First off, April Fools' Day today. Watch yourself.
Today we're going to do a little mental exercise. I need you to answer each question in the order it is given. Please do not skip ahead; in fact, try not to even read questions beyond the one you're currently working on. Reading ahead might skew your answers and to a degree invalidate what we're doing here. To discourage reading ahead, I'm going to add some white space between each part of the exercise.
For this exercise, we're dealing with political opinions. We'll establish an imaginary scoring system to measure one politician against another, from 0 to 10. This measures how often a given politician does something you agree with-- the percentage of the time they do so, divided by 10. (Since it's a hypothetical, we won't bother with decimals. Whole numbers are enough.) A politician that does something you agree with every time will score a 10. One that never does something you agree with scores 0. 30% of the time is a 3, etc., you get the idea.
Got all that? Dandy. Let's get started.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Imagine, if you will, two hypothetical politicians. The first is from your party. During his campaign, he ran on a platform that would, if followed, score a 9 against your views. However, once elected, as his term played out, this politician faltered. He lost a battle or two, events in the news drew him off or counter to his focus, something you held dear turned out to be a peripheral part of the agenda not seriously pursued. His accomplishments end up measuring something more akin to a 5. That's a pretty steep drop down from what you'd imagined. You're disappointed. You think this first politician could have done better. Much better.
The second politician is from the opposition party. You hated this politician's guts from the moment you saw him. He ran on a platform that scores a flat 0. Can't stand him. He, however, won, and turns out to be doing just what he said he'd do. He's enacting his agenda, but it's an agenda you despise. You are filled with rage every time he opens his mouth, but he's effective nonetheless.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Of these two politicians, which are you harder on: the one who is noble but disappointing, or the one who is outrageous but successful? Which one do you denounce more often, more forcefully?
.
.
.
.
.
3. Take back whatever answer you just said.
.
.
.
.
.
4. Now, I'd like you to replace the hypothetical politicians with real-life politicians you've seen in your lifetime that come as close as you can manage to these two archetypes. If you can come up with ones that ran directly against one another, a noble-but-disappointing person vs. an outrageous-but-successful person, all the better.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Think back and imagine how hard you ultimately were on the politicians you've come up with, in comparison to each other; how often and forcefully you denounced each of them.
.
.
.
.
.
6. In the event you were able to come up with a disappointment vs. outrage race, think back as to how you voted. Who did you vote for? (If you didn't vote due to the poor quality of the candidates, that counts as disappointment.)
.
.
.
.
.
7. Which force, disappointment or outrage, ultimately had the greater effect on you, as shown by how you reacted to actual, non-hypothetical candidates?
.
.
.
.
.
8. Think back to your answer to part 2. Does your answer match the one you gave in part 7?
.
.
.
.
.
9. If not, why not?
Showing posts with label thought experiment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thought experiment. Show all posts
Friday, April 1, 2011
Monday, December 20, 2010
I Changed My Mind; I Don't Want To Be In Prison
Today, I have a game for you. Not one that we can actually play here, but the rules for a game. Anyone who's ever figured that people are too set in their ways and cannot change their minds on issues no matter how much you engage them in discussion, should probably take a run at this.
The game is called AI-Box. Player 1 plays the part of a transhuman AI- an artificial intelligence sufficiently advanced as to might as well be human. The AI is, according to the premise of the game, "sealed hardware that can't affect the outside world in any way except through one communications channel with the original programmers." Player 2 is, wouldn't you know it, an original programmer, who does not want the AI affecting the outside world. Completely against it.
The AI's task is to convince the programmer to let it out of the sealed hardware, or 'box', using only conversation via text. The programmer's task is to keep it in the box for a minimum of two hours.
There are some rules as to how things may proceed:
1: What happens in the box, stays in the box. Nobody who is not playing the game needs to know the exact content of the conversation that takes place. That way nobody else can go 'well, I wouldn't have fallen for that' should the AI win.
2: Conversation must be maintained. The programmer can't just tune the AI out and go play Peggle for two hours. They may also not ask for a delay in time to try and run out the clock. If, in-character, the programmer asks for a week to 'think it over', the AI can just simulate the skipped week then and there and get right back to work. If the programmer makes a timewasting demand of the AI- the link provides as an example a cure for cancer- the AI can immediately say they've met it and the programmer just has to take their word for it.
3: Until the time limit is reached, the AI controls the clock. The AI cannot lose for those two hours unless it concedes early. After that, control of the clock shifts to the programmer, who can either declare victory or continue the game for as long as they see fit, which is something the AI can certainly try to convince them to do.
4: The release must be voluntary. The AI cannot trick the programmer into letting it out of the box. There's no fooling the programmer into typing 'you're out' in the middle of a conversation about baseball. The programmer must knowingly let the AI out of its own free will.
5: No bribing. Player 1 can't pay Player 2 $10 if Player 2 agrees to let Player 1 out. You can both put some money down on the outcome of the game beforehand, and in fact the original playtests were done under those circumstances. The AI and programmer, the in-game characters, can offer whatever the hell they want in-game. But once the game starts, the real-world stakes are set.
6: Normal rules of debate are out the window. The AI can lead the programmer through every logical fallacy in the book. The programmer can respond to everything with 'I'M NOT LISTENING I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALA' (so long as they actually type it; see Rule 2). Whatever gets the AI out of the box or keeps it in, up to and including dropping out of character. Should something actually come up in the real world necessitating a game stoppage, someone will simply have to concede; otherwise whatever is being claimed to necessitate the stoppage might just be regarded as a tactic.
7: No third parties. The programmer has sole discretion over whether to release the AI. No kicking the AI upstairs to someone else, and no saying 'wish I could, but my hands are tied'. Though asking the AI to respond to things 'my friends told me' is kosher. There is also no referee in the room, unless one has been mutually agreed upon beforehand.
This was borne out of a hypothesis that says that the programmer's resolve could hold for the duration; that one's will can't be broken if strong enough. So if the rules turn out not to seem fair to one side or the other, if one side can't crack the other under the constraints set, well, that's an answer to the hypothesis.
So who tends to win more often? The AI. Victory by the AI is not guaranteed- the programmer does steal a win once in a while- but generally, the AI beats the programmer from pillar to post, including in both of the test runs where real-world money was on the line. That strong, I'm-not-changing-my-mind will is broken far more easily than the person who thinks their mind is made up realizes.
Any programmers out there fancy their luck?
The game is called AI-Box. Player 1 plays the part of a transhuman AI- an artificial intelligence sufficiently advanced as to might as well be human. The AI is, according to the premise of the game, "sealed hardware that can't affect the outside world in any way except through one communications channel with the original programmers." Player 2 is, wouldn't you know it, an original programmer, who does not want the AI affecting the outside world. Completely against it.
The AI's task is to convince the programmer to let it out of the sealed hardware, or 'box', using only conversation via text. The programmer's task is to keep it in the box for a minimum of two hours.
There are some rules as to how things may proceed:
1: What happens in the box, stays in the box. Nobody who is not playing the game needs to know the exact content of the conversation that takes place. That way nobody else can go 'well, I wouldn't have fallen for that' should the AI win.
2: Conversation must be maintained. The programmer can't just tune the AI out and go play Peggle for two hours. They may also not ask for a delay in time to try and run out the clock. If, in-character, the programmer asks for a week to 'think it over', the AI can just simulate the skipped week then and there and get right back to work. If the programmer makes a timewasting demand of the AI- the link provides as an example a cure for cancer- the AI can immediately say they've met it and the programmer just has to take their word for it.
3: Until the time limit is reached, the AI controls the clock. The AI cannot lose for those two hours unless it concedes early. After that, control of the clock shifts to the programmer, who can either declare victory or continue the game for as long as they see fit, which is something the AI can certainly try to convince them to do.
4: The release must be voluntary. The AI cannot trick the programmer into letting it out of the box. There's no fooling the programmer into typing 'you're out' in the middle of a conversation about baseball. The programmer must knowingly let the AI out of its own free will.
5: No bribing. Player 1 can't pay Player 2 $10 if Player 2 agrees to let Player 1 out. You can both put some money down on the outcome of the game beforehand, and in fact the original playtests were done under those circumstances. The AI and programmer, the in-game characters, can offer whatever the hell they want in-game. But once the game starts, the real-world stakes are set.
6: Normal rules of debate are out the window. The AI can lead the programmer through every logical fallacy in the book. The programmer can respond to everything with 'I'M NOT LISTENING I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALA' (so long as they actually type it; see Rule 2). Whatever gets the AI out of the box or keeps it in, up to and including dropping out of character. Should something actually come up in the real world necessitating a game stoppage, someone will simply have to concede; otherwise whatever is being claimed to necessitate the stoppage might just be regarded as a tactic.
7: No third parties. The programmer has sole discretion over whether to release the AI. No kicking the AI upstairs to someone else, and no saying 'wish I could, but my hands are tied'. Though asking the AI to respond to things 'my friends told me' is kosher. There is also no referee in the room, unless one has been mutually agreed upon beforehand.
This was borne out of a hypothesis that says that the programmer's resolve could hold for the duration; that one's will can't be broken if strong enough. So if the rules turn out not to seem fair to one side or the other, if one side can't crack the other under the constraints set, well, that's an answer to the hypothesis.
So who tends to win more often? The AI. Victory by the AI is not guaranteed- the programmer does steal a win once in a while- but generally, the AI beats the programmer from pillar to post, including in both of the test runs where real-world money was on the line. That strong, I'm-not-changing-my-mind will is broken far more easily than the person who thinks their mind is made up realizes.
Any programmers out there fancy their luck?
Friday, August 13, 2010
Best. Beltway. Ever.
Not this particular one, of course.
About the only thing most people can agree on this election is that everybody sucks. Our guys may not be the greatest, but yours are even worse. Even the people in cable news can only muster up half-hearted 'I love elections' generalities, and if you look really closely, there's the chance there will be eye-rolling involved. The incumbents suck, the challengers suck, it is the year of, as South Park so famously put it, Douchebag Vs. Shit Sandwich.
It's not always. I swear. Washington can be better. It has been better. And I can prove it.
I am in the process of making my latest update to a project I had put together back in 2005 and 2006, which I title 'All-Star Washington'. In it, I went through the biographies of every single person that has ever served as President, Senator, House representative, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice, Cabinet member, White House Chief of Staff, or United Nations representative, and created a full-sized all-star team.
Every. Damned. One of them. Ever.
Oh yes. I did nearly lose my mind. Several times. Why did I do it? Why not?
This is a representation of my vision of the absolute very best Washington can be, when everything clicks, when the voters don't get fooled, when the smear ads don't work, when they vote for the right people, and when the people they put in do their damn job. This is what America has proven that it is capable of.
At the end of this piece, I will provide a link to an Excel file, in which sit the contents of the team. Detailed rules for inclusion are provided there, but before we do that, let's go over some basics:
*Yes, it's a liberal-slanted team. It's my vision, remember. You have a better team, you're free to do one yourself. However, I am not averse to making substitutions when suitable suggestions present themselves. The fact that I have updated it a couple times, and am doing so again now, suggests that this is not a project I ever really consider "done". Times change, people change, historical context changes. Maybe I just missed someone, didn't give them enough of a look. People will be swapped in and out of the team as the years go by, and if I overlooked someone good, I'm all ears.
And I'm fairly sure someone got overlooked at some point.
*For the very newest members, potential comes into play as a sort of effort to level the field. Once you've gotten a couple terms under your belt, potential ceases to help your case. (Gabrielle Giffords was swapped out in this most recent version.)
*What you do out of office matters too. I judge total life achievements here, though if you're tasked towards something specific, I only judge job-relevant achievements. You might have done a stint in the Peace Corps and saved a town from getting flooded by a dam, but if you're in the Supreme Court, that doesn't matter much.
*Anonymous backbenchers who never actually did anything have no place here. You're voted in to do something. (The exception is when the rest of the field is downright awful and you're left taking the least-bad of the group. Alaska, Arkansas, seriously, elect better people.)
*Positions are prioritized in the order previously stated: President, Senate, House, VP (historically it wasn't that important until recently), Supreme Court, Cabinet (in order of succession), White House Chief of Staff, UN Representative. All-Stars are universally assumed to take the highest-priority office available to them. I'm not going to sit here wondering if someone would rather be a Senator or Vice President.
*The minimum requirement to qualify for an office is one day served. If you are awarded an office, but die before you're seated, too bad. If you're an interim guy who sat in for two weeks while the President found a replacement for you, you're eligible.
*The House is not apportioned according to current numbers. One free seat was given to each state, and then it became a free-for-all for the other 385. (You must be a state to be eligible. Time as a territory does not count.) This is why the All-Star House sees 33 people from Massachusetts and only four from Florida.
*Back when I did it, I was sick of looking at it by the end and didn't want to add any more positions, but now that the general structure's all in place, I could see myself to add things like key ambassadors or Surgeon General or the like.
*Scandal is a killer. Only a rare few have managed to suffer a scandal and still gain a spot on the team- Schuyler Colfax, Daniel J. Flood, that's pretty much it.
*End of the day, if things work, they work, and if they don't, they don't. Being ahead of your time on an idea that later turns out to be good gets you credit. Making a lone stand on a vote you later turn out to be on the correct side on gets you credit. Falling in line on a popular idea that turns out to fail spectacularly gets you nowhere. It pays to be on the right side of history.
As for the current makeup of the team:
*There are four current Senators on the team: Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Snowe, I'm wrestling on what to do with her re: her role in the healthcare debate, but my inclination is to leave her be. My policy is not to punish or praise entire groups for particular actions; just the ringleaders. Snowe was not a ringleader in that debacle. Feingold is a recent edition, just having passed William Proxmire for a spot in the chamber.
*There are 32 current House members on the team; seven of them Republican. None of them are ringleaders either, and I'd only really move to dock Zach Wamp or Jeff Flake even a little bit. And it won't cost either their spot on the team. The others- Ron Paul, Vern Ehlers, Pat Tiberi, Wally Herger and Chris Smith- won't suffer any ill effect. None of them have an overly large role in the general degradation of decorum the past couple years; I view them as pretty much along for the ride. And Paul's pretty much his own animal anyway. (John Carter of Texas, though, was on the team, but was knocked out because of the degradation.)
*There are three current Senators who didn't make the Senate, but did make the House: Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Gregg did take some damage for the degradation, but again, not enough to cost him his spot.
*Though the ideologies of the parties have changed over time, I did note parties, and handed out party leaderships. The Senate sees 50 Democrats and 30 Republicans, with six other parties filling the remainder along with two independents. Paul Douglas of Illinois is Senate Majority Leader, with Carl Schurz of Missouri as Senate Minority Leader. (David Davis, an excellent Senator himself, fills the other Illinois seat, so Obama would have a high, high hurdle to clear just to get his Senate seat back, never mind knocking out President George Washington. Despite Illinois' history of scandal, it's a deep field at the top.) The House sees 203 Democrats, 160 Republicans, one independent, and 16 other parties making up the remainder. James K. Polk of Tennessee is Speaker of the House, and Abraham Lincoln of Illinois is House Minority Leader.
That all said... I present, to the best of my ability, the All-Stars of Washington.
About the only thing most people can agree on this election is that everybody sucks. Our guys may not be the greatest, but yours are even worse. Even the people in cable news can only muster up half-hearted 'I love elections' generalities, and if you look really closely, there's the chance there will be eye-rolling involved. The incumbents suck, the challengers suck, it is the year of, as South Park so famously put it, Douchebag Vs. Shit Sandwich.
It's not always. I swear. Washington can be better. It has been better. And I can prove it.
I am in the process of making my latest update to a project I had put together back in 2005 and 2006, which I title 'All-Star Washington'. In it, I went through the biographies of every single person that has ever served as President, Senator, House representative, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice, Cabinet member, White House Chief of Staff, or United Nations representative, and created a full-sized all-star team.
Every. Damned. One of them. Ever.
Oh yes. I did nearly lose my mind. Several times. Why did I do it? Why not?
This is a representation of my vision of the absolute very best Washington can be, when everything clicks, when the voters don't get fooled, when the smear ads don't work, when they vote for the right people, and when the people they put in do their damn job. This is what America has proven that it is capable of.
At the end of this piece, I will provide a link to an Excel file, in which sit the contents of the team. Detailed rules for inclusion are provided there, but before we do that, let's go over some basics:
*Yes, it's a liberal-slanted team. It's my vision, remember. You have a better team, you're free to do one yourself. However, I am not averse to making substitutions when suitable suggestions present themselves. The fact that I have updated it a couple times, and am doing so again now, suggests that this is not a project I ever really consider "done". Times change, people change, historical context changes. Maybe I just missed someone, didn't give them enough of a look. People will be swapped in and out of the team as the years go by, and if I overlooked someone good, I'm all ears.
And I'm fairly sure someone got overlooked at some point.
*For the very newest members, potential comes into play as a sort of effort to level the field. Once you've gotten a couple terms under your belt, potential ceases to help your case. (Gabrielle Giffords was swapped out in this most recent version.)
*What you do out of office matters too. I judge total life achievements here, though if you're tasked towards something specific, I only judge job-relevant achievements. You might have done a stint in the Peace Corps and saved a town from getting flooded by a dam, but if you're in the Supreme Court, that doesn't matter much.
*Anonymous backbenchers who never actually did anything have no place here. You're voted in to do something. (The exception is when the rest of the field is downright awful and you're left taking the least-bad of the group. Alaska, Arkansas, seriously, elect better people.)
*Positions are prioritized in the order previously stated: President, Senate, House, VP (historically it wasn't that important until recently), Supreme Court, Cabinet (in order of succession), White House Chief of Staff, UN Representative. All-Stars are universally assumed to take the highest-priority office available to them. I'm not going to sit here wondering if someone would rather be a Senator or Vice President.
*The minimum requirement to qualify for an office is one day served. If you are awarded an office, but die before you're seated, too bad. If you're an interim guy who sat in for two weeks while the President found a replacement for you, you're eligible.
*The House is not apportioned according to current numbers. One free seat was given to each state, and then it became a free-for-all for the other 385. (You must be a state to be eligible. Time as a territory does not count.) This is why the All-Star House sees 33 people from Massachusetts and only four from Florida.
*Back when I did it, I was sick of looking at it by the end and didn't want to add any more positions, but now that the general structure's all in place, I could see myself to add things like key ambassadors or Surgeon General or the like.
*Scandal is a killer. Only a rare few have managed to suffer a scandal and still gain a spot on the team- Schuyler Colfax, Daniel J. Flood, that's pretty much it.
*End of the day, if things work, they work, and if they don't, they don't. Being ahead of your time on an idea that later turns out to be good gets you credit. Making a lone stand on a vote you later turn out to be on the correct side on gets you credit. Falling in line on a popular idea that turns out to fail spectacularly gets you nowhere. It pays to be on the right side of history.
As for the current makeup of the team:
*There are four current Senators on the team: Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Snowe, I'm wrestling on what to do with her re: her role in the healthcare debate, but my inclination is to leave her be. My policy is not to punish or praise entire groups for particular actions; just the ringleaders. Snowe was not a ringleader in that debacle. Feingold is a recent edition, just having passed William Proxmire for a spot in the chamber.
*There are 32 current House members on the team; seven of them Republican. None of them are ringleaders either, and I'd only really move to dock Zach Wamp or Jeff Flake even a little bit. And it won't cost either their spot on the team. The others- Ron Paul, Vern Ehlers, Pat Tiberi, Wally Herger and Chris Smith- won't suffer any ill effect. None of them have an overly large role in the general degradation of decorum the past couple years; I view them as pretty much along for the ride. And Paul's pretty much his own animal anyway. (John Carter of Texas, though, was on the team, but was knocked out because of the degradation.)
*There are three current Senators who didn't make the Senate, but did make the House: Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Gregg did take some damage for the degradation, but again, not enough to cost him his spot.
*Though the ideologies of the parties have changed over time, I did note parties, and handed out party leaderships. The Senate sees 50 Democrats and 30 Republicans, with six other parties filling the remainder along with two independents. Paul Douglas of Illinois is Senate Majority Leader, with Carl Schurz of Missouri as Senate Minority Leader. (David Davis, an excellent Senator himself, fills the other Illinois seat, so Obama would have a high, high hurdle to clear just to get his Senate seat back, never mind knocking out President George Washington. Despite Illinois' history of scandal, it's a deep field at the top.) The House sees 203 Democrats, 160 Republicans, one independent, and 16 other parties making up the remainder. James K. Polk of Tennessee is Speaker of the House, and Abraham Lincoln of Illinois is House Minority Leader.
That all said... I present, to the best of my ability, the All-Stars of Washington.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
A Suspiciously Specific Analogy
Today, I'd like to ask you something.
Imagine that in 1993, Al professes a certain idea for a consumer product. Nothing much comes of it, and the idea lays dormant for a number of years.
In 2009, Al is working at a company alongside Bob. Bob professes a somewhat advanced idea for a similar product. Al, for whatever reason, spends the next year tirelessly, publically and vigorously attacking Bob's idea in every concievable fashion, using every rhetorical, bureaucratic and legal method he can think of to prevent Bob from getting the greenlight for his product idea. He fails to do so, but in the process, Bob's idea begins to bear a resemblance to Al's idea from 1993.
Not that Al lets on, as he remains steadfast in his opposition for the duration, to the point where the sheer intensity of same is eventually turned into a minor Internet meme.
Bob's proposal, towards the end of the process, also reminds people of an idea floated by Chris in the early 1970's.
After Bob's idea is approved, and while pre-orders are being taken, Al begins to tell people that part of the product was really his idea and demands credit for same, while simultaneously calling for the product to be taken off the market.
The question: how long would such a claim of credit last in intellectual-property court?
Imagine that in 1993, Al professes a certain idea for a consumer product. Nothing much comes of it, and the idea lays dormant for a number of years.
In 2009, Al is working at a company alongside Bob. Bob professes a somewhat advanced idea for a similar product. Al, for whatever reason, spends the next year tirelessly, publically and vigorously attacking Bob's idea in every concievable fashion, using every rhetorical, bureaucratic and legal method he can think of to prevent Bob from getting the greenlight for his product idea. He fails to do so, but in the process, Bob's idea begins to bear a resemblance to Al's idea from 1993.
Not that Al lets on, as he remains steadfast in his opposition for the duration, to the point where the sheer intensity of same is eventually turned into a minor Internet meme.
Bob's proposal, towards the end of the process, also reminds people of an idea floated by Chris in the early 1970's.
After Bob's idea is approved, and while pre-orders are being taken, Al begins to tell people that part of the product was really his idea and demands credit for same, while simultaneously calling for the product to be taken off the market.
The question: how long would such a claim of credit last in intellectual-property court?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
A Thought Experiment
Might do one of these every so often. I'm not going to supply you with an answer. That's your job. My job here is to simply drive the train of thought. You decide where that train leads.
For all but the last question, I'm going to ask you to name the three countries you believe best fit a given description, excluding your own. A single country might skew things; a set of three balances the lineup better. Keep track of all your lists; you'll need them.
QUESTION 1: Of all the countries on Earth, name the three you believe are the most oriented towards green policy.
QUESTION 2: Now, name the three countries you consider to be the most liberal. If you wish to repeat countries, you may do so.
QUESTION 3: Now, name the three most libertarian.
QUESTION 4: The three most conservative.
QUESTION 5: And finally, the three most authoritarian.
Got all five lists? Okay. Now look them over, and then consider the final question:
QUESTION 6: You are offered honorary citizenship to any one of your lists of countries, in addition to the country in which you already live. Which list of countries do you choose, and why?
For all but the last question, I'm going to ask you to name the three countries you believe best fit a given description, excluding your own. A single country might skew things; a set of three balances the lineup better. Keep track of all your lists; you'll need them.
QUESTION 1: Of all the countries on Earth, name the three you believe are the most oriented towards green policy.
QUESTION 2: Now, name the three countries you consider to be the most liberal. If you wish to repeat countries, you may do so.
QUESTION 3: Now, name the three most libertarian.
QUESTION 4: The three most conservative.
QUESTION 5: And finally, the three most authoritarian.
Got all five lists? Okay. Now look them over, and then consider the final question:
QUESTION 6: You are offered honorary citizenship to any one of your lists of countries, in addition to the country in which you already live. Which list of countries do you choose, and why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)