|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 18, 2021 15:26:10 GMT -6
I don't mean to diminish medical errors. He's quoting the death toll during the lockdown period as evidence that the lockdown was unnecessary. It's like saying we didn't get pregnant while on birth control so the birth control was unnecessary. Well, I guess I don't read it that way. To each his own. Even with the "end the lockdown" hashtags I can see multiple meanings in there. Like perhaps he's saying the lockdowns are no longer justified, or perhaps no long necessary to the degree they're being instated. I haven't looked into anything he's said, or watched any videos, so maybe I'm wrong? But agree with it or not, it doesn't strike me as some huge logical fallacy. And we're not really certain to what the degree the lockdowns helped/hurt. It was a bit of both most likely. It'll take a while longer to analyze the data, control for all the variables and compare different countries/states methods. I see what you mean. The larger context is that he has been protesting the lockdown for a long time. He can't argue that the lockdown didn't work by asserting that the death toll was acceptably low during the lockdown. Keeping the death toll down was the point of the lockdown. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 18, 2021 20:39:15 GMT -6
seawell - Josh - you were right. That video you linked has been removed. You must be a prophet? Glad I got to see it first. One of my biggest takeaways from that video was the concept by all that were involved that dissenting views NEED TO BE HEARD for real science to take place. Evidently Youtube is the now the arbiter of how science will play out at this point... We're Fing doomed..... I'm not surprised unfortunately đ¤Śđťââď¸ |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 18, 2021 20:40:46 GMT -6
seawell - Josh - you were right. That video you linked has been removed. You must be a prophet? Glad I got to see it first. One of my biggest takeaways from that video was the concept by all that were involved that dissenting views NEED TO BE HEARD for real science to take place. Evidently Youtube is the now the arbiter of how science will play out at this point... We're Fing doomed..... I'm not surprised unfortunately đ¤Śđťââď¸ I wonder how much the guys that work for the tube get paid to censor PHD's, Doctors, Researchers and Scientists? Might be a good career choice. |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 18, 2021 21:15:00 GMT -6
I'm not surprised unfortunately đ¤Śđťââď¸ I wonder how much the guys that work for the tube get paid to censor PHD's, Doctors, Researchers and Scientists? Might be a good career choice. And the irony is the West, while pointing the finger at Chinaâs authoritarian regime and its use of censorship to silence and control its critics, is increasingly following the same authoritarian model in order to âpreserve social harmonyâ. (Read divide the population) |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 18, 2021 22:14:20 GMT -6
I wonder how much the guys that work for the tube get paid to censor PHD's, Doctors, Researchers and Scientists? Might be a good career choice. And the irony is the West, while pointing the finger at Chinaâs authoritarian regime and its use of censorship to silence and control its critics, is increasingly following the same authoritarian model in order to âpreserve social harmonyâ. (Read divide the population) Yup. The stranglehold that tech has on the western world right now is pretty scary.... |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 7:51:31 GMT -6
I'm not surprised unfortunately đ¤Śđťââď¸ I wonder how much the guys that work for the tube get paid to censor PHD's, Doctors, Researchers and Scientists? Might be a good career choice. Again, every time Weinstien is 'censored' his audience and income grow. His platform is enormous and it is built entirely on big tech. He was nobody until he was 'censored', and since then he has built a significant public presence based on the notion that he's just an earnest scientist trying to share helpful ideas and the powers that be (big tech, government, etc., etc.,) want him shut down. He was 'censored' and, lo and behold, his Patreon subscriber numbers blew up. He has half a million followers on Twitter. He bears no responsibility for spreading unproven theories based on incomplete and sometimes very misleading 'science'. His 'censored' video features a guest doctor who is also building an enormous platform via big tech. The doctor presents his ideas as being facts, implies the vaccines are unsafe, and says that the pandemic would be over if everyone listened to him (just like the vitamin guy). Yet, when you go to his site and read his fine print he says that the science is still developing, that his theories are unproven, and that people should follow the advice of their doctors and health authorities including vaccination. They are absolutely correct that there is a conflict of interest regarding for-profit healthcare. Of course big pharma will favor a product that has enormous profit potential over something that doesn't. Of course mega corps will use their influence to serve their own interests. That's exactly what happens when a society is centered around the idea that capitalism is the solution to everything. But don't mistake what's happening here. Weinstien personally benefits every time he is 'censored'.  |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 9:29:13 GMT -6
Censorship is censorship. I don't even know this Weinstein dude. But there are thousands who have been cancelled, and deplatformed because their view doesn't fit the current narrative. Censorship is still censorship. It doesn't matter who or what or where. If you're for it, great - just say so. Personally, that knife cuts two directions. There will be a point in time, that it cuts the other way..... Unacceptable to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 10:06:21 GMT -6
Censorship is censorship. I don't even know this Weinstein dude. But there are thousands who have been cancelled, and deplatformed because their view doesn't fit the current narrative. Censorship is still censorship. It doesn't matter who or what or where. If you're for it, great - just say so. Personally, that knife cuts two directions. There will be a point in time, that it cuts the other way..... Unacceptable to me. You know him now. That's the point I'm trying to make. If it weren't for the fact that he was 'censored' he might be just another unremarkable biology professor at a small university in the NW. Now we're discussing his views on a recording forum. If you're not familiar with him you may not be aware of the fact that there is a whole cottage industry of these guys. They appear on each others' shows, promote each others' work, stir up little controversies amongst themselves, go on book tours, debate each other in large venues around the world. Being 'censored' is like a right of passage for them...once they hit that button they gain a certain status, lots of attention, and a very comfortable income. This is not inhibited by big tech...big tech enables it. These people are not participating in the scientific process. They're media figures participating in the opinion industry and it helps their business immensely when stuff like this happens. You're very (rightly) critical of media, and you recognize that media is incentivized to fan the flames. Maybe you just aren't aware that Bret Weinstien makes his living as a media figure, not as a scientist. If you examine him through the media skeptic lens you'll see what I mean. Last, YouTube has every right to set rules and guidelines. Same as JK does here. If I pepper every RGO thread with my political views, eventually I'll be shown the door...does that mean I've been censored or de-platformed? |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 10:18:14 GMT -6
Censorship is censorship. I don't even know this Weinstein dude. But there are thousands who have been cancelled, and deplatformed because their view doesn't fit the current narrative. Censorship is still censorship. It doesn't matter who or what or where. If you're for it, great - just say so. Personally, that knife cuts two directions. There will be a point in time, that it cuts the other way..... Unacceptable to me. Last, YouTube has every right to set rules and guidelines. Should youtube apply those guidelines equally to both sides, or just censor one side? Come on Ehren, you know very well what is going on right now. If you want to simplify and distill it, one side of the country (point of view) is being censored, and the other side is being glorified. There are 10's of millions of people getting more pissed off every day. This is not heading a good direction. Our country has always thrived on dissenting opinion. And even if the views of those being censored is complete 100% BS, the precident this sets is horrific. As I mentioned, the power swings both directions, and there WILL be a day that censorship will wipe out the other side. Again, one of the best things about that video for me was the ethics discussion, and the agreement between all 3 that open and uncensored views and discussions are what progresses science. Not censorship. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 10:27:57 GMT -6
Censorship is censorship. I don't even know this Weinstein dude.  But there are thousands who have been cancelled, and deplatformed because their view doesn't fit the current narrative.  Censorship is still censorship.  It doesn't matter who or what or where. If you're for it, great - just say so. Personally, that knife cuts two directions. There will be a point in time, that it cuts the other way..... Unacceptable to me. You know him now. That's the point I'm trying to make. If it weren't for the fact that he was 'censored' he might be just another unremarkable biology professor at a small university in the NW. Now we're discussing his views on a recording forum.  If you're not familiar with him you may not be aware of the fact that there is a whole cottage industry of these guys. They appear on each others' shows, promote each others' work, stir up little controversies amongst themselves, go on book tours, debate each other in large venues around the world. Being 'censored' is like a right of passage for them...once they hit that button they gain a certain status, lots of attention, and a very comfortable income. This is not inhibited by big tech...big tech enables it. These people are not participating in the scientific process. They're media figures participating in the opinion industry and it helps their business immensely when stuff like this happens.  You're very (rightly) critical of media, and you recognize that media is incentivized to fan the flames. Maybe you just aren't aware that Bret Weinstien makes his living as a media figure, not as a scientist. If you examine him through the media skeptic lens you'll see what I mean. Last, YouTube has every right to set rules and guidelines. Same as JK does here. If I pepper every RGO thread with my political views, eventually I'll be shown the door...does that mean I've been censored or de-platformed?    The rules that JK sets are impartial. No politics. Not no left wing (or right wing) politics. No politics period. The rules that YouTube sets (and FB and Twitter etc) are ideologically based but passed off as objective measures of upholding the âtruthâ. The difference is important. If YouTube were to say, âhey, we only allow political views from xyzâ it would be much more honest and in some ways a less harmful form of censorship (although still bad). Add that to the fact that you simply cannot compare RGO to YouTube or other social media platforms. Theyâre not at all alike in their scope, reach, importance, influence, profits, use (or intended use), or power. RGO is like a book club that sets rules around which books, genres, authors weâre going to discuss. YouTube is like a public library, deciding which books the public gets to read and which ones should be thrown in the fire. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 10:34:32 GMT -6
Last, YouTube has every right to set rules and guidelines. Should youtube apply those guidelines equally to both sides, or just censor one side? Come on Ehren, you know very well what is going on right now. If you want to simplify and distill it, one side of the country (point of view) is being censored, and the other side is being glorified. There are 10's of millions of people getting more pissed off every day. This is not heading a good direction. Our country has always thrived on dissenting opinion. And even if the views of those being censored is complete 100% BS, the precident this sets is horrific. As I mentioned, the power swings both directions, and there WILL be a day that censorship will wipe out the other side. Again, one of the best things about that video for me was the ethics discussion, and the agreement between all 3 that open and uncensored views and discussions are what progresses science. Not censorship. YMMV. I'm fully aware that there is a narrative that one side is being censored. Did you know that performance stats are measured on all social media platforms? You may be surprised to hear that, often, the people who are claiming to be silenced are among the highest performing voices in all of social media. Here's what I mean:          |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 10:38:04 GMT -6
I don't really care who's performing most or what they have to say. Color it however you want, censorship is censorship. How do you get around that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 10:44:46 GMT -6
Should youtube apply those guidelines equally to both sides, or just censor one side?  Come on Ehren, you know very well what is going on right now.  If you want to simplify and distill it, one side of the country (point of view) is being censored, and the other side is being glorified.  There are 10's of millions of people getting more pissed off every day.  This is not heading a good direction.  Our country has always thrived on dissenting opinion. And even if the views of those being censored is complete 100% BS, the precident this sets is horrific.  As I mentioned, the power swings both directions, and there WILL be a day that censorship will wipe out the other side. Again, one of the best things about that video for me was the ethics discussion, and the agreement between all 3 that open and uncensored views and discussions are what progresses science.  Not censorship.  YMMV. I'm fully aware that there is a narrative that one side is being censored. Did you know that performance stats are measured on all social media platforms? You may be surprised to hear that, often, the people who are claiming to be silenced are among the highest performing voices in all of social media. Here's what I mean: View AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentI donât think I understand your argument. Are you saying censorship is being applied equally across the political spectrum? And that itâs a lie that itâs aimed at right wing views? Or that itâs ok to censor voices that already enjoy a huge following/social media presence? Or that censorship isnât harming society because of _____? Those are honest questions. I donât see how Ben Shapiro having top ten links has any bearing on the censorship debate, other than to show that some people thrive despite it. I mean I would hope that people are thriving despite the growing threat of censorship. Maybe itâs just me. Iâm interested to hear your thoughts though. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 19, 2021 10:58:36 GMT -6
I donât think I understand your argument. Are you saying censorship is being applied equally across the political spectrum? And that itâs a lie that itâs aimed at right wing views? Or that itâs ok to censor voices that already enjoy a huge following/social media presence? Or that censorship isnât harming society because of _____? Those are honest questions. I donât see how Ben Shapiro having top ten links has any bearing on the censorship debate, other than to show that some people thrive despite it. I mean I would hope that people are thriving despite the growing threat of censorship. Maybe itâs just me. Iâm interested to hear your thoughts though. I'm pretty centered politically, and really don't follow politics at all. That said, I've watched a handful of Ben Shapiro videos. He's an interesting and VERY watchable guy. Seems to really know and believe in his arguments. I've watched literally for that reason, nothing to do with any of his political views. I expect that if a guy like that is in the top 10, it's probably more because he's interesting rather than the politics. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 11:03:18 GMT -6
Just checked...5 of the top 10 performing podcasts are unabashedly conservative.
I'm saying that media personalities push the narrative that they are being censored, silenced, de platformed, and that it is demonstrably false.
The idea that big tech is limiting their voices is demonstrably false.
Bret Weinstien is NOT a conservative voice. He leans to the left. His video wasn't taken down because it was a conversation examining the profit motives and bio ethics of big pharma, it was removed because it was promoting unproven medical theories as facts. YouTube has decided that they don't want their platform to be used to spread unproven medical theories. Doesn't matter which side of the political fence they come from.
Meanwhile, Bret's views are being amplified and monetized now more than ever, 100% facilitated by big tech.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 11:37:27 GMT -6
His video wasn't taken down because it was a conversation examining the profit motives and bio ethics of big pharma, it was removed because it was promoting unproven medical theories as facts. Pro Vaccine video's abound. Those are all unproven medical theory at this point, until (probably) years pass and we have the actual facts in hand. Censorship or no censorship - you choose. Don't dance around distractions. I choose no censorship. The only way we get to the bottom of the truth about how the vaccines will work - or not - in humanity is active and dissenting collaboration between contrary viewpoints. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 19, 2021 12:06:56 GMT -6
Im against government censorship. I donât know what you do about private platforms choosing to censor.
I agree that YouTube is qualitatively different than RGO. But we donât have a legal or social category for it yet. So in the meantime, yeah, if they want to remove a video for violating their terms of service, itâs up to them. Whatâs the alternative?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 12:23:21 GMT -6
Just checked...5 of the top 10 performing podcasts are unabashedly conservative. I'm saying that media personalities push the narrative that they are being censored, silenced, de platformed, and that it is demonstrably false. The idea that big tech is limiting their voices is demonstrably false. Bret Weinstien is NOT a conservative voice. He leans to the left. His video wasn't taken down because it was a conversation examining the profit motives and bio ethics of big pharma, it was removed because it was promoting unproven medical theories as facts. YouTube has decided that they don't want their platform to be used to spread unproven medical theories. Doesn't matter which side of the political fence they come from. Meanwhile, Bret's views are being amplified and monetized now more than ever, 100% facilitated by big tech. I get what youâre saying. And agree that itâs not exclusively an issue with the Right. Lots of center and left voices have been censored as well. My point is more that there are ideas that fit the current narrative and ideas that donât. The ones that donât fit the narrative, and get censored, tend to be promoting ideas that are âdeemedâ conservative while the ideas that are promoted are often deemed liberal. Really itâs a false dichotomy. Itâs a lot of finger pointing really. Is the Lab Leak Theory a liberal or conservative idea? Really itâs neither. But in today polarized society itâs been pushed by many as a conservative conspiracy theory. Now thatâs a whole other tangent we donât have to go down. But regardless I personally feel that the censorship that is now commonplace is bad for us all. You say that YouTube doesnât want to spread unproven medical theories that are presented as true. Well imagine a world where we werenât allowed to discuss unproven theories. Science would come to screeching halt. The discussion of unproven theories is vital to the scientific method, not to mention public discourse/policy etc. All theories start as unproven. Removing them because they donât fit a narrative is harmful to everybody, including the people pushing the mainstream narrative to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 12:23:57 GMT -6
His video wasn't taken down because it was a conversation examining the profit motives and bio ethics of big pharma, it was removed because it was promoting unproven medical theories as facts. Pro Vaccine video's abound. Those are all unproven medical theory at this point, until (probably) years pass and we have the actual facts in hand. Censorship or no censorship - you choose. Don't dance around distractions. I choose no censorship. I see what you mean but I disagree with your conclusions. The vaccine science is sound and well understood. The tech has been in development for decades. The approved vaccines have been proven beyond any doubt to be extremely effective and safe for the vast majority of people. Those aspects are not theory. By whatever standards you might judge the vaccines, you also must judge alternative treatments. Ivermectin has not been proven to be effective. To my knowledge there are no long term studies indicating that ivermectin is safe for humans at the dosage/duration required to defeat the virus. Ivermectin is not harmless and has been tied to significant issues: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5929173/Meanwhile, some of the assertions made by Weinstien et al regarding spike proteins seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the tech, and scientists with greater direct experience have said that the spike protein danger theory is untrue. And, again, you can't make the case that voices are being silenced and just shrug off the demonstrable, undebatable fact that they are actually the most widely heard voices in all of social media. I'm surprised you're not swayed at all by these things. Doesn't it trigger alarm bells when a doctor tells us ivermectin is a miracle cure, doctors are dumb and uninformed, and vaccines are a massive threat out of one side of his mouth, and then says ivermectin is unproven and that we should follow our doctor's recommendations including vaccines out of the other? Doesn't it ring any bells to learn that these media figures are building enormous platforms, making tons of money, and spreading ideas far and wide on the backs of big tech, all the while claiming that they're being silenced by big tech? When someone repeatedly and unapologetically asserts something that is demonstrably false or speaks out of both sides of their mouth they fail my personal sniff test. When someone stands to gain significant status and money by being 'censored', I question their motives. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 12:27:35 GMT -6
Im against government censorship. I donât know what you do about private platforms choosing to censor. I agree that YouTube is qualitatively different than RGO. But we donât have a legal or social category for it yet. So in the meantime, yeah, if they want to remove a video for violating their terms of service, itâs up to them. Whatâs the alternative? I agree, whatâs to be done? Society doesnât know yet. This whole argument is connected at the hip to the argument over whether or not platforms like FB, YT etc are to be considered independent publishers, public utilities or xyz, etc etc. In wish I had answers. I donât. Society is changing faster than our ability to cope with it. The digital revolution had blamed everything much trickier to navigate ad there are very few people in power asking the tough ethical questions. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 19, 2021 12:29:47 GMT -6
The other point to note:
Scientific progress is not made on YouTube or Twitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 12:41:31 GMT -6
Just checked...5 of the top 10 performing podcasts are unabashedly conservative. I'm saying that media personalities push the narrative that they are being censored, silenced, de platformed, and that it is demonstrably false. The idea that big tech is limiting their voices is demonstrably false. Bret Weinstien is NOT a conservative voice. He leans to the left. His video wasn't taken down because it was a conversation examining the profit motives and bio ethics of big pharma, it was removed because it was promoting unproven medical theories as facts. YouTube has decided that they don't want their platform to be used to spread unproven medical theories. Doesn't matter which side of the political fence they come from. Meanwhile, Bret's views are being amplified and monetized now more than ever, 100% facilitated by big tech. I get what youâre saying. And agree that itâs not exclusively an issue with the Right. Lots of center and left voices have been censored as well. My point is more that there are ideas that fit the current narrative and ideas that donât. The ones that donât fit the narrative, and get censored, tend to be promoting ideas that are âdeemedâ conservative while the ideas that are promoted are often deemed liberal. Really itâs a false dichotomy. Itâs a lot of finger pointing really. Is the Lab Leak Theory a liberal or conservative idea? Really itâs neither. But in today polarized society itâs been pushed by many as a conservative conspiracy theory. Now thatâs a whole other tangent we donât have to go down. But regardless I personally feel that the censorship that is now commonplace is bad for us all. You say that YouTube doesnât want to spread unproven medical theories that are presented as true. Well imagine a world where we werenât allowed to discuss unproven theories. Science would come to screeching halt. The discussion of unproven theories is vital to the scientific method, not to mention public discourse/policy etc. All theories start as unproven. Removing them because they donât fit a narrative is harmful to everybody, including the people pushing the mainstream narrative to begin with. The fact is that we, as a society, haven't figured out how this new method of idea distribution should be monitored, if at all. Social media has been weaponized by other countries. Bad actors have used it to amplify false narratives on both sides of the political fence...for some reason they are more successful targeting the conservative side, but they have had some success on the liberal side and among non-political subsets of society. If, say, Russia wants to sow discord between the US and China, they can send out the bots to amplify something like the Wuhan lab theory among the ultra nationalist groups on social media. It burns like wildfire, and before you know it the Asian American community is being targeted and physically attacked and our political divisions are widened. If, say, some guy who has made a fortune selling vitamins as the cure for whatever the current illness happens to be, he can go around saying that vitamins will prevent covid and as soon as YouTube takes a video down his audience blows up and the cash rolls in. He WANTS to be 'censored'. It's extremely complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 19, 2021 13:00:08 GMT -6
Pro Vaccine video's abound.  Those are all unproven medical theory at this point, until (probably) years pass and we have the actual facts in hand.  Censorship or no censorship - you choose.  Don't dance around distractions.  I choose no censorship. I see what you mean but I disagree with your conclusions. The vaccine science is sound and well understood. The tech has been in development for decades. The approved vaccines have been proven beyond any doubt to be extremely effective and safe for the vast majority of people. Those aspects are not theory. By whatever standards you might judge the vaccines, you also must judge alternative treatments. Ivermectin has not been proven to be effective. To my knowledge there are no long term studies indicating that ivermectin is safe for humans at the dosage/duration required to defeat the virus. Ivermectin is not harmless and has been tied to significant issues: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5929173/Meanwhile, some of the assertions made by Weinstien et al regarding spike proteins seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the tech, and scientists with greater direct experience have said that the spike protein danger theory is untrue.  And, again, you can't make the case that voices are being silenced and just shrug off the demonstrable, undebatable fact that they are actually the most widely heard voices in all of social media.  I'm surprised you're not swayed at all by these things. Doesn't it trigger alarm bells when a doctor tells us ivermectin is a miracle cure, doctors are dumb and uninformed, and vaccines are a massive threat out of one side of his mouth, and then says ivermectin is unproven and that we should follow our doctor's recommendations including vaccines out of the other? Doesn't it ring any bells to learn that these media figures are building enormous platforms, making tons of money, and spreading ideas far and wide on the backs of big tech, all the while claiming that they're being silenced by big tech? When someone repeatedly and unapologetically asserts something that is demonstrably false or speaks out of both sides of their mouth they fail my personal sniff test. When someone stands to gain significant status and money by being 'censored', I question their motives. The actual guy that invented mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone was the one on the left in that video. I donât think a misunderstanding of the tech was an issue at all. The long term effects of mRNA vaccines in humans are not known and wonât be known for quite some time. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 19, 2021 13:03:27 GMT -6
The other point to note: Scientific progress is not made on YouTube or Twitter. I get what youâre saying here but keep in mind that many of these guys have petitioned the governing medical bodies for months now and have also testified before Congress. They only started popping up on YouTube when they felt like they werenât being listened to and they felt a responsibility to get certain information out. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 13:08:16 GMT -6
The other point to note: Scientific progress is not made on YouTube or Twitter. Valid point but I think you're missing something. In today's cancel culture there are doctors, scientists and researchers of all kinds that are afraid of speaking their minds because of the repercussions that come from social media. YouTube and Twitter can easily destroy a career, a reputation, a life etc. And that's regardless of what field your in. |
|
