen interest to certain nation states. But some clever individuals are not happy unless they have something really intelligent to say and probably know they should not. Why not send a personal, informative email to someone at LANL, ORNL, or Argonne?
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
