|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Oh lovely we've got an MRA here. Tell us about spermjacking. I'm not sure I understand you by nature in a single earner culture equitable alimony is a requirement. In my (anecdotal) experience divorce settlement have been pretty fair, even without children involved.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
flashman posted:I'm not sure I understand you by nature in a single earner culture equitable alimony is a requirement. In my (anecdotal) experience divorce settlement have been pretty fair, even without children involved. Well you didn't say fair in your last post, now did you. And you're still willfully ignoring the terrible, abusive power imbalances a culture that excludes one entire gender from participation in the workforce fosters. Not that you would mind, because you are an MRA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:We have an excellent Feminism Thread that's needed a nice discussion to chew on, it would be awesome if you posted in there Will do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I want to change my tone for a bit. I am a bit of a one note gimmiclk poster and I know of course I was going to be the guy white knighting technology. But I think this discussion also bugs me at a political level. For the left, the problem isn't really that jobs are being stolen, the problem is that society is focused around jobs at all. Everyone needs a job to live, but there's absolutely no assurance that everyone can have a job; it's just left up to market forces to hopefully assure that enough people will have jobs to prevent social meltdown. Through happenstance, coincidence, and the labor demands of the 20th-century economy, that's more or less worked out most of the time, with the government stepping in at times to give it a bit of a kick when it fails badly enough to cause a crisis. It's never really been reliable, though, and it seems clear that it won't be sustainable for much longer as the march of progress continues to decimate the employment markets. We need to break our dependence on outdated notions like "if you don't work, you don't eat", and it'll be far better to start working on it now before the social and economic disaster lurking in the future catches up to us. Right now, the unemployment rate is still fairly low (though labor force participation and wage growth are also low). But the economy has less and less slack with which to absorb large-scale job losses, and sooner or later it will run out. When it does, the answer many will come up with is "I'm sure someone will find something for all those unskilled workers to do", but that's the wrong answer, and only a temporary fix at best even if it does work. The true answer we need to come to is "well, now that the economy can no longer reliably employ everyone, maybe it's time to fundamentally change the way in which we depend on employment"...and that is what the people blaming job losses on immigration and such are trying to distract you from. They're trying to convince people that the economic woes are merely temporary issues caused by bad trade or immigration policies, rather than an inevitable and critical failure of capitalism. flashman posted:This is true if that level of automation was implemented wholly and instantaneously but it will be more gradual than that. The rapid increase of women in the labor force over the past 50 years has lead to dual income families climbing from 25 percent to 60 percent. This increase in income has by and large been gobbled up by consumer debt, rising home costs, childcare etc. I don't think it's out there that over a 50 year horizon with automation that the reverse won't happen and the extra jobs you've seen creating these 2 income families disappearing to revert back to a single earner system. The extra jobs will disappear...but many of the extra costs won't. Childcare's one thing, but the soaring costs of things like homes and healthcare aren't things that are going to go down just because there's less jobs. Also, in a society dependent on work, being a single-income family permanently limits the economic prospects of the non-earner. For example, if the earner gets hit by a car and the non-earner has to start earning in their place, then they have a harder time finding a job because of the gap in their resume, they get paid less when they do find a job because they have less work experience, and they now have to bear extra costs like childcare in order to work. And that's before you even get into the rampant gender discrimination in our society. flashman posted:I'm not sure I understand you by nature in a single earner culture equitable alimony is a requirement. In my (anecdotal) experience divorce settlement have been pretty fair, even without children involved. So, what, it doesn't matter if someone is completely dependent on their spouse's earnings because they can just get divorced if they don't like it? That doesn't sound socially toxic at all!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:...you never read tfr, do you? But the result of having both partners in the workforce has been negative financially in a lot of cases. In a market that has adjusted to two earners being the norm mortgage amounts for instance balloon, eating up the advantage of the second income (when compared to single earner families in the past). The dual income trap was an interesting read on this topic. If with automation we could return to a single earner family as the norm while achieving the same standard of living that to me seems like something to strive for. Neither my wife nor I can afford to stop working as we make pretty similar salaries and it would be nice if the single income family was the norm so we wouldn't be competing with dual income families for the same real estate. We've come to a point as a society where both members of the family are working for no appreciable financial benefits over the single earning household.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:For the left, the problem isn't really that jobs are being stolen, the problem is that society is focused around jobs at all. Everyone needs a job to live, but there's absolutely no assurance that everyone can have a job; it's just left up to market forces to hopefully assure that enough people will have jobs to prevent social meltdown. Through happenstance, coincidence, and the labor demands of the 20th-century economy, that's more or less worked out most of the time, with the government stepping in at times to give it a bit of a kick when it fails badly enough to cause a crisis. It's never really been reliable, though, and it seems clear that it won't be sustainable for much longer as the march of progress continues to decimate the employment markets. We need to break our dependence on outdated notions like "if you don't work, you don't eat", and it'll be far better to start working on it now before the social and economic disaster lurking in the future catches up to us. Housing costs aren't based in any inherent value of the home though... Rather in what will be paid for it. Do you not believe that much of the "increases" in housing values are simply caused by the doubling of income to the household?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
flashman posted:But the result of having both partners in the workforce has been negative financially in a lot of cases. In a market that has adjusted to two earners being the norm mortgage amounts for instance balloon, eating up the advantage of the second income (when compared to single earner families in the past). Why would banks have any motivation to drop mortgage rates just because you pushed women back out of the workforce? And how many more times are you going to ignore what people here keep saying about workforce participation being about more than just total household income? Someone who is not welcome in the workforce is hosed. People shouldn't have to get married just to put food on the table. flashman posted:Housing costs aren't based in any inherent value of the home though... Rather in what will be paid for it. Do you not believe that much of the "increases" in housing values are simply caused by the doubling of income to the household? Housing costs are way more complicated than that. Scarcity and desirability are huge factors too. And again, housing isn't going to get magically cheaper just because households start making less money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Houses will most definitely get cheaper as people make less money. Lending will decrease with a reduction in household income and available credit is what drives the dollar value of a home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
flashman posted:Housing costs aren't based in any inherent value of the home though... Rather in what will be paid for it. Do you not believe that much of the "increases" in housing values are simply caused by the doubling of income to the household? They're also caused by crappy zoning, a preference for builders to construct more profitable luxury housing rather than lower-cost homes with a slimmer margin, high land costs and overhead in general, and so on. That aside, while costs would likely fall at least a bit if the majority of double-income families became single-income families, it will still be a net loss for the single-income families unless almost all double-income families became single-income...and the costs wouldn't drop until after a large number of double-income families have given up one of their incomes. Just read your own previous post, in which you lament that you can't afford to go down to single-income and wish that every other double-income family would drop down to single-income first to drive costs down to where it would be affordable for you to do so. Guess what - every other dual-income family has that exact same problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
flashman posted:Houses will most definitely get cheaper as people make less money. Lending will decrease with a reduction in household income and available credit is what drives the dollar value of a home. No, they will not. People already can't afford to buy housing. We're already in that scenario. Developers are selling what they can to foreign investors and letting the rest of the housing stock rot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Why would banks have any motivation to drop mortgage rates just because you pushed women back out of the workforce? And how many more times are you going to ignore what people here keep saying about workforce participation being about more than just total household income? Someone who is not welcome in the workforce is hosed. People shouldn't have to get married just to put food on the table. I've been having a hard time keeping up with everything but here is my take: My hope is that police families are not insulated from this pain, so that they are motivated to support the protest (if by nothing else than by minimizing complicity) and that as it becomes impossible for businesses to coordinate on distractions for the public, that they become unable to placate them, and that then mass protests and riots leave the implication that politicians might see their death, which would hopefully scare them into pushing for laws to actually address things. basically I am hoping that the rich are too incompetent to keep their enforcers under control in such a chaotic situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:No, they will not. People already can't afford to buy housing. We're already in that scenario. Developers are selling what they can to foreign investors and letting the rest of the housing stock rot. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why large scale landlords don't drop the price. Even if you were losing money, it seems like it would be a better investment to let people live in your houses on the cheap to mitigate some of the loss and keep the value of the neighborhood up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're also caused by crappy zoning, a preference for builders to construct more profitable luxury housing rather than lower-cost homes with a slimmer margin, high land costs and overhead in general, and so on. That aside, while costs would likely fall at least a bit if the majority of double-income families became single-income families, it will still be a net loss for the single-income families unless almost all double-income families became single-income...and the costs wouldn't drop until after a large number of double-income families have given up one of their incomes. Just read your own previous post, in which you lament that you can't afford to go down to single-income and wish that every other double-income family would drop down to single-income first to drive costs down to where it would be affordable for you to do so. Guess what - every other dual-income family has that exact same problem. Of course they have this problem.. it's not a magical solution to the problem of jobs disappearing from automation but what I think will be the likely eventual adjustment to return to the standard of living we have today. I'm speaking on a 50 year time scale. The adjustment period will be brutal without expansive government intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Blockade posted:I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why large scale landlords don't drop the price. Even if you were losing money, it seems like it would be a better investment to let people live in your houses on the cheap to mitigate some of the loss and keep the value of the neighborhood up. I am not an expert but my understanding is they're able to count unrented space as a loss on their taxes. There's no requirement to adjust the rent to what the market will bear. You can just put up a "For Rent: $1 Million/mo" and go "welp no takers, maybe next month" And having tenants racks up maintenance expenses faster than empty buildings flashman posted:Of course they have this problem.. it's not a magical solution to the problem of jobs disappearing from automation but what I think will be the likely eventual adjustment to return to the standard of living we have today. I'm speaking on a 50 year time scale. Yeah, and if the chicks don't like it they can just divorce their husbands for an instant cash payout!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Power imbalances lead to abuse. Someone with all the money holds all the power. I could actually see a return to single earner households being okay. You'd just need to completely alter the economy so that people make twice as much money. Oh, and change our work culture so that people aren't expected to work continuously and employment gaps are nbd, that way partners can switch off every few years. Easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
I say that we go full speed ahead on automation, setup a communistic society, but to be treated as a citizen and get rights to food and shelter you have to expose yourself to at least 8 hours of electric shocks a day. That way we can have our automation, increase safety and productivity, and fulfill that cross-platform unshakable belief that others must suffer to deserve to live.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
flashman posted:Of course they have this problem.. it's not a magical solution to the problem of jobs disappearing from automation but what I think will be the likely eventual adjustment to return to the standard of living we have today. I'm speaking on a 50 year time scale. I'm struggling to think of any measures the government can take to make your utopia come true that aren't hilariously regressive. A higher tax bracket for the lesser income in a two income household? Mandatory single sex colleges? An extra tax on people of marriageable age who aren't yet married? Do you have any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
I'm not sure the government is going to have to do anything to reduce the number of jobs available
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
flashman posted:I'm not sure the government is going to have to do anything to reduce the number of jobs available Aaaaaand we circle back to a couple hours ago in the conversation. Maybe you won't ignore this point this time: Automation doesn't create two single-earner households, it creates one zero-earner household and one double-earner household
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Maybe we can have wars, lots of wars, to kill unemployed people. If wars aren not automatized themselves... Or more futuristic, sent people to colonize mars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Aaaaaand we circle back to a couple hours ago in the conversation. Maybe you won't ignore this point this time: Automation doesn't create two single-earner households, it creates one zero-earner household and one double-earner household Do you think that there will be similar levels of employment in 50 years time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
flashman posted:Do you think that there will be similar levels of employment in 50 years time? Do you think you could either engage with the conversation that's actually happening here or retreat back to r/nofap?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Do you think you could either engage with the conversation that's actually happening here or retreat back to r/nofap? What does nofap have to do with anything? Automation isn't going to only replace the menial jobs. There have been many examples in the thread of automation happening already in white collar jobs, even if in a way that improves efficiency rather than whole replacement. How do you see this job shortage panning out on a long term. With the requirement for labor so scarce why is it so unimaginable that households will operate with one source of income? Or do you propose there will be just an ever dwindling number of working families and the unemployed will pair up as more white collar work is automated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
flashman posted:What does nofap have to do with anything? It's a seething nest of MRAs, Mr. "Fe-males could just get divorced and live on alimony." I think you'd like it. Couples already do pair up based on social and economic class, simply because those are the people they're most likely to know. You keep trying to do futurism without any understanding of society or human nature and that's just not possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Do men not get alimony? Why is your assumption if one member of a family works it is to be the man it's not 1950. Traditionally woman dominated fields are some of those which are most difficult to automate. The top 3 fields in which women dominate; teaching, nursing, and social work are fairly impervious to automation even on a longer time scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
The notion that not renting a place somehow makes you more money than renting a place is pretty funny. Makes you wonder why every rental isn't empty, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's a seething nest of MRAs, Mr. "Fe-males could just get divorced and live on alimony." I think you'd like it. Calm the gently caress down and stop using strawmen to insult people. If someone is making a flawed argument, counter it by pointing out the flaw, not calling them an MRA. Your prolific D&D posts in every single thread are so toxic with this crap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
flashman posted:Do men not get alimony? Why is your assumption if one member of a family works it is to be the man it's not 1950. Women-dominated fields are notoriously low-paying. In fact the quickest way to depress wages for a field is to bring more women into it. See, what I keep trying to get you to understand is that sexism exists. It's an inescapable facet of the world, and any social plans that ignore it are doomed to fail. The reason I don't like you is that you seem to think sexism's just fine and everything would be great if it were 1950 again. If automation meant that only fields like teaching, nursing, and social work were left, men would take those jobs and women would have nothing. Because people like you make our society sexist, and we have to fix that before we can pretend men and women are on a level playing field. Taffer posted:Calm the gently caress down and stop using strawmen to insult people. If someone is making a flawed argument, counter it by pointing out the flaw, not calling them an MRA. Your prolific D&D posts in every single thread are so toxic with this crap. If it quacks like a duck and spouts MRA talking points like a duck, it's not a strawman. Interesting that it's never the bigotry that's toxic, only ever the objection to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see swinging the pendulum to men being the default home makers as anything more than a wedge that will divide families again. It was unequal when women were pushed into it, its unequal now. Why can't the argument be 'let's all push to work less so we can balance life better'? If labour necessity is dropping, why can't we drop days so we can share the load both earning income and homemaking. People stuck in limbo unable to pursue self-actualisation tend to lose motivation and skills, but there's no reason it has to be that way if there's a surplus in labour. This probably won't happen unless people decide to drop out of the race for the American dream or whatever that even means anymore. I know here in Australia we (my family) gave up wanted to own our own home and settled for owning our own life. We through dumb luck and happenstance managed to both luck into self employment over the last four years, myself starting due to necessity, and then helping my wife start her side of things with some of our surplus income. Now things are 50/50 on work and homemaking and honestly, it's pretty good. We made jobs for ourselves that are valuable even though we only necessarily spend 30-40 working hours on them, but we also own those jobs so we have the flexibility to ensure we can share the load at home. Admitting this is a very lucky situation in this day and age, it's maybe not too much to ask that somehow society can facilitate more of this genuine equality (in my mind) by letting go of the notion that worthwhile jobs only work if the person doing them is there 40+ hours. I'm sure there are some careers where this don't work, but really it's because we made them that way. edit: As an aside, programming was intended to be a woman's field, because they thought it'd be data entry on the wishes of some researcher (a man of course). Turns out programming was a lot more complicated than that, and women have been driven out of the field. They're there, but the representation is completely unbalanced. If the only jobs left were 'womens' jobs, with society as it stands men would make them theirs. The thing to remember is vacuums fill from both sides. I've been told by old friends in the Maritime industry that oil & gas jobs have downturned dramatically lately, and anyone with a lower level mates ticket is getting nudged out by all the overqualified masters trying to find a job. There's no reason to think that power differential won't manifest itself if there's a downturn in male dominated industries that have transferable skills in an industry dominated by women. Maluco Marinero fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:No, they will not. People already can't afford to buy housing. We're already in that scenario. Developers are selling what they can to foreign investors and letting the rest of the housing stock rot. That's really only true in super large cities. I live in a tourist town and the housing market has recovered for the most part. Alot of my neighbors have sold (to people trying to flee the markets you're talking about)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
You are barking at sexist dog whistles that just aren't there. The issue of inequality in pay in the work place is one that is real today and needs to be addressed. Automation eliminating vast quantities of jobs is something that is going to happen in the long term. Claiming that in the future it is impossible to have women as single earners in the household because of current day trends and claiming that suggesting single income households in the long term future makes me somehow a MRA and the problem with society is quite a leap.. Maluco Marinero posted:Maybe it's just me, but I don't see swinging the pendulum to men being the default home makers as anything more than a wedge that will divide families again. It was unequal when women were pushed into it, its unequal now. Why can't the argument be 'let's all push to work less so we can balance life better'? This is another way in which households can become "single income" in the future with the couple working 20h or less a week. A reduction in hours to meet this would be the ideal scenario. Getting employers to play ball will be the biggest hurdle. flashman fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
flashman posted:You are barking at sexist dog whistles that just aren't there. The issue of inequality in pay in the work place is one that is real today and needs to be addressed. Automation eliminating vast quantities of jobs is something that is going to happen in the long term. I have been very, very specific about what makes you an MRA. It is the part I very specifically pointed out as being a boilerplate MRA talking point. And it's not that female sole-breadwinners are impossible. There are millions of them right now, they're just mostly single women. The thing you just dodge and weave and refuse to ever, ever engage with, MRA, is that single-income relationships are inequitable and precarious and lovely and not something we should be dreaming about turning back the clock to. But yes, I agree with Maluco too. An overall reduction in hours needed to earn a living wage is one of the few humane responses to automation. It's just one we're not going to get without social and governmental change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's just one we're not going to get without social and governmental change. This is the crux of it here. Society and government is not leading the charge, capital is, and capital doesn't give a gently caress about the long term issues that are created by forcing mass unemployment. That will only happen if society is takes the opportunity to come around on long standing beliefs about what work is, what honest worthwhile jobs are, and get rid of the moral imperative to work for works sake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
I disagree that single income relationships are as bad as you portray them. I would stay home in an instant if it was economically feasible and I'm sure my wife would prefer it. The only value I get from work is the monetary gain and time spent away from home and particularly children would not be worth it were there another way. Work is just a means to an end. flashman fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage Can somebody please pick this apart as totally untrue fud, scaremongering and slander so I won't have trouble sleeping at night?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Call him an MRA again, preferably six times in the same post to really get your point across
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Teal posted:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage Is social diamond cutting. Algorithms that tell you exactly what variables to ignore and what one to attack if you want to influence a big group of people. Amazon, Google, Microsoft everyone have services to run the computing power required to run the algorithm that provide this feature. Apparently the world is filled with creepy millionaires using everything in their power to make the world worse for everyone with retarded conservative ideas that slow or even undo progress for humanity. And datamining / bigdata is simply one of the tools that they can use. gently caress these people with a hot iron bar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There's no universal rule that says that we're always going to find things for people to do andi pay them enough to live comfortably. In fact, this wasn't even close to being true for most of human history and it still isn't true for much of the world's population. And the funny thing is there is enough wealth for everyone to live comfortably. But the people at the top want to still be the people at the top. They want that power. So they collectively squirrel away trillions in tax havens, lobby against social programs, etc. Automation just allows those kinds of people to grow even more wealthy by reducing the leverage everyone else has. And you can kind of understand where they're coming from. A lot of people would love to be a lord in a world full of peasants. They want to erode our current progressive and democratic institutions until they can have that kind of power. Main Paineframe posted:They're trying to convince people that the economic woes are merely temporary issues caused by bad trade or immigration policies, rather than an inevitable and critical failure of capitalism. This is what Joseph Schumpeter predicted. Though he saw it more as an evolution through capitalism's creative energies into a form of socialism. I guess we'll see if he's right. Ccs fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
flashman posted:Do you think that there will be similar levels of employment in 50 years time? In 50 years time, either employment will be optional or we will live in a corporate dystopian hellscape where unemployment is punishable by death. A move to single-earner households wouldn't solve the fundamental problem of "the economy no longer needs all available labor and is leaving the excess labor to starve". At best, it's just buying time. Besides, without any government assistance or incentive for the transition, it would be a brutal transition whose early adopters would be the yucky sufferers rather than people willingly toning down their commitments. flashman posted:I disagree that single income relationships are as bad as you portray them. I would stay home in an instant if it was economically feasible and I'm sure my wife would prefer it. And what happens when you need to buy something and your wife says no, and you have to put up with it because she earns all the money and you earn none? A single-earner household creates a lot more potential for abusive relationships because the person who doesn't earn doesn't have any lifeline or escape - even divorces cost money, particularly if your abusive spouse is willing to spend their money on a pricey divorce lawyer and fight you for every inch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And what happens when you need to buy something and your wife says no, and you have to put up with it because she earns all the money and you earn none? A single-earner household creates a lot more potential for abusive relationships because the person who doesn't earn doesn't have any lifeline or escape - even divorces cost money, particularly if your abusive spouse is willing to spend their money on a pricey divorce lawyer and fight you for every inch. I'd leave her and move back into my parents basement to download PUA tutorials. The corporate dystopia is a safe bet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 23:46
|
|