| ▲ | eugenekolo 5 hours ago |
| Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. It's definitely become a game of just spam claude for answers with zero understanding or care for how anything actually works. That's fine to get things done and fine for a lot of side projects, but it definitely ruins the joy that people have in understanding systems and working with intellectuals. |
|
| ▲ | aeonflux 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. Same thing did happen to many work places. People at all levels proxy questions through LLMs and don't even bother to read/trim/edit the response. Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill. |
| |
| ▲ | misterderpie 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wasn't there an article here, or was it under another HN post as a comment? Someone pointed out that the before the dawn of LLMs, "bad contributors" had a rate limiter of sorts. Now anyone can prompt their LLM and throw their output at you, shifting the burden entirely on the reviewer at highest possible speed. | | |
| ▲ | derpyzza 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49474143 | |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's so much worse than just that. Because they will also decide on how problem should be solved by prompting LLM and ask you to argument doing it any other way vs the LLM slop they pasted | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It which point you reject the PR and suggest them to maintain a fork themselves. | | |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'd say don't bother suggesting anything. Not as a rule for all prs you want to reject, but any time it seems to be no-effort pure ai. Both to waste as little of your own time and effort as possible, but also to to help make this activity not rewarding. I wouldn't worry about false positives and being unfair. This is self defense and also community defense. Anyone legit will manage to get your attention. You'd be filtering not on any specific detail or rule but on simply "care". If a legit person fails to convince you that they are a human that cares, then that's just an unfortunate industrial accident. It's unfortunate but trying to do anything about it is worse. Besides, any actual adult understands that if they can't prove their age right now, then they can't buy a drink right now, even though they normally have that right, and is never the one trying to cry about the travesty of justice at being denied. If I submit a pr that fails your ai sniff test, I get it and don't think you're abusing me. I can try harder and we can be friends later no problem at all. |
| |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Quasi-sealioning. https://www.google.com/search?q=sealioning |
|
| |
| ▲ | stroebs 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Just this morning I had a senior manager say to me "I was trying to do someone else's job and give them all the info so they can review it as I have no knowledge" in response to me asking for them to please filter the Claude word salad using the meat proxy. I'm pretty tired of having to do the job of filtering the low-effort copy-paste walls of text | | |
| ▲ | glaslong 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Similar to sending a "Let Me Google That For You" except somehow because it was an LLM not Google, they've forgotten it's more insulting than helpful, and aren't even in on the joke they themselves are making. | | |
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean I can't speak for everyone but in my mind, sending lmgtfy was not only always insulting, it was meant to be. It's saying "I know you have access to the tools you need to answer this question, why are you asking me, and here's some instructions on how you use this tool in the future so you don't need to be asking me foolish questions." And while I generally believe we should be pro-social in our communications both with each other as software engineers and with others who don't know what we know, I think it's also fair game to point out that the thing being asked of you is commonly available knowledge. Google may suck as my sibling comment points out, and I agree, but filtering good info from info dumps, be that Claude or Google search, is a life skill that's more critical now than ever. And if you work in tech, really at any level, you know how to do that. | |
| ▲ | shevy-java 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well - the "let me google that for you" nowadays barely works, because google ruined the search engine. The search engine sucks now - and by default the first results are AI slop summaries that are IMO worthless. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | whstl 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I saw a product manager that used to do that, just ask developers to verify the Claude hallucination and placeholder numbers. He got fired quite quickly after his boss realized it was all bullshit. | | |
| ▲ | torginus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I knew a manager that tried the exact same but in the GPT4 era :D He also got fired/left but as satisfying it would be to say that this was the cause of his demise I can't prove that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lultimouomo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill. Wasn't it always? | | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree, anecdotally I've always noticed a huge amount of my peers lacked professional communication skills even pre-LLMs. A lot of people get this idea that "more verbosity = better" instead of optimizing for conciseness and information-density. I largely blame minimum word-count essays from school assignments. | | |
| ▲ | finaard 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Verbosity can be fine, but you'd want a simple enough text, with the verbosity separated. I still write emails with footnotes, and thanks to UTF-8 I now have all the numbers available. Amusingly enough the advent of HTML-emails didn't produce any better formatted mails, despite the extra formatting options, than what you can do with a plain text email supported by a proper text editor. | |
| ▲ | Arubis 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Verbosity is, among other things, a cover-your-ass move. Stating something simply requires cutting details that might matter sometimes. If your counterparty or experience has made this painful, you'll likely write more. | |
| ▲ | hluska 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would you like me to edit this mess for you? You’re way too verbose.. |
| |
| ▲ | inanutshellus 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "As brevity is the soul of wit, I shall be brief. [then bloviates on and on.]" ~Polonius | | |
| ▲ | WD-42 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’d have written a shorter comment, but I didn’t have the time. | | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the essence of it, I suppose. Cheap walls of text. Edit: although another quote comes to mind- "Quantity has a quality of its own." |
|
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Was also a power signal, often demonstrated by execs who send three or four word replies to everything, often also in lower case with no punctuation. | | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Depends. A lot of the 1-2 sentence rapid responders from my past jobs weren’t really understanding the problem. They were virtue signaling that they were confident, fast to respond, and understood immediately (without elaborating) It’s easy to send a pithy response that suggests experience and understanding without having either. Think of a middle manager spouting pithy buzzword laden cliches confidently in response to every request, then transferring the real problem to the grumbling employees who have to solve the actual hard parts of the problem which lie in the nuance. | | |
| ▲ | senderista 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a core problem of short-form social media (including HN): it’s easy to signal understanding or expertise without having to demonstrate it. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | devin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think a lot of workplaces would do well to ban LLM-based replies in certain spaces. | | |
| ▲ | kjs3 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | While I don't disagree with you, they shouldn't have to. This should be one of those things like covering your mouth when you cough in a crowd and not playing loud music in your cube that people with basic social skills should know not to do. Unfortunately, like much basic courtesy, we apparently now have to make rules. | | |
| ▲ | devin an hour ago | parent [-] | | I agree, but it seems that some people actually need to be told that copy/pasting a bunch of LLM slop into chat is like farting on an elevator. I wouldn't even say that it comes down to "social skills" in a lot of cases, it's just people who seem to be performatively using AI. I'd classify them as corporate climber "yes, boss" types more than lacking in social skills. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Arubis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This was already true (as sibling comments note) but it's _way_ sharper now. Even if you use an LLM to research or answer a question, editing it down for other people takes effort, and doing it well demonstrates understanding. | |
| ▲ | javcasas 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Meat proxies. Artificially intelligent. | |
| ▲ | mathisfun123 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Funny, how suddenly a tight, 1-2 sentence response on point is a sign of skill. Communicating well has always been a sign of skill. Talking to most devs was like pulling teeth even before LLMs. | |
| ▲ | eithed 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's why I tell my Claude to keep its responses short :V | | |
|
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In my hobby groups there has always been a second, smaller, more intimate invite-only space for people doing the deep work. It’s the only way to do the work in the age of 1000-member Discords where important conversations get lost in the scroll back instantly. The experience in these spaces is largely the same. LLMs can be used there, too, but when the experts are using them with experience to back it up the results are a lot better. The people who are really struggling in my few hobby groups (not PS5) are those who enjoyed some social status from their knowledge. They were heros and people sought them out and revered their work in 2023. LLMs came along and partially leveled the playing field. When a determined kid with a Deepseek subscription can produce a sloppy version of what took you years to find, that sense of being a heroic figure at the next level is gone. I think this reveals another wrinkle, which is that the status hierarchy wasn’t that solid or worthwhile anyway. Outside of a few vocal people trying to enforce the status hierarchy, most people don’t care who releases their jailbreak or PS5 exploit. They just want it. Whoever gets it to them first becomes the new king. This PS5 incident has some strange element where supposedly keeping the reveal secret for 2 more weeks would have changed something with the GTA6 release. There were also 3 people who found the same exploit independent and some large amount of money on the line for the first of them to report it. The person who reported it signed off to spend time with his dying mother, so can’t really fault them for doing the thing they earned according to the rules of the program. |
| |
| ▲ | BrtByte 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The status thing is probably part of it, but I'm not sure "a kid with Deepseek can make a sloppy version" actually shows that the old hierarchy was meaningless. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I meant that it was a slight illusion. These hierarchies can flip overnight when someone new enters the scene and delivers the thing the community wants. An old guard always tries to enforce an ordering of respect based on seniority and who they think has earned it the most. Outside of a terminally online circle of Discord users few people care. They only want the thing so they can use it. LLMs are a big disruption because now because effort and results have never been more uncoupled. When a kid with an LLM can do a sloppy but good enough version of the work in 1/100th of the time with 1/100th of the experience, the social hierarchy only matters to people who value it above the outcome itself. |
| |
| ▲ | 4bpp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You don't have to want to give the policeman status: once he pulls you over after running a red light at 2am and you realise he might let you off the hook if you are nice and deferential, the status gradient almost establishes itself. People knew this, and decided to become policemen for the status. So it was with tech wizards, once you encountered a problem you could not solve without their help. | |
| ▲ | ndiddy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This PS5 incident has some strange element where supposedly keeping the reveal secret for 2 more weeks would have changed something with the GTA6 release. Well it's that GTA 6 comes out in mid-November, so he wanted to wait until then to release the exploit so people could legally run GTA 6 on their hacked PS5s. Disclosing the exploit before the release means that they'll patch it before GTA 6 comes out so this is no longer an option. I think this is unrelated because it happened after theflow0's statement, but Sony just released a major PS5 update that significantly increases the PS5's security ahead of GTA 6's release. Apparently it's impossible to rip games now without a hypervisor exploit, and since the last one just got reported to Sony this means that even people with hacked PS5s on old firmwares won't be able to pirate GTA 6 because nobody will be able to rip it. https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5_Jailbreak/comments/1wi0gpx/its_... | |
| ▲ | hypfer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Outside of a few vocal people trying to enforce the status hierarchy, most people don’t care who releases their jailbreak or PS5 exploit. They just want it. Whoever gets it to them first becomes the new king. "Commodification" might be a relevant word here. You can fight that by "building a personal brand", but then you're suddenly brand building instead of hacking, and hacking was what you actually wanted to do. I guess it works best if you're not in it for clout but because you want something to exist. But even then it is difficult. > There were also 3 people who found the same exploit independent and some large amount of money on the line for the first of them to report it. Ah yes, game theory. Oof. |
|
|
| ▲ | hypfer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people It is insane just how miserable the experience of FOSS hardware hacking in public is. The expectation does not even the slightest match reality.
You'd think "ah yes many eyes meaning all bugs get shallow", but instead you get worst of XDA-Developers and toxic wastelands where no sane person even answers anymore. But this predates LLMs and was as miserable as it is now before as well. In fact, I might even argue that LLMs made this _better_, because you can now avoid the "opening up in hopes of finding 1 helpful person below 99 annoying ones" through simple GPU compute. Previously, you had to hope that through this self-inflicted horror, you'd find an expert that can augment you. Now that expert rests on huggingface. It's still.. not perfect, of course. But it might be less miserable - provided that you adapt to the current state of things and stop with the "trawling for volunteers". __ Of course, this does not help you against "skids let claude find bugs that you'd need and burn it for no reason" as per the twitter thread, but I wouldn't rule out that they would not have done that, if less information was public. And.. that too was an issue before LLMs. Information wants to be free, but so does your cat, and your cat gets run over by some crackhead in a 30 year old rusty pickup if you just put it outside without thinking. So don't let it go out unattended. That said, this "pep talk" is more directed at myself than at poor Andy.
This must all suck big time. |
| |
| ▲ | concinds 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's the oldest unsolved problem of the internet: how to attract high-value people and keep out low-value contributors. | |
| ▲ | casey2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't the problem just that open source, by it's very nature, is low quality since it comes from the unix-like ecosystem where everything is built atop everything else. So inevitably when the skid comes to you with a bug you can say "ah that's a bug in a specific build of your shell with these environment variables, myyyy code is clean as a whistle, minimal, and follows best practices" (if we ignore that in practice it depends on a billion different programs versions all of which are incorrect) Complaining about the inevitable toxic noise when the same boneheaded development decisions are made over and over like everyone has gone insane. You don't have to build a death trap on the land your cat and children roam. | | |
| ▲ | hypfer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, yes indeed. Just like humans by their very nature are low quality, since they come from the biology ecosystem, where everything is built atop everything else. Filthy carbon-based mammals. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | generalizations 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Projects like this probably need a dedicated noob-fork where 'anything goes', so the noobs feel like they're contributing but where their blast radius is contained. And once in a blue moon something good comes out of it back to the real project. |
| |
| ▲ | sc68cal 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | With how verbose LLMs are and how much code churn they generate, it will be very difficult to extract anything and apply it back upstream | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The fence around the sandbox is the important part. Cherrypicking the occasional winner is just a side benefit. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | BrtByte 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For a hobby community, getting to the answer isn't necessarily the main value |
|
| ▲ | tristor 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Hobby groups projects like this are less fun for a lot of people who used to enjoy interacting with smart people. This is definitely the case for me. Before AI tools became mainstream, it was already a difficult proposition to find other smart people who you could get along with and talk to, do something interesting together. The Internet made all the difference in my life because I was able to get outside my geographic region to do big things through open source and hacker communities. Now, that very important filter mechanism no longer works. It's Eternal September all over again. In a way, it's very much a domination of "ends" over "means" in the wider community that is being forced upon those who long focused on "means". For a lot of intelligent people, understanding something is /valuable on its own/, but for the wider world there is no value in simply knowing things, but what you do with that knowledge (or now that lack of knowledge). I even experienced this recently at DEFCON 34 where I saw other participants in some of the CTFs with me using AI tools and not really understanding what the tools were doing or what was happening, but just kind of bruteforcing/tokenmaxxing their way through. This isn't to say that those AI tools are fundamentally a bad thing to use in building open source software, security research, or even as a tool in a CTF, but that the "understanding" step needs to still be present or it destroys the fun in everything. I'm certainly not having as much fun with computers these days, even as I've invested a lot of effort myself in local LLMs and trying to understand the tools and understand how to apply them reasonably, I've found I prefer much more analog entertainments. Thankfully there's always photography and lockpicking to entertain me at the moment and provide a pathway to meet other interesting fellows. |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | vouaobrasil 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In general, society is experience a decoupling of fun from work. I can't say I enjoy every aspect of my job, but it's nice to enjoy some of it, and lots of people do find a lot of their job at least somewhat rewarding. People who hate their job of course like to come out of the woodwork and say no one should enjoy it, but isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people can enjoy their work? I used to enjoy teaching but I'd never get a teaching job now because of how AI is being used in that sector. Technophiles will say that we should embrace the future because its inevitable but how many good people quitting does it take before they realize that a vibe-coded future of fun isn't all there is to life? |
| |
| ▲ | vjvjvjvjghv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Us techies have taken the fun out of a lot of professions with the tools we are developing and selling. I guess it was only a matter of time until we killed the fun in our profession. | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > but isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people can enjoy their work? That’s an interesting question. I thought about it for a minute and was surprised that I came to the conclusion that the answer isn’t obviously “yes”. An analogous question is “isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people are rich?”, and I think that question should make it clearer to many people why that is so. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > An analogous question is “isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people are rich?” There’s a crucial difference between the two questions. “Rich” is a relative term: If everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be rich, you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich). But someone enjoying their work has no bearing on someone else’s enjoyment of theirs. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich). The fact that so many people believe this is what bums me out. You need to understand something: the people who want you to think this way do not have your best interests in mind, any more than the rabid right-wing Trumpers do. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You completely misunderstood the point. In no way do I mean that someone has to suffer for someone else to thrive. We could (and should) all thrive and have our needs met. I’m just saying the term is relative, like “tall” and “short”. If we were all the same height, no one would be tall or short, we’d just be. If we all had the same amount of money, no one would be rich or poor. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | An economy isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth doesn't just pop into existence when someone in the government clicks a button on a screen. Money is created that way, but wealth isn't. It has to be created by creating something that someone else values enough to pay for willingly. No one has to lose anything, in the sense that no one has to give up more than they think the product or service is worth to them. In your example, it's possible for everyone to grow taller. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No one has to lose anything For the third time, that is not the argument. Read what I wrote and try to steal man a bit. Get your preconceived argument out of your head and understand we are in agreement. The difference between wealth and money isn’t in question, that is something you just added to the argument and decided with zero basis that I disagree. The fact that so many people jump to conclusions and immediately dunk on others who agree with them is what bums me out. What a waste of a conversation. Why are you spending time criticising those who support the same points? | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What a waste of a conversation. Why are you spending time criticising those who support the same points? All I know is what you wrote, sorry. Same shit we could all read on Reddit: "If everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be rich, you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich)." If you frequently find yourself misunderstood in this way, work on expressing yourself more clearly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | grey-area 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is not fine. |
|
| ▲ | GuinansEyebrows 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| completely different world, but i've seen this happen in music spaces as well. the idea of gatekeeping is often seen as elitist or exclusionary (fairly enough in many cases) but i think this can be an exaggerated description of a culture that necessarily requires a standard of... let's say, desire to engage with material on a sufficiently deep level. many things can be for anybody, but they are not for everybody. in the past i've seen the phenomenon of "opening up" subcultures or previously-niche intellectual/art fields described as democratization but i think that ignores a big part of what causes this, which can more accurately be described as commodification. access to difficult things was formerly measured by one's ability to expend effort in order to get there (ignoring, for now, the structural conditions that set one up for success in that effort). when these things are commodified, these efforts and identities become products to purchase, the right to which is nearly never limited; in fact, it's almost seen as evil to imply that they should not be available to any individual at any time that individual may desire access. i know we all have to start somewhere, but there has always been some historical filtration that leads people who are not truly engaged with a subject on a deep level to disengage at some point. that's changing at a novel rate and scale across so many subcultures. it seems like a lot of us are just surprised at how many people even want access to what were once our sanctuaries and we're not capable of grappling with what it takes to adapt to these changes. i don't think this will pass or that things will return to "the way they were" but there will always be pockets that resemble previous subcultural forms. we just have to re-learn how to identify them with a keener eye and how to better avoid or more-appropriately interact with those who have a more superficial interest in them. |
| |
| ▲ | kanzure 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | While you might have access to the subculture, there is no obligation for anyone else to respond, collaborate or engage with random you. This is a common mistaken understanding about open-source software projects where users often believe they have "rights" to compel or coerce volunteer developers to listen or reply to them. Developers collaborating together isn't a conspiracy, it's just preferences getting played out. No, I don't want to collaborate with someone that I don't like.... duh? It gets bad when the subculture inhabitants get confused and adopt the social norms of the passer bys instead of remembering the importance of well-kept gardens. And then they start to introduce "policy".. which is just a backdoor for attackers to destroy your well-kept garden by arguing policy (as if that was what the subculture was about!). | | |
| ▲ | GuinansEyebrows 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > While you might have access to the subculture, there is no obligation for anyone else to respond, collaborate or engage with random you. true, but i think there's historically often been good-faith efforts to engage with newcomers in any field that requires intellectual or artistic curiosity or experimentation. what we're seeing played out is that this default good nature ignores the risk involved in growing a small garden beyond one's own property. there is a change in meta-social requirements at scale. the extremes of this are super apparent in FOSS - one side of this being death-by-committee and overgovernance at the expense of the original project (requiring a support organization that outgrows the actual "work", for example, look at how many HNers view unions or internal policy committees), and the other side a harsh rejection of newcomers or calcification against new ideas at the expense of the long-term viability of a project. these issues can be imperceptible or not important in smaller projects. but they're not limited to FOSS. i think these are probably fairly well-studied ideas in any form of organizations - business, social groups, churches, non-profits, unions, etc. i don't really know where to start to learn more about this or what the right approaches are (and i suspect they're often pretty unique to the group in question). i don't have an answer but i'm really interested in the huge grey area between fully-gatekept cultures and fully-open ones. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | thesuitonym 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This space is where AI usage is most confounding to me. Regardless of your stance on AI, this work does not need to be done. So if you don't enjoy it enough to actually do it, why are you even here? If you do enjoy the work, why are you letting the AI do your hobby? Don't you miss it? |
| |
| ▲ | orangedog 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Some people get value out of finding results not the actual work. It is still work, just different kind of work. | |
| ▲ | suburban_strike 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Power. It's people jockeying for power over groups. It doesn't matter if you have no interest in <autistic specialty>, the point is that you can force a bunch of nerds to bend to your will. |
|