|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, inequality is complex. It's really hard to rank various "everything is equally bad" vs "some people have it bad and some people have it good" and it's hard to talk about future outcomes without deciding if the guy making 30,000 (the top 1%) making 18,000 a year (still twice the world average) in the future but the third world is making more too is good or bad or what. The issue with technology in that particular sense is what happens to the third world when they don't really even have their cheap labor to sell especially if that country is "late to the party." China might have been lucky enough to catch the tail-end of that era, but even so, China may be stuck as a "middle income" country for quite a while. I mean if we have this technological utopia where "no one needs to work" what happens to places where people need to work to not only survive but develop and industrialize? I mean the answer is usually some type of "UMI" but are Africans thrilled for a future where they are essentially still dependent on Western aid considering how it works out now?
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The horrible dystopian future anyone can have the tools to create art and it no longer costs money. lol if you think these AI tools will be free to use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol if you think these AI tools will be free to use. If the current trends regarding bleeding edge neural net development tools (Keras, TensorFlow), as well as the academic community around them (how much of it gets pushed to arxiv for instance) are indicative of anything, yeah, they very well might be the most by default "free to use" technological field there's ever been. Google and Facebook openly publish a lot (if not most) of their neural net research. OpenAI literally has it in their mission statement. At least so far, AI has been ahead of various other computer tools like media editing, control systems, maths, etc. when it comes to sharing your discoveries and tools with the broad community free of charge. Lot of these fancy rear end showy experiments you can literally fork off Github and train with your data on a consumer grade (sadly, preferably nvidia, and sadly preferably closed source drivers) GPU. It's a lot more "free" and accessible than a fuckton of other STEM fields where computerized tools have been a must for decades. Teal fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah it's actually surprising how much is free and open, at least as of right now. Like, did you think the nVidia research GANs for generating celebrity faces was impressive? The whole data set is dumped on GitHub. https://github.com/tkarras/progressive_growing_of_gans Oh you want step by step instructions on creating a GAN? https://github.com/gheinrich/DIGITS-GAN/blob/DIGITS-GAN-v0.1/examples/gan/README.md This blog post just went up on creating multi-layered neural nets: https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/uncovering-hidden-patterns-through-machine-learning
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Two stories I like (but are also old). AI Generated Music Based on Listener Feedback Always had an idea for a great song you wanted to hear but are sad that it doesn't exist? Maybe there's a whole musical scene in your mind, but it'll never come to life? AI will make it so. This can help with creating OSTs for TV shows and video games. And one that I think is pretty amazing: a redditor used a neural net to turn a simple MS paint sketch into a pretty detailed if basic fantasy world map I suck at drawing, so I asked a deep neural net to draw a worldmap for me from this MS Paint sketch  Coincidentally, it dates back to roughly around the same time as the aforementioned AI painting-from-a-MS Paint sketch. I think this was posted about a week after the Semantic Style Transfer paper was released.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:That's kind of depressing, really. I know a fair amount of people who used their creativity to lever themselves to a better life, usually through writing or art. Some of them just make a few hundred dollars a month, but if you're grinding along in this economy, a few hundred bucks a month can make a real difference. Meh, art. Art is the propaganda machine of the power. Artist can't feed themselves, so they get paid by who have money. Walk trough some museum, is all kings and queens and gods. Stuff ordered by the powerful. gently caress that. gently caress art. Lets try something else, maybe is better. Edit: actually art is awesome, is also a slave of power and a instrument of control Tei fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol if you think these AI tools will be free to use. Is the glum suicide jerk off fantasy that it'll be so cheap and ubiquitous it'll replace the job or artist or the the thirst for a grim future that it'll be so expensive no one but the rich can control it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is the glum suicide jerk off fantasy that it'll be so cheap and ubiquitous it'll replace the job or artist or the the thirst for a grim future that it'll be so expensive no one but the rich can control it? Which ever is required for the fantasy at the moment. Internal consistency is for chumps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is the glum suicide jerk off fantasy that it'll be so cheap and ubiquitous it'll replace the job or artist or the the thirst for a grim future that it'll be so expensive no one but the rich can control it? It can both be cheaper than hiring an artist and paying for their labor but also still expensive enough that it doesn't make creating art free for an aspiring artist with no budget. Just because licensing fees and machine time might become cheaper than paying a graphic designer or whatever doesn't mean everyone can automatically afford that licensing fees and machine time. Also you keep projecting about suicide, that's concerning and certainly nothing to joke about. I hope you're doing ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
We just need an algorithm so they can give themselves sarcastic names and we'll be close to culture AIs!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Xae posted:Which ever is required for the fantasy at the moment. Internal consistency is for chumps. If this was a thread about the future of computing you'd get the same glum posters posting over and over that moore's law is done, there hasn't been a significant new invention in 20 years and humanity and invention peaked decades ago. But rephrase the thread into an automation thread and computing is just getting started, gets better every day and will be able to do anything you can imagine in the next two years. Whichever future is more hopeless is the true one at whatever moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue with technology in that particular sense is what happens to the third world when they don't really even have their cheap labor to sell especially if that country is "late to the party." China might have been lucky enough to catch the tail-end of that era, but even so, China may be stuck as a "middle income" country for quite a while. Industrialization seems to be the trend, I don't see why you think China got in under the wire but Africa didn't. Certainly different forces are at play in each case but there isn't a single path to a modern society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Is there even many real world examples of technologies being horded by the rich and intentionally priced out of normal people's reach for more than a few years that aren't like private jet planes where the object is inherently expensive to produce or like medical technology in the U.S. specifically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is there even many real world examples of technologies being horded by the rich and intentionally priced out of normal people's reach for more than a few years that aren't like private jet planes where the object is inherently expensive to produce or like medical technology in the U.S. specifically? Of course you stick in all this nonsense about "intentionally horded" to avoid the core part of the criticism, that when a machine replaces a job, rarely can that worker afford to buy that machine outright instead. It isn't "intentional hording" for expensive machines to replace workers, but that doesn't change the fact that when a job is automated it isn't the worker who will end up owning the machine. Sure, at least the cost of entry to software is lower than mechanical machines, but the one-sided relationship is the same. When software replaces a job the worker can't solve their problems by just buying the software, even if they can afford it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Of course you stick in all this nonsense about "intentionally horded" to avoid the core part of the criticism, that when a machine replaces a job, rarely can that worker afford to buy that machine outright instead. I'd argue that relative to the profit most people can expect, artistry is pretty drat expensive as is, especially if we're talking digital art where you're expected to shell out thousands of dollars for a basic Cintiq and then hundreds more for the professional software. Current "AI Software" costs are, depending on the accessibility level you want (which is however inverse to the kind of power you can get out of it, as the bleeding edge poo poo is all mostly in papers and github repos), either literally nothing as bunch of the best poo poo is FOSS, or actually included in the costs of your Photoshop and whatnot, as ML based filters and algorithms make it into that as drag and drop plugins. Hardware wise all of those GAN examples can be trained within order of days on a GTX1070 or some such, in computer that's otherwise equivalent of mid-range gaming machine. And there I'm talking about training your own nets with your own data (which would mean you're trying to adapt a specific artistic style for example); run-time wise, neural nets are at the point where for some uses (item recognition, or in more vulgar case, facial recognition) they can run realtime on a smart phone. I'm not gonna pretend I can predict it will stay this way forever but the current trend implies neural net based intelligent tools might become one of the most "available for everyone" tools there's ever been, presuming the AI community doesn't somehow magically flip from mostly-FOSS to mostly-proprietary (worth noting it's been mostly progressing towards being more open), presuming we're not talking about people becoming too poor to own a consumer laptop. Teal fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
I have a problem here. You guys talk like owning a robot is all would take for a poor to be at the same level a rich guy that owns a robot. Heres something for you: https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-closes-19-billion-deal-for-whatsapp/ Facebook paid 19 billion dollars for a IRC client. Writting a IRC client is not very hard, all it takes is about 2 hours of programming. http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/h/1968 So whats going on here? Why Facebook paid 19 billions for a "robot" that is really cheap? It seems that you don't care about the code itself (the robot) you care about the captured customers base. Poors can own robots, the means of production, but thats useless to them. They will still be poors. Theres more here in play that owning the means of productions. Theres also something to say about having a contact with the people that provide raw materials, having bargaining power, having a marketing muscle, and so on. Lets not be naive. A university student can own a printer, and that will not save him from paying 300$ for a crappy book his teacher wrote. Just owning a means of production don't make people peers from the people with power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
There's very much a sliding scale of 'means of production', though I think the main point is that it's less individual devices and machines when it's more factories, farms, power plants and other means of mass-producing food and goods. That's the difference between personal property and private property that comes up to refute 'commies will take away your toothbrush' inanity. A printer's not much use without a supply of the right paper, ink, electricity and spare parts, and those are almost impossible to make at home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Tei posted:
I don't think you should say "a poor", but w/e. I depends on the circumstances: If the waiters at chilis are replaced by ipads. A person buying one of those ipads and having it at home does nothing particular. If software is invented to sing catchy love songs then all the billionaire pop stars might be out of business but any old person that holds a computer with that software now has what they wanted. The rich can't fire the singers then hoard the technology then get rich selling songs. The technology is the complete package. The consumer can just "buy the robot" and make their own songs. If a car factory is replaced by a set of five 50,000 dollar machines then no person will have that in their house. They personally won't have the space or money. An individual won't own a car factory. But it also means that it won't just be Ford that can make cars. if steve the used car salesman wants to build a car factory then he can. Sell you steve brand cars direct. But he won't have a monopoly either. And cars will get pretty drat dirt cheap. "a poor" will be able to have a car and "have access" to the cheap car factory technology but not literally personally own the factory or have any direct stake in it. Like, sometimes just buying the thing gives poor people access to the thing, sometimes it's existence gives them access to the thing cheaply because manufacturing it is no longer costly and sometimes it does nothing, it depends on the specific circumstances. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Decisions like "how big this pond should be" and "where this tree should be" are important artistic decisions. The AI just handles the tedious brushwork. Disagree. Those decisions are not important; compositionally, the placement of subject matter in a visual piece of art is not a golden secret, interpreted and willed by the human mind. The human mind has a compositional aesthetic; tree looks better slightly offcenter, pond looks better in 1/3 of the image than half, etc. The lessons a trained artist learns about composition take less than a day to teach. The artistry is in the brushwork. Was in the brushwork.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Well then maybe it doesn't matter if AI is real great at mspaint? Because real brushwork is done with real brushes or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Art villages in China can churn out real brushwork at a rate that no local artist could match. People buy from local artists because they want local art and to support them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well then maybe it doesn't matter if AI is real great at mspaint? Because real brushwork is done with real brushes or whatever. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of artists now work with digital media. Nobody cares if a bit is artisanally handset by a human or an algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is there even many real world examples of technologies being horded by the rich and intentionally priced out of normal people's reach for more than a few years that aren't like private jet planes where the object is inherently expensive to produce or like medical technology in the U.S. specifically? Why are you discounting us medical technology?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Why are you discounting us medical technology? First It's US specific, people in most other first world countries with advanced medical systems have no problem distributing medicine, if north korea bans DVDs that is a north korea problem, not a DVD problem. Second, the US medical system does it to everything, not just technology specific things, if they use a cotton ball they might charge 8 dollars for the cotton and 50 bucks for the labor and it's just kinda uniform and technology agnostic that stuff is inaccessible. Like, it's a real problem, but it's not a technological problem or technology specific problem, Every other advanced country on earth managed to figure it out without changing society to some sort of hyper alien post capitalism fantasy star trek future world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Tei posted:I have a problem here. Facebook hasn't paid 19 billion for a (bad) IRC client, it paid 19 billion for a competing social media network with at the time cca. 0.6 billion users. The value of WhatsApp wasn't in the company, or the tool, but in the clients. Companies literally buy companies in sake of inheriting the clients all the time, and the plasticity of social networks is particularly limited as people usually hesitate to jump the fence from something their friends use. Facebook needs the people, so it can datamine their communication and show them ads. It didn't buy a robot, it bought a well grown (I'm sorry to put it as rudely as that, but in this context it's the most fitting analogy) spying network. This wasn't a purchase of software or a tool, it was purchase of a company, their know how, and most importantly, their market share. Facebook buying a copy of "Photoshop That Can Phone Less Relevant Details In Automatically" doesn't make my copy of that work any worse. If they buy out whomever was developing the tool, the community will fork the source code of the last free release and carry on from there (that is, if it was something worth keeping around). And yes of course, a bigger company will be able to get more data for their machine learner and big computation farms and all that, but that applied to shovels and bulldozers as well, except right now you can build a bulldozer in your living room and some of them are as good if not better than the best ones Facebook (who also happens to be contributing to the DIY effort themselves, but that just collapses the whole analogy irreparably) is toying with. Teal fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Teal posted:If the current trends regarding bleeding edge neural net development tools (Keras, TensorFlow), as well as the academic community around them (how much of it gets pushed to arxiv for instance) are indicative of anything, yeah, they very well might be the most by default "free to use" technological field there's ever been. A friend who develops on MS Azure was telling me today how it's insane how many new services they announce on a weekly basis. Face recognition, face mood recognition, text summarizing, text analysis sentence by sentence... He tries to stay up to date but too much is going on. And it all costs like a fraction of a cent per use. And that's just Azure, AWS is bigger and better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:A friend who develops on MS Azure was telling me today how it's insane how many new services they announce on a weekly basis. Face recognition, face mood recognition, text summarizing, text analysis sentence by sentence... He tries to stay up to date but too much is going on. And it all costs like a fraction of a cent per use. And that's just Azure, AWS is bigger and better. I think it's interesting what a lot of software as service is starting to do. And how opposite it is from what people predict. Like a ton of stuff like AWS and game engines or pixar's rendering tools or some web hosting or whatever are all free or near free if you are just a guy making some small scale thing then have high prices if you are a big company using it commercially. Like if you wanna open maya and render hair in your school art project exactly like pixar uses in it's movie they just let you, if dreamworks wants to it's gonna cost them a hunk of cash. Like everything settled on doing the business model that adobe photoshop clearly secretly ran but didn't want to own up to. Where they refused to put any copy protection on their software for years so everyone had a pirate copy of photoshop and learned photoshop so everyone that went into business with it had 15 years experience of using it and could do everything without on the job training. Like instead of making software inaccessible to the little guy they decided to make it hyper accessible to the little guy and only charge the big guy. A lot of game engines have even dropped the simpler older "commercial/non commercial" distinction and you can even use their game engine for 'free' and the price is just some sliding scale thing based on if the game makes any revenue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:A friend who develops on MS Azure was telling me today how it's insane how many new services they announce on a weekly basis. Face recognition, face mood recognition, text summarizing, text analysis sentence by sentence... He tries to stay up to date but too much is going on. And it all costs like a fraction of a cent per use. And that's just Azure, AWS is bigger and better. Which reminds me MS Azure and AWS both throw considerable sums of completely free credit (just free off the bat, not free bonus to some other bought) at startups that show off promise, which is obviously an advertising scheme/market move, but still means that if you get lucky and are convincing, you can get a fuckton of compute (including the GPUs which is the stuff Neural Nets need) done for literally free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:A friend who develops on MS Azure was telling me today how it's insane how many new services they announce on a weekly basis. Face recognition, face mood recognition, text summarizing, text analysis sentence by sentence... He tries to stay up to date but too much is going on. And it all costs like a fraction of a cent per use. And that's just Azure, AWS is bigger and better. https://studio.azureml.net/ Even if you aren't a developer see if you can log into that and run some of their basic training. In about 10 minutes you setup a machine learning algorithm that takes FAA data and uses it to predict the possibility that any given Flight will on time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:These are utopic stories exploring broad philosophical themes, they are not meant to be plausible and consistent future societies, just like the world of 1984 was not meant to be a plausible totalitarian society. Do you read history? Generally you announce your intention to end capitalism, overthrow the state in a violent revolution, execute or imprison any rich family who was dumb enough not to flee or defect, and seize all property for the state. Then you make public property available for people to use through various bureaucratic schemes. The first few years aren't even that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Do you read history? Generally you announce your intention to end capitalism, overthrow the state in a violent revolution, execute or imprison any rich family who was dumb enough not to flee or defect, and seize all property for the state. Adjusted for the last couple of times it happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol if you think these AI tools will be free to use. Not to refute what you're saying because you are right, there will always be a fee, but....I can go to Adobe and get yearly access to their full Creative Cloud (like, everything) for 50 bucks a month and if I go up to 80 I can get access to their stock assets as well. If you're doing artistic things for the intent of selling them and making money for yourself, 80 bucks a month for a full suite of tools like that is insanely good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Do you read history? Generally you announce your intention to end capitalism, overthrow the state in a violent revolution, execute or imprison any rich family who was dumb enough not to flee or defect, and seize all property for the state. Then you make public property available for people to use through various bureaucratic schemes. Except if said children of the rich family like thinking of themselves as hardcore revolutionaries. Then you use them as proof of the revolution's victory. Strange how many of them turn to the reds. Source: remember when I said I spent five years (not) writing a futuro-communist story? Did a lot of research. I don't know if it's just "Hey, we're Reds now, we hate our parents and class!" as a means of not getting shot/sent to the gulag or actual revolutionary fervor or the revolution just happened while they were going through the hipster phase of life or if they just wanted to be kapos, but yikes there were a lot of kids of capitalists and nobles in Russia circa 1917-1920s who went Bolshie. I mean it still didn't do too many of them good (especially by the time Stalin decided he hated humans), but it's something that happened. Actually, IIRC, a crown princess of Cambodia literally survived the Khmer Rouge while still in Cambodia this way. And you don't just "survive" the Khmer Rouge. Edit: Yeah, here it is. IN CAMBODIA, THE PRINCESS SERVES THE PROLETARIAT Yuli Ban fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Dec 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Hey, someone write a scifi story where in the future instead of netflix streaming a video file it just streams some 3D assets and a general script outline for a movie and then your personal filter bubble AI renders a realistic 3D movie out of it on the fly personalized to you the way like google news mostly only shows you news it already knows you'd like. So like, your own personal copy of Juno II does or doesn't go more into the anti-abortion angle depending on what it knows you'd want and you can only really intelligibly talk about movies with people that exist in your own personal sphere, the same way news now basically might as well be from an alternate universe if you talk to people from another political "tribe" and the news they consume.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Hey, someone write a scifi story where in the future instead of netflix streaming a video file it just streams some 3D assets and a general script outline for a movie and then your personal filter bubble AI renders a realistic 3D movie out of it on the fly personalized to you the way like google news mostly only shows you news it already knows you'd like. So like, your own personal copy of Juno II does or doesn't go more into the anti-abortion angle depending on what it knows you'd want and you can only really intelligibly talk about movies with people that exist in your own personal sphere, the same way news now basically might as well be from an alternate universe if you talk to people from another political "tribe" and the news they consume. If you want this, I can do this for you using 1981 technology. Movies are filmed with more assets than necessary, sometimes with multiple endings. And the publisher / director decide how to cut and mount the parts. This is because they decide what would be more fun / better received. But we can review every section they filmed, then label it, "optimist/pessimist" , "bland/controversial", and build some sort of connected three "this scene can follow scene A, C, and J" "you can put scene K, L, N after this one". The algorithm would be a simple filter based on preferences, or maybe a random number generator when it have to navigate over equally valid options. Then you would have a special version called "Directors Movie" that would be the preselected one by the director, the canonical one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Someone made Gal Gadot porn using a GAN. It was literally one of the very first applications of the technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Tei posted:If you want this, I can do this for you using 1981 technology. Movies are filmed with more assets than necessary, sometimes with multiple endings. And the publisher / director decide how to cut and mount the parts. This is because they decide what would be more fun / better received. The 1930s could do it by showing different versions in like the south and the north or something. I guess more I was thinking of something really ai generated from a basic framework instead of just alternate scenes. So like there was a genere of movies that only the viewer would ever see. Like the way everyone sees the news but more and more everyone gets a personalised filter showing that news a certain way.. What would it be like I'd like Iron man was the same waa at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Hey, someone write a scifi story where in the future instead of netflix streaming a video file it just streams some 3D assets and a general script outline for a movie and then your personal filter bubble AI renders a realistic 3D movie out of it on the fly personalized to you the way like google news mostly only shows you news it already knows you'd like. So like, your own personal copy of Juno II does or doesn't go more into the anti-abortion angle depending on what it knows you'd want and you can only really intelligibly talk about movies with people that exist in your own personal sphere, the same way news now basically might as well be from an alternate universe if you talk to people from another political "tribe" and the news they consume. They did, it was called Diamond Age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Someone made Gal Gadot porn using a GAN. It was literally one of the very first applications of the technology. If a technology can conceivably be applied to porn, it will be. In fact, its application to porn is often what drives it so fiercely forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Someone made Gal Gadot porn using a GAN. It was literally one of the very first applications of the technology. Star trek knew what holodecks were for and they didn't hide it, and neither will we when holodecks become reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 02:24
|
|
