Hacker News Reader

native_sampleson Bitcoin drops below $20k, Ether cracks $1k – what this means

Sure. We're well into "Hard to make a man understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it" territory here.

The more interesting question is, if you incentives are strong enough to want to deny the nature of a system, do you become a liar or do you genuinely stop understanding it? Was Yellen's bafflement at the non-transitory inflation a mere act, or was it genuine confusion caused by a core corruption of her own understanding of basic economics?

native_sampleson Bitcoin drops below $20k, Ether cracks $1k – what this means

"government spending causes inflation is a pretty mainstream ideological precept - the opposite opinion is fringe."

Hoo boy.

"the current Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, has dismissed claims that the Fed’s money-printing is fueling today’s price spiral, emphasizing instead the disruptions associated with reopening the economy. Like his most recent predecessors, dating to Alan Greenspan, Powell says that financial innovations mean there no longer is a link between the amount of money circulating in the economy and rising prices"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/06/federal-r...

You're right that the idea government money printing doesn't cause inflation is fringe absurdity. Unfortunately the fringe that believes in it are central bankers.

native_sampleson How Inflation Works

It's not much different. The primary reason why cryptocurrency aims for a limited supply is to eventually remove the politics around who gets newly created money. Friedman couldn't have imagined cryptocurrency, so had to settle for the next best thing of market interventions that were at least mostly automated, most of the time. This isn't that great because of course someone still controls and programs the computer.

There's a couple of technical reasons Friedman thought the money supply had to keep increasing:

1. he was a subscriber to the deflationary spiral theory, which doesn't make much sense as a concept but has a lot of subscribers in economics

2. dollars and similar currencies have very limited resolution because most payment methods can't handle fractional cents, so if one cent becomes too valuable you start to destroy products and services for which the best price is less than that. Bitcoin doesn't have that problem to anywhere near the same extent because the resolution of the currency is much higher, and the software can all handle very small values.

native_sampleson How Inflation Works

When banks issue mortgages, they don't decrease a number in their own accounts to balance it. The act of creating the mortgage itself creates new money out of thin air, the act of repaying it destroys the money again. This is fractional reserve banking and is how most money is created. It's also why there's a relationship between interest rates and inflation: raise interest rates and borrowing becomes more expensive, so it happens less, so less money is created.

native_sampleson How Inflation Works

It did cause inflation, but governments don't consider every price when calculating it. For instance the headline CPI rate doesn't include financial assets like equities, cryptocurrencies ... because "consumers" don't buy those, right?

native_sampleson Kickstarter Union voted 97.6% to ratify one of the first tech union contracts

It's worth remembering that the event that, uh, kickstarted their drive for unionization was the site's management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words). The details are a bit fuzzy now but iirc some of the hard-left employees didn't like the ToS being enforced in that case, because whilst they accepted the project was calling for violence they felt that encouraging people to "punch Nazis" should explicitly be allowed. They felt that strongly enough that they unionized to force management to acquiesce.

So this isn't a classical union that's requesting more money for the workers or anything. It's the new sort of union which tries to force companies to take sides in the culture war.

It's thus not a surprise that a significant proportion of workers wouldn't want to be a part of that, and well, the sort of people who were unionizing the firm were doing so explicitly to support physical violence. US unions have a long history of violence already.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...

native_sampleson Leaked Amazon memo warns the company is running out of people to hire

Well, these are measures of the money supply. If the Fed "prints" money, then M1/M2 go up to reflect that. And they went up a lot. M2 went up by 40%, M1 it's harder to say because they adjusted the definition exactly at the time they started printing tons of stimulus money (what a coincidence). But it's definitely grown by a vast amount.

The consequences of money printing are extremely basic and well known since antiquity. You get both inflation and, less well discussed but more important, consequent distortion of production in the currency zone as resources are reallocated to wherever the newly printed money enters the economy. The Edict of Diocletian was an example of this from Roman times [1].

Unfortunately, in the last few years we've seen something very disturbing. Central bankers, who are theoretically chosen for their command of economics, have become delusional about this and started arguing that actually money printing doesn't create inflation at all [2]:

"But the current Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, has dismissed claims that the Fed’s money-printing is fueling today’s price spiral, emphasizing instead the disruptions associated with reopening the economy. Like his most recent predecessors, dating to Alan Greenspan, Powell says that financial innovations mean there no longer is a link between the amount of money circulating in the economy and rising prices."

This is economic illiteracy and sets us on the path to absolute ruin. If it were true then after the economy had "re-opened" (whatever that means) we'd experience deflation as prices re-adjusted back to their pre-pandemic norms, but no such deflation will ever happen, because inflation is "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon".[3]

In my view it's all a part of the same package of social phenomena you might call "government expertise failure". Anywhere you have the perception of expertise (whether justified or not), you create people who are incentivized to abuse that perception. Governments are filled with technocrats who claim to fully understand and control large systems, but their statements and beliefs seem to have been departing from what's actually correct at an ever higher rate. We are now all paying the price for their delusions at the checkout.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_on_Maximum_Prices

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/06/federal-r...

[3] https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/heritage-explai...

native_sampleson Leaked Amazon memo warns the company is running out of people to hire

It's both. The money supply grew enormously to fund the Corona shutdowns. You can see it clearly on a graph of M2.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS

Such a fast increase in such a short amount of time is extremely unusual, perhaps unprecedented. There's nothing even remotely close to that instant increase since the dataset begins at the start of the 1980s.

And then the COVID jump didn't only make a huge increase by itself, but the slope of the graph permanently increased.

It's basic economics that if you do that to the money supply you will get a massive jump in inflation.

native_sampleson SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk

Nobody has argued that Twitter cannot ban people from their platform at will because of what they say. The argument has always been that it's a bad idea for them to do so for a whole variety of reasons:

1. The inevitable inconsistency in application creates hypocrisy, which makes people upset.

2. It attracts political attention if/when the enforcement is politically biased.

3. It costs large sums of money that could be spent on other things.

4. It isn't actually necessary.

5. Public forums in which ideas can duke it out are essential for a healthy democratic society. Someone needs to run them, so if you decide to create an explicitly public forum open to everyone then you have a moral duty to protect and implement free speech policies

etc etc. Not an exhaustive list by any means, just a subset of the arguments that can be mounted.

But note that none of these apply to the case of employees criticizing their employer.

native_sampleson SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk

The argument you're advancing here, though it may be popular with some kinds of lawyers, is tantamount to arguing that any discussion at all could be considered about working conditions. Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working conditions" you're starting a fast track to eventually having working conditions be stripped of its legal weight, as it'll turn into just another rule being exploited by woke culture warriors in ways it was never meant to be used.

native_sampleson Scotland starts renewed case for independence

But we're not talking an Austrian immigrant to Germany. We're talking about the UK.

The UK wasn't in the Euro and it wasn't in Schengen. These are two of the most visible aspects of EU membership for ordinary people.

The third biggest effect is automatic migration rights. A relatively tiny number of British people have ever moved to the EU. Losing "freedom of movement" is therefore an issue that a small number of people feel very strongly about, but those people were almost always not actually using it. They liked the idea of it, actually doing it not so much. Whether it's language or cultural barriers, Brits just mostly don't do it. Of my group of friends at school, only one ended up moving to the EU (France). All others stayed in the UK or moved to non-EU countries. Moreover it's not like Brits can no longer move to the EU: they can, they just need to get a work visa. This isn't a big deal.

Of those who do though, they were disproportionately represented in media, politics, academia etc. Hence why the Remain campaign ended up focusing on it, even though for the average Brit this was actually pure downside. They didn't want to move to France or Germany, but they had to compete against the millions of immigrants from eastern Europe who were willing to work for pittance.

"Sure, for many this might just be about symbolism and things like access to the world's biggest single market, its regulations etc."

The US is a much more unified single market. At any rate, every country has access to the EU markets, do you think the EU is cut off from the world? It boils down to more paperwork for those outside it, very often deliberately created but useless paperwork designed to annoy companies into not bothering, but it's still possible to sell for those who really want to.

As for the rest, really? The UK is way ahead of most of the EU on environmental issues. Germany especially is a disaster zone. It's a country that shut down nukes in favour of coal burning and now relies heavily on Russian natural gas as a consequence because it doesn't have sufficient LNG import terminals. You know which country is building new nukes, doesn't burn coal anymore, and has LNG import terminals that let it be no longer dependent on Russia? The UK! The idea that the EU is some sort of environmental and worker rights savior is nonsensical propaganda. The EU institutions don't care about the environment, it's just a wedge issue they can use to build up a support base of people who care more about stated intentions than delivered results.

Finally, re: Scotland. The EU is actually a seriously damaging issue for the SNP. They like to use Brexit as a way to attack the English but it poses major issues for keeping their internal coalition together. Effectively the SNP is an alliance of pro-EU leftists motivated by hate of the "Tory English", and the Braveheart contingent who actually want an independent Scotland but are somewhat conservative on social and fiscal matters. What keeps them together is their shared enemy below the border.

The moment the SNP tries to fight a new referendum, even the least canny opponent is going to point out that the SNP is supposedly a nationalist independence party. The EU hates nationalism, it hates independence, and it's not shy about saying so explicitly. The whole idea of it is to get rid of national governments and blend every country into one! So the core idea of the SNP, it's entire stated reason for existence, is to become independent of one union that controls it and immediately rejoin another. When membership was the status quo position they could mostly ignore this contradiction, but if they fight another referendum they'll have to face it and this will pose big problems.

The second problem is the question of whether the EU would even accept them. Although it is possible that the EU would do it just to spite the UK, in theory it faces major difficulties: Spain and other regions would want to block it to kill off Catalonian independence, and Scotland would immediately be in much greater violation of the budget rules than even Greece was. It certainly wouldn't be meeting the stated requirements to join. If it did join it'd immediately become a major subsidy recipient as one of the poorest states in the EU. It would also have to adopt the Euro, which is an unpopular policy with Scots. Would the other members be OK with that? This issue would be brought up in any second referendum and would force Scots and the SNP to face the fact that Scotland has not been laying the financial or political groundwork for independence, even though it could have been.

Honestly a common belief south of the border is that Sturgeon doesn't actually want independence at all. The lack of competence in organizing it is otherwise a bit hard to explain. The status quo suits her very well, actually becoming independent would make it much harder to blame London for everything whilst simultaneously relying heavily on its support.

native_sampleson Scotland starts renewed case for independence

By exploiting people with views like yours, and by hiding the truth about it's own nature? Look at the EU for an example of how to do this. The hard core remainers are all convinced anyone who doesn't like the EU is brainwashed, racist, stupid or all three but they struggle to keep up in a debate involving the details of what the EU really is and how it works. That's what converted (deconverted?) me: realising at the start that my pro-EU position was based on the sort of wishful thinking your comment implies. It's all about cooperation and world peace, right? Then I listened to the Brexit campaigners and discovered that I had no idea what was really going on in Brussels. It was very far from the friendly face.

native_sampleson Scotland starts renewed case for independence

"It's why I felt the Brexit argument about sovereignty and being forced into things was so spurious. The worst example of an EU rule we were 'forced into' I could find was some food labels (which BTW we still use)."

How much did you look? Or did you find examples of rules the UK was forced into and decide you agree with them.

Here's an example of why the opt-outs were never reliable, like so much else about the EU's supposed democratic mechanisms.

When the European Convention on Human Rights was written - with major input from the UK - it was meant as a general statement of principle, and is thus filled with vague and contradictory language. It was never meant to be law. Many decades later the EU decided it should be transformed into binding law on every EU member. The UK and Poland quite sensibly pointed out that this would go badly and it would be impossible to predict the consequences. So they negotiated an opt-out.

The opt-out was called Protocol 30 and is written in the plainest and clearest English the negotiators could write. It even restates the same thing twice "for the avoidance of doubt". It appeared to contain no loopholes. Nonetheless, just a few years later the ECJ passed a ruling that the opt-out was void. They simply annulled it and because EU membership means accepting ECJ supremacy, that was the end of the "opt-out". Overnight, EU human rights law took effect in the UK too: exactly the thing the government thought it had prevented.

To rub salt in the wound, the case before the court was to do with sending an "asylum seeker" back to Greece under the Dublin Convention. This was a now dead part of EU law that stated the country that decides to allow an asylum seeker into the EU must process them. The ECJ decided that actually it didn't like this rule, because it was "unfair", and so annulled that too along the way, with the justification that Greece was such a hellhole it would infringe his human rights to send the asylum seeker back. Again, nobody reasonable saw that coming and the rules as written just evaporated the moment they came into conflict with EU ideology.

The history of the EU is full of stories like this. When you learn enough about it, you eventually realize that the treaties and rules are meaningless. It doesn't matter how clearly everyone seems to understand an agreement, tomorrow they might have come up with some Kafka-esque justification for why it didn't actually mean what everyone said it meant. These changes always seem to be to the benefit of the EU institutions themselves, not the people.

Such a system of government can never be accountable or trustworthy. Law has to be interpreted as written, not simply discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient. As such the Brexit supporters were right to claim the opt-outs were meaningless. Especially given the pro-EU sentiment of much of the establishment.

native_sampleson Scotland starts renewed case for independence

One world government would be so ineffective, totalitarian and corrupt that it would be in a state of either constant uprising or permanent heavy handed suppression. It would definitely not be "peaceful" except in the sense that an effective police state is "peaceful" because anyone who suffers from it is crushed, before they even get to the point of being able to disrupt the peace.

native_sampleson Scotland starts renewed case for independence

"One planet" is a slogan without meaning because we're already one planet, so the reader is forced to interpret it in the most likely way it was meant - as one world government. The mention of being super left wing, and the context of the EU makes that interpretation far more likely.

"The EU is certainly one model you can achieve unification at large without one huge government as it consists of many smaller governments coming together."

That's not really what the EU is. The EU is a One Huge Government that has taken over some of the powers of the Less Huge Governments that Europe already has. It isn't a talking shop or forum for collaboration. It's a government which creates laws and enforces them. The fact that it doesn't control everything yet doesn't make it not a government, and the EU's core supporters are like ivolimmen - they want one world government and see the EU as a step towards it.

native_sampleson Scotland starts renewed case for independence

They aren't seeking asylum as evidenced by the number of places they could have stopped beforehand.

native_sampleson Scotland starts renewed case for independence

"I am an outsider on the topic, but wouldn't such a stark change of the political landscape as Brexit be a really valid reason to ask the question again?"

You could argue that, but, the nationalists never did. Instead they said the issue would be categorically resolved by the referendum for an entire generation. Perhaps if they were a bit smarter they'd have thought ahead and caveated their promises, but they wanted to create artificial pressure that they thought would help them.

Then they lost and it was immediately revealed that they were lying. It wasn't going to be a once-in-a-lifetime vote unless they won, in which case of course, they'd never let anyone vote on the topic ever again (if you believe they'd host a "let's rejoin the UK" referendum even in 50 years you don't know the SNP).

Brexit meanwhile is not actually a stark change in political landscape. It has barely affected the lives of most people. It's not at all clear why that should make a difference when there are so many other wedge issues the SNP could also use to claim now it's all different.

Really, if they wanted to ask the question again and win the best way would be to campaign for English voters to also be given the vote. Polls show a significant number of English voters would quite like to be rid of Scotland - whilst politicians really want to keep the union together, actual voters aren't so in love with it. Scotland sometimes gets perceived comes across as more trouble than it's worth: a left wing heavily subsidy dependent one-party statelet mired in corruption and with leadership that vigorously encourages anti-English racism.

native_sampleson Why We’re Sticking with Ruby on Rails at Gitlab

I don't quite recall. IIRC it was an hour maybe, so it wasn't like the builds were extremely slow, but it means people didn't want to run the tests locally, so if you're trying to get your work committed and then there's some failure CI picked up that you didn't each iteration can be an hour, and that made people feel unproductive and slow because some of them struggled with context switching back and forth and even the ones who could do it didn't like it. Which I totally agree with, context switching and small delays can be painful to feeling productive.

Obviously full test coverage is a very good thing to have. But, people hate waiting. They ended up having a proliferation of smaller repos and replacing it with manual rec/sync work which was IMO not a good idea, but probably felt more like "work" rather than waiting.

native_sampleson Why We’re Sticking with Ruby on Rails at Gitlab

I think it's just that the very largest codebases are the most likely to end up depending on obscure bugs in Ruby or the surrounding ecosystem itself, or maybe features that basically nothing ever uses except that one file buried deep in that one gem that three real programs use. Ruby apparently has a lot of stuff like that.

native_sampleson Amazon calls cops, fires workers in attempts to stop unionization nationwide

Words like "corrupt" have pretty specific meanings. Amazon doesn't rise to that level, not even close. Even "bad" is a very debatable thing - obviously its customers don't think so.

Unions that are outright threatening or bribing people to break a vote, though. That's an unambiguous use of the word corruption.

native_sampleson Amazon calls cops, fires workers in attempts to stop unionization nationwide

But actual attempts at socialism always require authoritarianism which is why it's never worth distinguishing them. Sweden isn't actually socialist, that's some US idea that would get you laughed at in Europe itself. Sweden is a capitalist democracy like any other. Relatively minor differences in tax rates does not a socialist country make!

native_sampleson Amazon calls cops, fires workers in attempts to stop unionization nationwide

You're assuming giving away money philanthropically is easy! It's not. If you do it wrong you end up giving all your money to grifters and outright fraud. Look at the disaster the lockdown "loans" turned into in most countries. Billions and billions trousered by fraudsters. I'm not a fan of the GF actually but the primary constraint on how quickly Gates can give away money isn't his personality but rather the availability of non-fraudulent people who can actually do something useful and good with the funds. If the rate at which worthwhile beneficiaries can be identified is less than the ROI of the parked money, you get a foundation with growing funds instead of shrinking funds as you'd expect.

And frankly the reason I'm not a Gates Foundation fan is exactly that it funds all sorts of low quality nonsense research, and has distorted the disease fighting community in all kinds of ways. Not saying I'd be able to do it better mind you. Just that any time you have vast sums of money and give it away you always end up distorting things and maybe creating new problems via broken incentives.

native_sampleson Why We’re Sticking with Ruby on Rails at Gitlab

These days TruffleRuby can run Ruby at incredible speeds. It unfortunately can't run really huge apps at the scale of GitLab though.

native_sampleson Why We’re Sticking with Ruby on Rails at Gitlab

He mentions gitaly in the blog post.

native_sampleson Why We’re Sticking with Ruby on Rails at Gitlab

A lot of teams use tools that can do this sort of thing OK out of the box. I've set up CI to only run affected tests and use incremental builds in the past. My current project has incremental CI.

The core problem is actually dev teams. Every time I've tried to implement incremental CI when I wasn't in a position to force it through, people fought against it, complained, moaned etc until higher level management gave in. The problems were:

1. People liked the feeling of every test passing every change. It made them feel safe and like they could point the finger at CI if something went wrong, because if every test passed it's definitely not their fault, right? But this leads to slow builds and then they complain about that instead. However this is preferable because slow builds are the project manager/TL's problem to solve, not theirs, so there's a built-in bias towards over-testing.

2. If there's any issue with the build system that causes one test run to affect another in some way (shared state of any kind), then incrementality can cause hard to understand flakes. Sometimes tests will just fail and it'll go away if you force a truly clean rebuild. Devs hate this because they've been taught that flaky tests are the worst possible evil.

3. Build systems are generally hard-wired for correctness, so if you make a change in a module that everything transitively depends on, they'll insist on retesting everything. This is reasonable from a theoretical perspective, but again, leads to very slow builds and people finding ways around them.

4. Work-shifting. Splitting stuff out into separate build systems (separate repos is not really the issue here), may appear to solve these issues, but of course in reality just hides them. Now if you change a core module and break things, you just won't know about it until much later when that other team updates to the new version of the module. But at that point you're working on another ticket and it's now their problem to deal with, not yours, so you successfully externalized the work of updating the use sites to someone else.

Competent firms like Google have found solutions to these problems by throwing hardware at it, and by ensuring nobody was able to create their own repositories or branches. If your company uses GitHub though, you're doomed. No way to enforce a monorepo/unified CI discipline in such a setup.

native_sampleson Why We’re Sticking with Ruby on Rails at Gitlab

It's probably the predictability and bounded costs that help.

I've been on both sides of this. I've been on projects with tech debt, but I've also had lots of experiences where new developers join a project and immediately, before even seeing the code at all, announce that they enjoy "making code clean" and "cleaning up tech debt" and where is the tech debt they can refactor away? Or they'll join, spend literally 20 minutes reading the first file they come across and then start pronouncing the decisions made by their new collegues 18 months ago as obviously "legacy" or "hacky".

That's usually a sign of trouble. The whole concept of tech debt or "cleanness" is very under-defined. One man's tech debt is another man's pragmatic solution, or even clean design.

The last company I worked at is basically being killed by this problem. The technical leadership is weak and agrees to what the engineers say too easily. Theoretically there's a product team but they aren't technical enough to argue with the devs. The moment the company started getting product/market fit and making good sales the devs announced the product - all of three years old - was riven with tech debt and would need a massive rewrite (it didn't, I worked on it and it was fine). Three years later their grand rewrite still didn't launch. Utterly pathetic. The correct solution would have been to crack down on that sort of thing and tell devs who wanted to rewrite the product that they were welcome to do that, somewhere else. Or, they could get back to adding features that would actually make users happier.

I think a lot of companies have had that experience - the sort of devs who are obsessed with "clean code" and "tech debt" often exhibit extremely poor judgement and can end up making things worse. Especially if the product has a naturally limited lifespan anyway due to e.g. pace of change in the industry, it can be fatal to spend too much time on meta-coding.

native_sampleson Risk of myocarditis after the Covid-19 mRNA vaccination in the USA cohort study

"he's admitted mistakes, and has not lost the trust of most Americans"

Has he? Which mistakes? I've never seen him admit any of the actual big mistakes like:

- Lockdowns didn't work (now the position of the German government's official enquiry).

- Masks don't work either.

- Deliberately lying about scientific topics to try and manipulate behaviour wasn't a good idea (he's admitted doing this to the New York Times, twice!)

- The vaccines were massively oversold.

Even Bill Gates has admitted the latter, but I don't recall Fauci ever doing so.

As for not having lost the trust of most Americans, maybe so, but that's just a testament to the shocking level of propaganda he benefits from. He's certainly lost the trust of anyone paying attention. The man is a self-confessed serial liar: he lied about masks, and he lied about herd immunity thresholds, both times making scientific claims about supposedly medical facts and then later changing his position, saying he was just trying to manipulate people's behavior. This is all on the record. Anyone who continues to believe this man about anything is certainly an idiot - fool me twice, right?

native_sampleson We’re winding down Google Talk

Well, they have "business WhatsApp" and now the infrastructure is built out and the apps are mature, I really wonder how much investment it actually takes. WhatsApp was a famously lean operation. Maybe 50 people at the time it was acquired, and the apps have hardly changed in years. I bet it can or does run with a skeleton crew. The competition is hardly intense.

native_sampleson Risk of myocarditis after the Covid-19 mRNA vaccination in the USA cohort study

What social costs? I'm a nobody on the internet. Although outside of HN I've posted things about COVID and the failures of public health, they had little impact because I'm not a part of that community. As a consequence:

1. I have no career in public health or academia to defend.

2. If I was wrong (I'm not) then it might hurt my standing a bit, but lots of people on the internet have opinions on random topics that other people think are wrong and they still manage to get jobs, create products, get customers etc.

3. Likewise, being right also doesn't help my career or life very much.

Contrast this to people like Ferguson or Fauci:

1. Their entire professional existence hinges on the perception that they are experts in disease.

2. If they were wrong (they are) then it'd not only hurt their standing a bit, but cause hundreds of millions or billions of people to hate them viscerally due to the staggering costs of what they insisted on. It would also destroy their self-esteem and result in them knowing that they'd done evil things, making them some of the most notorious people in history.

3. In contrast, if they were right, they .... get to keep their current jobs, salary and social status, more or less.

Frankly if I did work in public health it'd be very hard to imagine ever admitting to mistakes either. Public health operates through government force and COVID policies in particular involved forcing people to do things harmful to themselves at great cost to themselves, against their will. You have to believe you made the right calls if you're in that position, it's the corrupting influence of power. If you didn't you'd immediately quit in shame and never show your face in polite society again, so the only ones that survive in that world are the merciless ones who can never admit they are wrong. Which is exactly what we see!

native_sampleson Health minister: Unexplained high death counts in New Brunswick concerning

Thank you!