I am not a technologist, or a computer scientist, or an AI researcher, or an engineer. I don't really know how these AI platforms work. I understand at a high level what they do, but not how they do it. Here are some of my thoughts:
Currently, these AI are not reliably accurate, just reliably approximate. You can look into AI having difficulty creating any art that has hands, or responding to a question about the fastest marine animal. It could probably be used as a source for disinformation pretty easily.
There are going to be lots of fun, creative, useful, and thoughtful things people can use these AI tools for. Workshopping ideas for your DND campaign. Looking for fixes in a broken section of computer code. Iterating in a creative process. Here's an example of a hilarious prompt and response from ChatGPT.
While there are lots of fun examples, there are also going to be very harmful users in this space. I expect there will be a lot of people who shift from cryptocurrency to AI generated content. It's the next variant in the get-rich with no-work, hustler grift virus from which are society is currently suffering.
Plagiarizing the old way is a thing of the past. Take-home essays and writing homework are no longer going to be an option for educators. These tools are too accessible for students to access and use without risk of getting caught.
If an AI platform uses other people's work without their permission and without paying or licensing it from them, then it is unethical to generate a profit from that output. This is my biggest concern. Current iterations of AI art use existing artists work as a source and can create artwork that matches an artist's style or aesthetic. Artists will have to move their artwork off the internet or behind paywalls that block the AI from scrubbing them for data. This creates a worse world for artists and a worse internet for users.
Artists and writers are essential to society. We should be doing our best to protect them and their work, not allowing them to be ripped off for the sake of technology. There can be a world where both exist in balance, but that world needs rules and protections.
Without regulation, social media makes our lives worse. Scams, cyber bullying, addiction, doxing, the list goes on and on of the negative effects of social media that become worse when we don't implement rules and regulations. These AI platforms will be the same.
Until some of these ethical concerns around AI's future become more clear, I won't be using these platforms.
The Markup found services including TaxAct, TaxSlayer, and H&R Block sending sensitive data
First, for-profit tax filing companies lobby to ensure that only they can provide free tax filing services. Then they make it really difficult to find the free version of the service and automatically upgrade customers to a paid version without telling them. In order to get back to the free version, you have to start your return over. And now, they've been caught handing out personal data from your tax return.
Maybe they shouldn't be the only option available for tax filing?
A public, free option for filing a simple tax return should be authorized by Congress and implemented by the IRS. The only parties hurt by this would be for-profit companies who would have to improve their services now that the average consumer has a real choice.
The $8 monthly fee to have a blue checkmark on Twitter is an idea that I don’t like. Identity verification in and of itself is not something that Twitter should be monetizing. Here’s a thread arguing one reason why that makes the case better than I could.
Adding to that thread, identity verification is not something which Twitter incurs a direct cost to maintain every month for each account it verifies. Making it a monthly fee is transparent to everyone as “we need to make more money off of you and we don’t have any real ideas on how.”
Verified Twitter users do create lots of content that benefits the Twitter platform; it’s important to keep them posting that content on Twitter and not somewhere else. The relationship between the company and its users does need to be rebalanced so that Twitter gets a fair share of the economic value created and doesn’t lose money every year. An arbitrary $8 monthly fee is not a symbiotic solution, it feels closer parasitic. Twitter does need changes to monetization, but this shouldn't be it.
Anyone can criticize, few can solve, so here’s an alternative idea for Twitter:
Celebrities and businesses generate real value for themselves from using the Twitter platform to post their content, influence their followers, and have their tweets go viral. Charge them a monthly subscription for that privilege.
Any account that has more than a certain threshold of followers would no longer be eligible for the free version of Twitter. Market research and internal analytics could provide insight on where that threshold should be. Maybe it’s 10,000 followers. Maybe it’s 100,000. Most accounts over that threshold will pay. If the account doesn’t pay the subscription, new people can’t follow them. Like Facebook maxing you out at 5,000 friends.
Charge these qualifying accounts a monthly subscription based on their follower count. This subscription comes with perks though: identity verification, that sweet blue public figure checkmark, and fewer ads and promoted tweets. Add some tools to help with replies and managing your feed. An edit button if you want. The ability to go LIVE or post longer videos or whatever.
Twitter would remain free with advertising for the average user, as it is today.
Elon Musk hates bots, well add a faded white check for identity verification for users under the 10k followers threshold that publicly shows you proved to Twitter that you’re a real human being. You could use what Fintech services do before setting up new accounts as a model. Make that service free because it makes your product better and increases the value of your advertising product.
Anyone can sign up for the monthly subscription version of Twitter if they want to get rid of ads and see fewer promoted tweets. If Twitter adds new services like premium content or new features, your subscription gives you access to that too. Long term, Twitter can work on adding payments and shopping to the platform and take a commission on sales generated on platform.
There, we're on our way to solving Twitter.
This proposed $8 change doesn't help with identity and bot problems, it probably has the opposite effect. If you really believe that Twitter is the public square of our time, adding features to confirm more people's identity and improve authentic discourse seems a more appropriate path forward for evolving the platform. But maybe it was never really about that for Elon.
I've decided to write about the recent story that the Patagonia founder has given away his company. I've seen a lot of positive feedback on the news; a billionaire giving away his wealth to fight climate change. The New York Times was quite positive, in fact.
However, when news broke that a billionaire had donated his company to fight for conservative values, the reaction was much more negative. I think we need to take a deeper dive into both donations to see the trend forming; a trend for billionaires to use tax-exempt organizations to get what they want, without paying the taxes that they should be.
Tripp Lite
The NYT headline is An Unusual $1.6 Billion Donation Bolsters Conservatives. Here are the facts as reported.
Tripp Lite is a private company valued at $1.65 billion.
The company is solely owned by Barre Seid.
Seid has given away all of his shares of Tripp Lite to Marble Freedom Trust.
Marble Freedom Trust is a 501[c](4) nonprofit organization founded May, 2020 and run by conservative activist Leonard Leo.
The purpose of Marble Freedom Trust is "to maintain and expand human freedom consistent with the values and ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States". This essentially means "support conservative causes".
The gift of the shares to Marble Freedom Trust is not taxable. No gift tax will be paid on the transfer valued at $1.65 billion.
Marble Freedom Trust, as the holder of 100% of Tripp Lite shares, authorized the sale of Tripp Lite to Eaton Corporation for $1.65 billion.
As a tax-exempt organization, Marble Freedom Trust will not pay income taxes on the sale of Tripp Lite to Eaton.
Patagonia
The NYT headline is Patagonia Founder Gives Away the Company. Here are the facts as reported:
Patagonia is a private company valued at $3 billion.
The company is solely owned by Yvon Chouinard and his family.
The company has two kinds of shares: voting shares (2% of all shares) and common shares (98% of all shares). Chouinard owns all of them.
The voting shares give Chouinard control of the company and all of the shares gives Chouinard rights to the earnings of the company.
Chouinard and family have given away all of their shares of the company in two transfers.
All of the voting shares have been given to a trust called the Patagonia Purpose Trust. The trust will have full control over the company and rights to 2% of the future earnings of the company.
All of the common shares have been given to a newly formed 501[c](4) nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective. Holdfast Collective will have the rights to 98% of the future earnings of the company.
The gift of the voting shares to Patagonia Purpose Trust is taxable. Roughly $17.5 million will be paid in gift taxes on shares valued at $60 million.
The gift of the common shares to Holdfast Collective is not taxable. No gift tax will be paid on the transfer valued at $2.94 billion.
The purpose of Patagonia Purpose Trust is to oversee the running of the company. By holding the voting shares, the Trust will control the business operations of Patagonia and ensure that they are carried out according to the vision of Chouinard.
The purpose of Holdfast Collective is to use its funds to combat climate change.
Holdfast Collective will pay no income tax on its future earnings from Patagonia.
Cool, they sound similar but so what?
The point of this comparison is not to say that the donation to fight climate change is just as bad as the donation to support conservative values. Personally, I am 1000% on board with donating to fight climate change and I acknowledge that Chouinard's intentions could very well be pure and noble. The point here is to present the idea that in the hands of billionaires, these 501[c](4)s are problematic and we may want to think twice before simply celebrating our team getting a win. To do that we first need better understand what a 501[c](4) is.
What's a 501[c](4)?
A 501[c](4) is a tax-exempt designation from the IRS for a social welfare organization. As a tax-exempt entity it enjoys the benefit of not paying tax on any of the money it receives, however it differs from other charities in that donations to it are not tax-deductible. This is why in reading about Chouinard you would have seen the claim that no tax benefit was received from their donation, like in the NYT article here:
I find this characterization misleading, for reasons that I will get to in a moment, but the statement is technically true. You can't take a deduction for donations to a 501[c](4) on your tax return.
In order to be a 501[c](4), the organization "must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare." This designation was originally meant to apply to civic organizations and neighborhood associations and it still does, but it has evolved to become something more political. As the designation provides quite a bit of flexibility, depending on your beliefs on what will promote social welfare, more money has been moving in this direction, especially now with these two very big donations being made in the past month.
Where other charities have limited ability to get involved with politics, there is no such barrier for 501[c](4)s. A social welfare organization can lobby and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program an unlimited amount, support political candidates, and inform the public on controversial political subjects. The only threshold that they must meet is that their political advocacy can't directly be more than half of their spending. If 51% of their spending in a year is promoting social welfare then they are free to spend the remaining 49% on political advertising and influencing current political campaigns and elections.
So a 501[c](4) has an easy avenue to get involved in politics and spend a lot of money, but the organization is not operating for profit and doesn't give anyone a tax benefit for donating to it. A billionaire is still giving up their wealth when they donate, so they don't really have that income and therefore they aren't avoiding taxes, right? That's a decent argument, but let's step back for a minute and think about taxes in a big picture kinda way.
Why are taxes?
What is the point of money? In a basic sense, we use it to trade for things that we want. Sometimes what we want is clothing and food. Sometimes what we want are houses and cars. Sometimes what we want are vacations and experiences. Sometimes what we want are friends and influence. And sometimes what we want is for society to change or remain a certain way.
The rules in the United States say that when we get money we have to give some of it to the federal government (and sometimes state and local governments too). It's called an income tax and the government uses it to trade for the things that it wants, like managing the economy, defense, and public services (Note: these things it trades for are decided democratically by everybody in the country). How much we have to give up for the income tax depends on a lot of rules set out in the tax code (our tax code is very complicated, but that's a topic for another blog post), but we all have to participate if we live and earn in the United States. We can't trade the money we earn for the things we want without paying the income tax.
This is where we come to the tax issue. Chouinard and Barre both built companies that have grown significantly in value. That value is equal to a very large sum of money, but it isn't money, not yet. If these gentlemen sell their companies for money, that growth in value now counts as income and will be taxed. If they leave their companies for their family to inherit, the growth at the time of inheritance is subject to tax too. Once they sell they would pay their taxes and then they can spend their money on whatever it is that they want. But they didn't do that, instead they donated their company to a 501[c](4) of their own making.
Both billionaires were most certainly involved in the formation of their respective 501[c](4)s. They had a primary influence over the purpose of the organization, who runs it, and how it spends its money. They may not write the checks themselves, but as the billionaire who funded the organization with their donation, they are basically its Creator. They can have that organization spend money on the specific social welfare causes that they personally want, all without paying any taxes first. True, they can't use the money on houses and cars, but they already have those things covered. Barre Seid wants society to more reflect his conservative values, Chouinard wants it to reflect his progressive ones. Both of them will get to spend their wealth on influencing society and politics how they see fit without contributing first to the system that the rest of us participate in.
So is there a tax benefit to their moves? Yes. They were able to get more of their wealth to spend on things that they want because they didn't have to pay any taxes first. And in Chouinard's case, he didn't even have to give up control of his company. He and his family still hold all of Patagonia's voting shares in the Patagonia Purpose Trust and therefore control the future of the company. A true win-win for him.
Ok what do you suggest?
Both of these billionaire moves are very smart and perfectly legal. I would love to have been the accountant who pulled them off for my clients. The rules have been set up this way and it's smart to take advantage of that, but we can change the rules. After all, we have in the past to get where we are now.
Donating to a 501[c](4) is not inherently a bad thing, but when you have such outsized power and influence that a billionaire inherently does, it becomes problematic. Yvon Chouinard and Barre Seid are both very rich. They readily have the connections and the ability to form a tax-exempt legal entity that they can leverage to spend their wealth for them. The cause could be anything; if it's for a community's social welfare then they can splash the cash on advertising and educating us on how to think and vote for their cause.
It puts us in a position that we have to rely on these billionaires to behave responsibly and ethically with the advertising power that their social welfare organizations provide. We may feel good about the Holdfast Collective right now, but what if Yvon changes his mind about fossil fuels? Or decides nuclear is bad? What if more billionaires with whom you might not agree begin to form Holdfasts of their own? Most billionaires already think that they know the best ways to improve society and what's for our own good. Why do we have to rely on them having good values? How can we rely on them when they've decided they shouldn't have to contribute to the system where we all democratically decide how to spend the money on maintaining and improving the country?
The changes to the current rules I would make are twofold. We should move to reinstate more restrictions on the political activity that a 501[c](4) can engage in and we should limit the unrealized gains that can be donated to a 501[c](4) without triggering a gift tax. Creating more transparency in the nonprofit system and preventing powerful people from avoiding taxes, regardless of how noble their intentions may be; these should be goals that provide more confidence in the system for everyone. We could pre-emptively prevent the Zuckerbergs and Musks and Kochs and Gateses and all the rest from funding their own social welfare organizations with untaxed wealth in order to tell us how to think. Chouinard can still create his organization to fight climate change and we can all cheer him on for doing so. He would just need to pay taxes first.
One final point, if this discussion isn't at all persuasive and you still think Yvon Chouinard ensuring that his $3 billion growth in wealth in Patagonia will never be taxed is an acceptable outcome, then you can't really complain about conservative Barre Seid doing the same thing. You've picked your billionaire champion in the partisan culture war cage match, hopefully they stay on your side for the long haul.
What an eventful summer it has been, I'm not even sure what topics I should write about here. Elon Musk is trying to terminate his contract to purchase Twitter for $44 billion. Not gonna cover that; he's a silly rich man who thinks rules don't apply to him because 100 million people (and bots) follow his every posted thought. If that story interests you, I'd recommend finance blogger Matt Levine as a good source of analysis.
Monkeypox has been a story, but I think collectively we're all trying to ignore that pandemics are a thing to worry about anymore. The Daily did a good episode on how we bungled that one.
There is a water crisis in the United States. The cause is a combination of climate changes and human behavior, we are using water, and have been for years, in a completely unsustainable way. The resulting problems are bad...sometimes even apocalyptic. For 100 years the states sharing the Colorado river have been using an allocation system that grants right to the water that add up to more than 100% of the actual water in the river. In Utah, the Great Salt Lake is drying up too. You may be thinking, "Silly Billy, that's a salt lake, we don't drink out of that one." That's true, but we are using up its tributaries and the resulting dust pollution from the dried up lake is kind of poisonous to living things. Also, migratory birds rely on the brine shrimp in the lake; humans aren't the only living things in the ecosystem. Here's your further reading from the NYT on that story.
Maybe let's switch to some good news. The James Webb telescope was successfully deployed a million miles away and we got some incredible new images from the great expanse of space. This story is the one I'm the most excited about, but also the one I'm the least equipped to write about. In short, there is some much information we are going to learn about the universe that we didn't know before and that's very exciting!
Okay, getting more political now, the Search of Mar-a-Lago. The former president had his home searched for documents that he took with him from the White House. Trump has claimed that this is a political witch hunt and that he had a standing order to declassify all documents that he took to his residence while he was President. It's a tough place for Republicans to be; if you believe him then you have to ask if that's really a smart security policy for a President to have. Also, it requires some mental gymnastics considering the now ironic attacks he made on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election campaign. If you don't believe him (which I certainly don't) then he's a liar AND a security risk. It raises a lot of uncomfortable questions if you're a thoughtful Republican.
While Trump was dealing with that, Congress got busy passing the Inflation Reduction Act. This bill attempts to counter some of the inflation-contributing spending from the stimulus bills of the pandemic, while also investing money in infrastructure to curb the effects of climate change. It is projected to raise more in revenue than it spends on climate change. I really like that.
New corporate taxes, drug reform, and funding for the IRS are the main avenues for raising revenue. A few clients have asked me if the IRS getting more funding will mean more audits. Maybe, but I'm still in favor of it. A lot of IRS funding will simply go to upgrading their computer systems. Here's a very interesting thread on how archaic the current IRS processes are, upgrades as a result of this bill should make the IRS more responsive and taxpayer friendly. It will also encourage more taxpayers to be honest in paying their taxes, shouldn't we all want that?
And finally, we have Biden's executive order to cancel $10,000 of student debt for borrowers with income below $125k. I have mixed feelings about this one. It is good that the student loan payment suspension is ending. People have argued that this loan forgiveness will add to inflation. I think the suspension and the pandemic stimulus added more to inflation than this forgiveness will. Forgiveness does not solve the underlying problem, college costs have been rising too fast; this forgiveness just allows colleges to maintain their poor behaviors.
I am generally in favor of policies that add people to the middle class, giving them the financial security and safety to live their lives freely. One of the issues I had with PPP loans was that it primarily gave the money to people who were already financially secure. There were no income limitations, so wealthy business owners were able to get free money in the government's effort to provide confidence that the pandemic wouldn't tank the economy. Simply put, the student loan forgiveness is different in that it targets more people that are not financially secure yet and will make it easier for them to reach financial security.
Yes, there is a crisis that has developed in the US around college education and student loan forgiveness is only treating a symptom, not the crisis itself. However, the loan suspension during the pandemic created a situation that required some form of action by the government, and I think this order resolves that situation. Here is a great podcast discussing the situation a lot better than I can articulate it. Also, the whole thing may get blocked by the Supreme Court, so it might not matter?
Favorites:
Since my last post I've read two books: Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir and Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. Project Hail Mary was a very fun sci-fi romp through outer space. Same energy as the author's previous book, The Martian, I really enjoyed it. Sapiens is a very interesting book. A Brief History of Humankind, it spans the whole of human's history and discusses our breakthroughs and changes from the days of being hunter gatherers all the way to today. It was thought provoking and I highly recommend it to see a different perspective on who we were and how it affects who we are.
Movie: Bullet Train - Don't sleep on this movie. It is original and fun with a great soundtrack.
Series: Only Murders in the Building Season 2 - This is kind of a comfort show at this point.
YouTube: 10 Levels of Sleight of Hand - Daniel Roy. I just thought this was interesting.
YouTube: The Supreme Court Declares War On The Environment -Climate Town
As I mentioned in my December 2021 post, I am not planning to do these posts with any regularity from here on out, but I do think it's a good exercise for whenever I finish a book or have something to say. Also, I had a very busy tax season (over 250 tax returns this year) and it just wasn't feasible to force myself to write during that time.
But here we are with a heck of a lot of developments since December. While inflation, gas prices, and the looming specter of a recession feel like the big stories right now (not to even mention gun violence, the Jan 6th committee, and the Supreme Court); we can't forget that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is still the biggest threat to global stability. In fact, it's likely one of the biggest factors that has led to our current economic predicament. It can be hard to keep up with, war is depressing and the news is often bleak, but I encourage everyone to try. I've relied in part on the work of Fareed Zakaria who presents direct sources and information, to help keep me up-to-date, here's a link to his show in podcast form too.
It took me some time, but the latest book that I read was All the Light We Cannot See - by Anthony Doerr. It is a work of historical fiction that weaves together the stories of a blind French girl and a young German orphan boy who grow up in the shadow of World War II. It is a beautifully written story; some times grim and other times hopeful, but always thoughtful and poetic. The pace is slower, not what I'd call a breakneck page-turner, but the writing meanders through some beautiful scenery on the way to its final destination. Also, reading about Nazism, how it manifested and the senseless death and destruction it led to, always feels like a good exercise to me.
Favorites:
Movie: Everything Everywhere All at Once - Best original movie of the year.
Movie: Top Gun: Maverick - This movie is a true must-see blockbuster, real jets, real stunts, and surprisingly great story and characters.
Series: Stranger Things Season 4 - While this season may be the darkest and scariest yet, the production value has been incredible. Dear Billy might be one of the best episodes of any show I've seen in a while.
YouTube: The Carbon Offset Problem - by Wendover Productions
The next book I'm planning to read is Project Hail Mary - by Andy Weir, I'll let y'all know how it goes!
This month I read Think Again - by Adam Grant. Grant is an organizational psychologist and has a podcast that I really enjoy, Work Life, so I wanted to give his latest book a read. The book addresses the practice of rethinking and how important it can be to our growth and development. Too often we approach what we think and what we believe as a final destination, not as a continual process. We instead should periodically re-evaluate what we think based on new information and data, keeping ourselves open to hearing new evidence even if it doesn't agree with the opinion we currently hold. By practicing this, we can engage more openly and productively with people who may hold different beliefs than we do.
Questions we should ask ourselves about our opinions: What evidence do I have that supports this position? What evidence would affect my position or change my mind? What are the strongest arguments against what I think? We can't ask others to change their minds about something unless we have, in good faith, considered changing ours first. Being a good listener goes a long way too.
This book was a really thoughtful read, and I highly recommend it. In our current polarized climate it may be even more useful than ever.
In light of the theme of the book and also the time of year, I thought I would reflect on my writing project from the past year and evaluate some of my previous posts.
In Hindsight...
At the beginning of the year I challenged myself to read a book every month and do a blog post for each. I am happy to have succeeded. Writing does not come naturally to me, it takes a long time for me to figure out what I want to say and then how to say it. I don't remember why I decided to undertake this challenge, but I can say looking back on my writing for the year that I'm glad I did it. Reading what I originally wrote, my writing feels dry and wooden, and my content inconsistent in format and content. I have gaps and non sequiturs everywhere and I can't say that I improved at all, but I can see clearly that this is better than having written nothing at all.
Some of the big topics I wrote about:
- Our Failing Democracy: I'm fairly satisfied with my takes on this subject, although I could've explored more about the binary nature of our media system and how it affects political polarization. In recent news, January 6th commission is finding out new information that objectively doesn't look good. Virginia's governor race was won by a Republican who didn't embrace Donald Trump, but the GOP is still the party of DJT for now. Watch this space in 2022, it's definitely an area of concern, particularly around the Supreme Court rulings and the filibuster.
- Afghanistan: I still agree with what I wrote, although maybe I shouldn't have said anything because I have no knowledge or expertise about the the military or the country of Afghanistan.
- Abortion Laws: I made a lot of arguments on this topic in one post. I still feel that the Texas law is very bad for our democracy, and the recent news about a liberal California gun law taking the same bounty approach IS EQUALLY BAD. The area for re-thinking on this topic would be around when the constitutional rights of a fetus begin. I would need more evidence to convince me it shouldn't be at fetal viability, but I am open to the debate.
- Cryptocurrency: This space changes so quickly. While my previous writing feels rudimentary, I feel that my thinking is mostly on the right track for this topic. I still think crypto is a bubble. I still think NFTs are inherently a good concept for artists and creators. And I still think the "cult"-ure around crypto is manic and perverse.
- Climate Change: This topic depresses me. I've learned a lot from reading and its changed my opinions this year, but with this new knowledge comes feelings of being powerless and hopeless. I think that's why so many people are in some form of denial about warming; the change we can affect at an individual level is massively disproportionate to the effort. I'd like to learn more about nuclear power in 2022, and if it could be the right approach for updating our dirty power grids.
- Covid-19: I should have written more about vaccines. I have unvaccinated family members, it would've been a good exercise for me to write about my frustrations. Also, there should be more debate over whether vaccine mandates are constitutional. The same arguments about abortions and body autonomy might apply to vaccines; even if they are safe and effective can we legally require people to inject something into their body? The principle of body autonomy says no, but should the principle change when it's public health that is affected? If it was a zombie outbreak that we were vaccinating against, most people would agree with the mandate...I think.
Looking Forward...
I intend to continue reading. I may not strictly adhere to the month deadline for each book, but I think it is a good timeline on which to set my sights. Writing...we will see. This is a lot of work for a very small audience.
Goals for 2022:
Be a better listener - That includes asking better questions.
50 vegetarian days - I've never tried this and don't see myself giving up meat, but I'd like to be more conscious about what I consume.
Read thirteen books - That's one more than 2021.
Favorites:
Music: Forever Young - UNDRESSD, Ellie May
Movie: Spider-Man: No Way Home - What a freakin' year for Marvel, this movie is incredible.
Series: Arcane - The storytelling and worldbuilding in this anime were excellent, doesn't matter it's based on a video game I'll probably never play.
Podcast: The Bad Guys are Winning - Plain English
Honorable Mentions:
Video: How Cocaine Trafficking Actually Works - Insider
Video: New Year, New You - communitychannel
Series: The Witcher
Movie: Don't Look Up - Dark satire done very well.
Thank you so much for reading this, best of luck in the new year.
stormborns
andulkaphoto
izzy806
2087
dededos
jbbartram-illu
