Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Tipping Point

Why gun violence can’t be our new normal

It doesn’t matter whether you love or hate guns; it’s obvious that the US would be a safer place if there weren’t thousands of them sold every day without background checks. (Why background check? Cannot you become violent just after you own a gun?)

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, makes a passionate, personal appeal for something that more than 90 percent of Americans want: background checks for all gun sales. “For every great movement around the world, there’s a moment where you can look back and say, ‘That’s when things really started to change,'” Gross says. “For the movement to end gun violence in America, that moment is here.”

Dan Gross. Gun-control activist

As president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Dan Gross seeks to cut US gun deaths in half by 2025. Full bio

OK, so, confession: I’ve always been weirdly obsessed with advertising. I remember watching Saturday morning cartoons, paying more attention to the commercials than to the shows, trying to figure out how they were trying to get inside my head. Ultimately, that led me to my dream job. I became a partner at a big New York ad agency.

0:34 But then, all of that suddenly changed on February 23, 1997, when my little brother Matt was shot in the head in a shooting that happened on the observation deck of the Empire State Building.

my family was thrown into the middle of a nightmare, being told that my brother was going to die, actually being given the opportunity to say goodbye to him, then several emergency brain surgeries and now what’s amounted, for Matt, to a lifetime spent courageously recovering from a traumatic brain injury. He is definitely my hero.

But as much as this tragedy was a nightmare for my family, I often think about how much worse it could have been; in fact, how much worse it is for the 90 families every day who aren’t as fortunate, who lose loved ones — brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents.

They don’t all make national headlines. In fact, most of them don’t. They go largely unnoticed, in a nation that’s kind of come to accept a disgraceful national epidemic as some kind of new normal.

Patsy Z and TEDxSKE shared a link.

So I quit my job in advertising to try and do something about this disgraceful national epidemic, because I came to realize that the challenges to preventing gun violence are actually the same ones that made me love advertising, which is to try to figure out how to engage people.

Only instead of doing it to sell products, doing it to save lives. And that comes down to finding common ground, where what I want overlaps with what you want. And you might be surprised to learn, when it comes to gun violence, just how much common ground there is.

Let’s look at people who love to hunt, a sport enjoyed by millions across the US. It’s a proud tradition. Families.

In some places, the first day of hunting season is actually a school holiday. What do hunters want? Well, they want to hunt. They love their guns. They believe deeply in the Second Amendment right to own those guns. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t common ground.

In fact, there’s a lot of it, starting with the basic idea of keeping guns out of dangerous hands. This isn’t about taking certain guns away from all people. It’s about keeping all guns away from certain people, and it’s the people that, it turns out, we all agree shouldn’t have guns: convicted violent criminals, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill. (By how much this check could reduce this disgraceful addiction?)

We can all appreciate how Brady background checks have been incredibly effective in keeping guns out of those dangerous hands.

In 20 years, Brady background checks at federally licensed firearm dealers have blocked 2.4 million gun sales to those people that we all agree shouldn’t have guns.

And whether you love guns or hate guns, you probably also appreciate that there shouldn’t be thousands of gun sales every day at guns shows or online without those Brady background checks, just like there shouldn’t be two lines to get on an airplane — one with security and one with no security.

And the numbers show the overwhelming agreement among the American public: 90 percent of Americans support expanding Brady background checks to all gun sales — including 90 percent of Republicans, more than 80 percent of gun owners, more than 70 percent of NRA members.

This is not a controversial idea. In fact, only six percent of the American public disagrees. That’s about the percentage of the American public that believes the moon landing was a fake.

 it’s also about the percentage that believes the government is putting mind-controlling technology in our TV broadcast signals. That’s the extent to which we agree about background checks. (But the facts are…?)

But what about the 300 million guns already out there in homes across America?

first, it’s important to realize that those guns are mostly in the hands and homes of decent, law-abiding people like you and me, who want what we all want — including keeping our families safe.

In fact, that’s why more and more people are choosing to own guns. Ten years ago, 42 percent of the American public believed — incorrectly — that a gun makes your home safer. Today, that number is 63 percent. (And that exactly the main problem: it is the society living in fear in an unstable system of equity and fairness)

Why? I kind of hate to say it, because it gets to the dark underbelly of advertising, which is if you tell a big enough lie enough times, eventually that lie becomes the truth. And that’s exactly what’s happened here.

The corporate gun lobby has spent billions of dollars blocking the CDC from doing research into the public health epidemic of gun violence; blocking pediatricians from talking to parents about the dangers of guns in the home; blocking smart-gun technology and other technology that would prevent kids from firing parents’ guns and would save lives. They’re desperate to hide the truth, because they view the truth as a threat to their bottom line.

And every day, people are dying as a result. And a lot of those people are children.

Every day in the US, 9 kids are just shot unintentionally. 900 children and teens take their own lives every year.

And here’s the thing: they’re almost all with a parent’s gun.

Even two-thirds of school shootings happen with a gun taken from the home, including the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook.

I meet so many of these parents; it’s the most heartbreaking part of my job. These are not bad people. They’re just living with the unimaginable consequences of a very bad decision, made based on very bad information that was put into their minds by very bad people, who know good and well the misery that they’re causing, but just don’t care. And the result is a nightmare — not only for families like mine, but for, really, at the end of the day, all of us.

 I’m not here to talk about the nightmare of gun violence. I’m here to talk about our dream, and it’s a dream we all share, which is the dream of a better, safer, future.

For my organization, for the Brady Campaign, that dream is reflected in the bold goal to cut the number of gun deaths in the US in half by 2025.

And I hope to leave all of you here tonight with a strong sense of exactly why that dream is so absolutely within reach. Because folks, for every great movement around the world, there’s a moment where you can look back and say, “That’s when things really started to change.” And I’m here to say that for the movement to end gun violence in America, that moment is here.

We are so clearly at a tipping point, because the American public has come together by the millions like never before, based on that common ground, to say, “Enough.”

Enough of the mass shootings in malls and movie theaters and churches and schools. Enough of the daily terror of gun violence in homes and streets that’s claimed the lives of women and young black men in staggering proportions. Enough of easy access to guns by the people that we all agree shouldn’t have them. And enough of a small group of craven politicians putting the interests of the corporate gun lobby ahead of the people they have been elected to represent. Enough.

And the really exciting thing is, it’s not just the usual suspects like me that are saying it anymore. It’s so much bigger than that. And if you want proof, let’s start where most conversations in the US seem to start — with Kim Kardashian.

8:53 (Laughter)

here’s the thing: it’s not really a joke. I mean, think about when issues change. It’s when they go from being political and advocacy issues to being part of pop culture, voices coming from everywhere, celebrities using their platforms, musicians, athletes.

The NBA has come forward. Conservative pundits that you never would have imagined have come forward. There’s real cultural change — I even hear there’s a TED Talk about it this year. That’s the extent to which this cultural change is happening. And yes, Kim Kardashian has made an unsolicited passionate appeal to her 35 million Twitter followers for expanded background checks.

Let’s look at the political elections that are heating up. This used to be the classic third-rail issue for Democrats. Couldn’t run from it fast enough. Now candidates are running on it. Some are being forced to reverse very bad positions they defended very comfortably, until very recently.

For somebody like me, watching people wave around their negative NRA ratings — it’s almost surreal to watch. We’re still outfunded, yes, by the corporate gun lobby, and ultimately that needs to change. But you know what? We’re smarter and we’re scrappier, and we have the truth on our side. And we’re on offense.

they say that the Internet democratizes information.

Social media and some of the organizing tools that plug into it have democratized activism. It’s allowed us to show what 90 percent support really looks like.

Sometimes I think of it — you know, we’re converging and attacking instantly by the millions, kind of like white blood cells. It’s enabled us to start to really close — and this is the bottom line — close that disgraceful disconnect between what the American public wants and what our elected leaders are doing about it.

Until recently, the narrative in Congress was that calls from the other side, from that six percent, outnumbered calls from our side 10 to one. We’re flipping that narrative on its head.

After that recent terrible tragedy in San Bernardino, we jammed Congressional switchboards. We put 15,000 calls into Congress in 24 hours. And you know what? We got a vote on a bill that nobody thought was going to see the light of day anytime soon.

We’re seeing real movement to repeal some of the most evil, ugly gun lobby legislation passed over the last dark decade. The stranglehold of the gun lobby is clearly being broken.

We’ve seen President Obama’s historic executive actions. They don’t go all the way, but they are going to save lives, because they expand Brady background checks to thousands of gun sales that didn’t have them previously. And we’re marching across the country — we’re not just waiting for Congress to act; that would almost be the definition of insanity. We’re marching across the country, state by state, marriage-equality style.

And you know what? We’re winning. Congress is almost always the last to wake up and realize that it’s on the wrong side of history. And when they do, it’s always because the American public shakes them. And that’s exactly what we’re doing right now, as we’re in this tipping point.

recently I was flying cross-country to give a speech to a large group like this, although far less intimidating, and the woman sitting next to me happened to be binge-watching one of my all-time favorite TV shows, “Mad Men,” a period TV show about advertising in the 1960s.

And as I was trying to think about how to end my remarks, I’d glance up at her screen every now and then, and it seemed that every time I did, I’d see somebody smoking in an office or around children or while pregnant or drinking and driving or driving without seat belts or sexually harassing a coworker.

ultimately it dawned on me: what tremendous inspiration to those of us who have this dream to end gun violence. I mean, think about how much the world has changed in a relatively short period of time, how all those behaviors that were once considered commonplace or normal — some even glamorous or sexy — have become stigmatized in just a generation or two, once they became conversations about our common ground.

That is the magnitude of the change we have the potential to create around gun violence.

And that’s my dream, that maybe someday, some period TV show will depict the terrible nightmare of gun violence, and a future generation of children might only be able to imagine how terrible it must have been.

Stating the obvious, but oh so cleverly

Malcolm Gladwell is a cerebral and jaunty writer, with an unusual gift for making the complex seem simple and for seeking common-sense explanations for many of the apparent mysteries, coincidences and problems of the everyday.

He is also an intellectual opportunist, always on the look-out for a smart phrase or new fad with which to define and explain different social phenomena.

In his first book, The Tipping Point, he studied events such as crime waves and fashion trends and settled on an arresting metaphor to explain why they happen. ‘Ideas and products and messages and behaviours spread just like viruses,‘ he wrote, suggesting that we contaminate and infect one another with preferences and recommendations, until we reach a ‘tipping point’, after which a social epidemic becomes contagious and crosses a threshold to reach saturation point.

The tipping point: who does not now use this phrase to describe a moment of definitive transition? (‘Tipping point’ seems to have become this generation’s ‘paradigm shift’, a phrase popularised by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The success of the book, which began as an article in the New Yorker, the magazine for which he works as a staff writer, propelled Gladwell into the realm of super-consultancy. He has since become a lauded pontificant and ideas progenitor on the international lecture circuit.

He is the go-to man for a corporate business elite seeking to understand the way we live, think and consume today.

It helps that with his wild, unruly curls and wide-eyed gaze, Gladwell has the look of an übergeek.

He seems to have absorbed one important lesson of the consumerist culture he deconstructs – that the image you project is paramount; in effect, he has made himself, superficially at least, into a brand.

If you didn’t know he was a writer and journalist, you wouldn’t be surprised to hear that he was a leading operator at Microsoft or Google. As it is, he’s a kind of literary Bill Gates, a guy so far ahead of the rest of the pack that you never quite know what he will do next.

What is an outlier?

The word may not be a neologism but I have never heard anyone use it in conversation. According to one dictionary definition, an outlier is ‘something that is situated away from or classed differently from a main or related body’.

But Gladwell uses the word with more metaphorical flexibility. For him, an outlier is a truly exceptional individual who, in his or her field of expertise, is so superior that he defines his own category of success. Bill Gates is an outlier and so are Steve Jobs of Apple, Robert Oppenheimer and many others Gladwell speaks to or writes about as he seeks to offer a more complete understanding of success.

The trouble with the book is that Gladwell is ultimately engaged in a long argument with nobody but himself. Throughout, he defines his position against a floating, ubiquitous, omnipotent ‘we’; a Greek chorus of predictable opposition and received opinion. ‘There is something profoundly wrong with the way we look at success,’ he writes.

‘We cling to the idea that success is a simple function of individual merit and that the world in which we grow up and the rules we choose to write as a society don’t matter at all.’ And so he goes on.

These assumptions can be irritating, since who is this naive, unquestioning, plural intelligence identified as ‘we’?

Do we in wider society really believe that outstanding success, in whichever field, is achieved without extraordinary dedication, talent and fortuitous circumstance, as Gladwell would have it?

Do we really take no account of the sociopolitical context into which someone was born and through which they emerged when we attempt to quantify outlandish achievement?

Do we really believe that genius is simply born rather than formed? Gladwell wants his readers to take away from this book ‘the idea that the values of the world we inhabit and the people we surround ourselves with have a profound effect on who we are’.

But I don’t know anyone who would dispute this.

The world for Gladwell is a text that he reads as closely as he can in seeking to decode and interpret it. He is adept at identifying underlying trends from which he extrapolates to form hypotheses, presenting them as if they were general laws of social behaviour.

But his work has little philosophical rigour. He’s not an epistemologist; his interest is in what we think, rather than in the how and why of knowledge itself.

There is also a certain one-dimensional Americanness at work: many of his examples and case studies are American and he spends rather too much time in New York, at one point even riffing at length about the founder of the literary agency that represents him.

The book would have been more interesting if he’d roamed wider and travelled more, if it had been more internationalist in ambition and outlook.

However, it’s still fun to follow Gladwell on his meandering intellectual journeys, even if the conclusions he arrives at here are so obviously self-evident as to be banal. Even when he is not at his best he is worth taking seriously.

He has a lucid, aphoristic style. His case studies are well chosen, such as when he writes about the birth dates of elite ice hockey players and discovers a pattern: most are born in the first three months of the year.

His range is wide, and he writes as well in Outliers about sport as he does about corporate law firms in New York or aviation. Little is beneath his notice.

One last thing, as Gladwell might say. There’s perhaps another way of reading Outliers and that’s as a quest for self-understanding, since the author himself is obviously an outlier. In seeking to find out more about how other people like him came to be who they are and to occupy the exalted positions they do, he’s also indirectly seeking to learn more about himself, about how he came to be who he is: the smartest guy at the New Yorker, with the big ideas and the lucrative book deals.

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. His book The Last Game: Love, Death and Football will be published in April 2009.

Note: I have reviewed extensively most of Gladwell books, (to my knowledge) and I enjoyed the read and the ideas.

Green House effects?

Calamity concatenated within 2 centuries when it previously took million of years

Apparently, earth is 3 billion years old. During its longevity, earth experienced frequent drastic upheavals that almost wiped out living organism.

Long time ago, or 650 million years ago, there was this Snowball earth Age where All earth was covered by 300 meters of ice and it lasted for 25 million years.

Other upheavals were the reverse: Earth died from hot and scotching climate and living creatures in oceans died from lack of oxygen.

In the Snowball Age, the ocean water could not absorb enough sun energy to warm up and stop the advance of the ice sheets.

Only a single cell bacteria managed to survive and transformed its outer skin to resist the cold. Scientist recovered specimen of these old bacteria and when they added water, the bacteria came to life.

During the Cold War period, Russian scientists calculated the effects of repeated nuclear detonations on cold climate since the gases of clouds will obstruct the sun rays from reaching earth.

The conclusion was that the tipping point would be if the ice sheet reach New Orleans and the Snowball phenomenon would become irreversible.

After 25 million years under the ice, powerful volcanoes started to erupt.

And after one million years of frequent eruption, volcanoes managed to break the ice sheet and the CO2 gases started to fill the atmosphere.

Oxygen in the atmosphere was a mere 1% instead of the 21% needed to support living organism and the multicells bacteria.

The hot earth periods were due to heavy concentration of CO2 that trapped the energy within our atmosphere and accelerated the melting of ice.

The acid rains burned vegetation and prevented CO2 to be absorbed and its concentration to reach equilibrium.

Temperature rise made the ocean water too warm and prevented ocean water movement to travel from cold parts to warmer parts, and consequently, the diluted oxygen in water could no longer travel and the ocean stagnated and marine organism died.

Water turned pink and smelt of rotten egg due to the heavy concentration hydrogen sulfide, a poisonous gas.

As ocean water gets warmer, the unstable and frozen methane hydrate at the bottom of ocean disintegrate and produce methane gas, 20 times worse than CO2 in its green house effects.

The bubbling of methane in the arctic seas is already very active and accelerating the melting of the arctic pole.

One of these hot periods happened 250 million years ago.

It took mankind only 2 centuries to do what takes nature one million years to raise earth temperature.

Note: And what caused the depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere that caused the Snowball period?

If violent volcano eruptions for one million years that spewed CO2 and brought the breaking point balance that made the ice sheets to recede, then why volcanoes were that stagnant for million of years and allowed the CO2 to deplete?

Is this stagnation related to weaker earth magnetic field that could not move magma at a proper speed to heat it?

If so, was the cosmos surrounding earth  in relative stagnation from activities and failed to provide the necessary external energy to resurrect the magnetic field?

Was the sun location too far away from the center of the Milky Way galaxy and could not be activated enough to provide enough energy to earth?

The ya-ya sisterhood group context for spreading epidemics, (December 6, 2007)

This article is developing on the context of group influence for reaching a “tipping point” in epidemics.  Have you heard of a concept called “transactive memory“?

Have you noticed that in your family specific members are selected as the experts in a few jobs or skills and then you rely completely on them whenever you need to perform a task that you don’t care about the particular knowledge involved in achieving it?

For example, a member is the software expert, another the hardware expert, your mother as the child caring expert, another the graphics expert for designing cards for invitations, ceremonies or birthdays?  This is a strategic method that mammals in general transfer the load on their memory and distribute it to the member of the group.

Have you ever experienced the loss of a member of the group for some reason and you say “I miss him so” and felt totally disoriented because you realized that some parts of your cognitive capabilities have been diminished or your efficiency in getting a job done has been drastically reduced, simply because the missing person is not contributing his share in the collective memory?

Among the different kinds of intelligence and memories in mankind, the social memory for relationships among the members of the group is the most developed.  Actually, we are not adapted to notice physical situational clues in surroundings during danger but we can feel and comprehend that something is not right in our immediate social environment; the evolution of our social intelligence and memory for relations among the closed group is much better developed than the other sorts of memories and intelligence.

For example, the short-term memory in chimpanzees is far better than in humans and our capacity channels for sensory information is quite limited; the average person is at most able to discriminate among seven classes of tonality, tastes, colors, touch and so on.

Mankind is at a loss to attending to more than two tasks simultaneously, especially if the tasks require inputs from the same sensory channel.

During our evolution, the modern man realized that governing groups of over 150 members is overwhelming and beyond his cognitive capabilities to keeping track of the various relations among the members. Thus, it requires special social and political structure.

For a group to be functional and effective and manage in self-autonomy, it has to be composed of less than 150 members.

The hunter gatherers split their tribes whenever it grew over 150 members.  The armies realized that the functional unit or company should be in the range of 150 soldiers.

Successful companies split their business into self-autonomous units of less than 150 employees where production, manufacturing, marketing and research and development departments work in the same building and knows one another and solve problem in face to face meetings.

These business units do not need any kind of formal hierarchy and the employees behave as associates and perform under peer pressure. Everyone is familiar with the expertise and skills of everyone else and they know where to seek the required information and clues and advice.

The mammals’ and human have large neocortex with respect to the total brain for social memory; the larger the ratio, the bigger the average size of the group they live with. The capacity of the neocortex must be huge in order to process the social and intellectual burden of relations among every pair in a group of 150 members.

Suppose that you have a tight group of 5 friends and you have to keep track of ten separate relationships by investing time and effort and attention, almost everyday, to hold this circle of friends well-managed.  Now, if this circle is of 20 members then you have to understand 190 “two-way relations”.  I may argue that we must include three-way relations because the dynamics of “3-way relationship” is drastically different from two-way.  Add the three-way to the two-way relations and the number is tremendous.

Sympathy groups are composed of between 10 to 15 individuals.

Personally, a circle of five members is already too complicated for me; obviously, my social neocortex must be atrophied and I have to submit to my lot.

Rebecca Wells sensed that her book “Devine secrets of the ya-ya sisterhood” is on the brink of an epidemic in sales when her readings in Northern California was attended by closed-knit groups, instead of individuals.

Northern California and the San Francisco Bay are famous for the multitude of small reading groups and when these groups started to flock at Well’s reading and signature of her book then she realized that the word of mouth of these groups will communicate the message extensively and efficiently because they are the best connectors and salespeople.

Note: Topic extracted from the “Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell

The Broken Window theory for crime epidemics

December 3, 2007

In the chapter “The power of context” of his book “The tipping point”,  Malcom Gladwell developed on the theory of the Broken Window that encourages crimes and lead to an epidemic of all kinds of quality-of-life deterioration. The criminologists James Wilson and George Kelling argued that crime is the inevitable results of disorder; if you pass through a street and notice broken windows unrepaired then your attitude is that nobody cares and thus, nobody is in charge to stop any further behavior for disorderly conducts.  If a neighborhood cannot keep a panhandler from annoying passerby, the thief might reason that it is unlikely that the residents would call the police to identify a potential mugger or robber.

David Gunn was hired by the New York City Transit Authority to rebuild and rehabilitate the subway system.  Instead of buying new trains Gunn focused on removing the graffiti off the trains; only completely clean trains were returned on the lines.  At night, the graffiti kids would enter the parking lot where the dirty trains were located and spend three days to paint a train.  Only when their work of art is done, would the Transit employees walk in with their roller and paint it over.

The kids were in tears that after three nights of work their work of art would not be shown and they gave up.  Gunn’s figured that if the graffiti war is not won all the management reforms and physical changes would never take off.

William Bratton was hired by the Authority to head the transit police.  Instead of going after the serious crimes in the subway Bratton concentrated his forces on the fare-beating practices; 170,000 people a day were entering the system without paying a token.  Heavy police forces were placed on entrances and nabbed fare-beaters, handcuffed, left standing on the platform until a full catch is rounded up.

Bratton retrofitted a city bus with fax machines, fingerprinting facilities and phones and transformed it into a rolling station house; bureaucratic work that took a whole day to process one small case was done within an hour.  The fight against fare-beaters collected serious criminals; one out of seven fare-beaters had an outstanding warrant for a previous crime and one out of twenty was carrying a weapon.

The thugs wised up and began to leave their weapons home and pay fares. Then crimes on quality-of –life like “squeegee men” on intersections, panhandlers, public urination, public drunkenness, and empty bottle throwers were rounded up.  The epidemic of crimes was reduced by two third within a couple of years in New York City.  Minor, seemingly insignificant quality-of-life crimes were tipping points for violent crime.

The Broken Window theory is based on the premise that an epidemic can be reversed and can be tipped by tinkering with the smallest details of the immediate environment.  The Power of Context is suggesting that, without denying the important factors as genetic disposition or family upbringing or social conditions or economic status or unemployment or laws that discriminate among people status, specific situations are the main causes for criminal actions.

A person is acutely sensitive to his environment, alert to all kinds of cues in the external context he is surrounded with and is prompted to commit crime based on his perception of the world around him. The context of the surrounding environment is pernicious and in an unconscious way alters the behavior of people who are generally normal on any set of psychological measures.  Countless experiments have demonstrated that the situational context is the prime variable for exhibiting drastic behavioral actions that are normally under control.

Seemingly normal people, and knowing full well that they are performing in experiments, the group assigned the role of jailers exhibited creative talents for cruelty and sadistic behavior and the prisoners behaved as prisoners and rioted and became hysterics within just a couple of days.

We tend to describe and judge people in the absolute, a person is a certain way or is not a certain way, honest, just, and generous and so forth, but we fail to be specific that any of these characteristics fails in different situations.  By thinking in terms of inherent traits and forgetting the role of situations we are basically deceiving ourselves about the real cause of human behavior.

I cannot but draw a note about our situation in Lebanon.  After all the calamities and lengthy civil wars and relentless unstable political and economic problems and our lacking of strong and coherent central governments, any one of us is a potential criminal. A minor alteration in a situation is tantamount to a criminal behavior; I guess that somehow we are more aware subconsciously than other developed nations of this important factor and we self-sensor our movements and living locations so that we don’t squeeze ourselves into unwarranted environment.

We are standing on a powder keg and any tiny variation in the actual situation is tantamount to a major conflagration.  We have actually avoided several starts of civil wars thanks to the wisdom of the forces that pulled out on time to their respective environments.




March 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,519,004 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: