Tag Archives: science

Huh? Wha? Duh!

I was a little baffled today. The article that I saw in Al Jazeera (at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/8/google-shares-tank-8-as-ai-chatbot-bard-flubs-answer-in-ad) had me. I saw the headline ‘Google shares tank 8% as AI chatbot Bard flubs answer in ad’. So I got to read and I saw “Shares of Google’s parent company lost more than $100bn after its Bard chatbot advertisement showed inaccurate information”, now there are a few issues here and one of them I mentioned before, but for the people of massively less intelligence, lets go over it again.

AI does not exist
Yes, it sounds funny but that is the short and sweet of it. AI does not exist. There is machine learning and there is deeper machine learning and these two are AWESOME, but they are merely an aspect of an actual AI. We have the theory of one element, which was discovered by a Dutch physicist, the Ypsilon particle. You see, we are still in the binary age and when the Ypsilon particle is applied to computer science it all changes. You see we are users of binary technology, zero and one. No and Yes, False and True and so on. The Ypsilon particle allows for a new technology. It will allow for No, Yes, Both and Neither. That is a very different kind of chocolate my friends. The second part we need and we are missing for now are shallow circuits. IBM has that technology and as far as I now they are the only ones with their quantum computer.  These two elements allow for an ACTUAL AI to become a reality. 

I found an image once that might give a better view, the image below is a collection of elements that an AI needs to have, do you think that this is the case? Now consider that the Ypsilon particle is not a reality yet and Quantum computers are inly in its infancy at present.

Then we get to the next part. Here we see “The tech giant posted a short GIF video of Bard in action via Twitter, describing the chatbot as a “launchpad for curiosity” that would help simplify complex topics, but it delivered an inaccurate answer that was spotted just hours before the launch event for Bard in Paris.” This is a different kind of candy. Before we get to any event we test and we test again and again and Google is no different, Google is not stupid, so what gives? Then we get the mother of all events “Google’s event came one day after Microsoft unveiled plans to integrate its rival AI chatbot ChatGPT into its Bing search engine and other products in a major challenge to Google, which for years has outpaced Microsoft in search and browser technology”, well apart from the small part that I intensely dislike Microsoft, these AI claims are set on massive amounts of data and Bing doesn’t have that, it lacks data and in some events it was merely copying other people’s data, which I dislike even further and to be honest, even if Bing comes with a blowjob by either Laura Vandervoort or Olivia Wilde. No way will I touch Bing, and beside that point, I do not trust Microsoft, no matter of ‘additions’ will rectify for that. It sounds a bit personal but Microsoft is done for and for them to chose ChatGPT is on them, but does not mean I will trust them, oh and the final part, there is no AI!

But it is about the error, what on earth was Google doing without thoroughly testing something? How did this get to some advertisement stage? At present Machine learning requires massive amounts of data and Google has it, Microsoft does not as far as I know, so the knee-jerk reaction is weird to say the least. So when we read “Bard is given the prompt, “What new discoveries from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) can I tell my nine-year-old about?” Bard responds with a number of answers, including one suggesting the JWST was used to take the very first pictures of a planet outside the Earth’s solar system, or exoplanets. This is inaccurate, as the first pictures of exoplanets were taken by the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in 2004, as confirmed by NASA” this is a data error, this is the consequence of people handing over data to a machine that is flawed (the data, not the machine). That is the flaw and that should have been tested for for a stage that lasts months. I can only guess how it happened here, but I can give you a nice example.

In 1992 I went for a job interview. During the interview I got a question on deviation, what I did not know that statistics had deviation. I came from a shipping world and in the Netherlands declination is called deviation. So I responded ‘deviation is the difference between true and magnetic north’, which for me was correct and the interviewer saw my answer as wrong, but the interviewer had the ability to extrapolate from my answer (as well as my resume) that I came from a shipping environment. I got that job in the end and I stayed there for well over 10 years. 

Anyway the article has me baffled to some degree. Google is better and more accurate all of the time, so this setting makes no sense to me. And as I read “A Google spokesperson told Reuters, “This highlights the importance of a rigorous testing process, something that we’re kicking off this week with our Trusted Tester programme.”” Yes, but it tends to be important to have rigorous testing processes in place BEFORE you have a public release. It tends to make matters better and in this case you do not lose $100,000,000,000 which is 2,000 times the amount I wanted for my solution to sell well over 50,000,000 stadia consoles for a solution no one had thought of, which is now solely the option for Amazon, go figure and Google cancelled the Stadia, go figure again.

The third bungle I expect to see in the near future is that they fired the wrong 12,000 people, but there is time for that news as well. Yes, Wednesday is a weird day this time around, but not to worry. I get to keep my sanity playing Hogwarts Legacy which is awesome in many ways. And that I did not have to test, it was seemingly properly tested before I got the game (I have not spotted any bugs after well over 20 hours of gameplay, optionally merely one glitch).


Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

It is the same coin

I got alerted to something via Twitter. It has two sides and a friend of mine had one side, as such I give you the tweet below. This of course made me look at the YouTube by Simon Pegg (the Hot Fuzz man). 

He was emotional and he has a point, but so does my friend. Optionally they do not realise that they are both a side of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. It is a flaw in those heralding science as the one solution, it never is. It merely becomes some Theranos creation, all science and too much of it debatable. You see my friend had the answer in her tweet. Alan Turing created something from nothing. A setting that is utterly impossible. He got there through an artsy side in him. Alan Turing created the foundations of computers and AI, both required an art element to get there. You see, even when we realise it was all science, his brain had to make some leap of faith and that requires art, science alone will not let you do that. He created these two and his foundation of AI is still used today, over half a century later, with all the elements of evolved science, his artsy side overcame what did not yet exist. It is one of the reasons that (even if I was not eligible), I would have voted for Brian Blessed to become Chancellor of Cambridge in 2011, but I was not eligible. It became Lord Sainsbury of Turville, my issue here is that science was taking too big a chunk of what was almost an even Steven setting. I personally believe that Science without art is pointless, art without science is useless. It is not completely true, but as an axiom it often works. Science without art cannot grow because science for the most relies on previous data and as such NEW technologies cannot evolve. Alan Turing created (for the most) the foundations of electronics. It required investigations into the electron as well, but when you see that Alan Turing created AI half a century before we had any partial foundation of that is optionally evidence enough. 

The other side needs to be illuminated as well. Simon Pegg did this (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHEpywFCtwA) in his own emotional way and he does have a point, but so did my friend. The artsy people tend to ignore that science is their friend. Take any movie, the lights are set up to maximise the effect, it is not art, that foundation is science, science created the camera and a lot of other parts. They use that technology and they use it well. But it supports art and that is forgotten. That being said that children need maths, but they need art too and the science pushers are all about ‘forgetting’ the art and that power. You see, if you have all science and no art, you end up creating Theranos minded creators. The ones that are convicted for fraud and end up well over 11 years in prison. Art might have prevented this (and created an actual solution). In that same setting it might be the flaw that created FTX and the $33,000,000,000 losses it ensued. 

I myself tend to grasp back to an old Market research credo. “The scientist, or mathematician will show you the course of best margins of profit, or best results. The presenter, or politician makes sure that you look forward to the attached invoice” it is a bit artsy but therefor not any less true. We need to realise that art and science are to sides of the same coin. Science made it circular and the artsy people gave it a nice image. We need another and there is one part we should all agree to, if Rishi Sunak wants to imbue a sense of science, he better be ready to imbue an equal measure of art in these people, because Simon Pegg is right about that part. Science without the art will have far reaching negative impacts. We need one another to see it, one shows us, one presents it and that has been the case from before that writer William Shakespeare became a reality. It goes back all the way to the outdoor Theatre of Dionysius where in 500BC Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus, and Aristophanes performed, but we forget that science created the stage for over 15,000 people to enjoy, that part was science, not art. And it was there centuries before Christianity became reality.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science


We see them, we are confronted with them, we embrace them and we reject them. Yet weirdly enough, for the most we never ignore them. You see the circle is its beginning and end anywhere on the circle. We have accepted this long before we started to set our faith to wedding rings. Yet in the last few days I have been thinking through the ring process. It matter not why it was done, yet that it was done is still important to some degree. As I was considering the stages of pipelines (sales tracks), life cycles (marketing tracks) and circular service level agreements, I suddenly realised (to coin a phrase)  that games and gaming is not set to such a track. It makes sense, and at the same time it does not. A game is like a painting there are no cycles, there is no repetition and weirdly enough I suddenly found a painting that represents my thoughts. The image below is a ring, a cycle. (Unfortunately, I have no idea who made the painting)

But we see a third dimension and optionally a fourth dimension as well. That dimension cannot be seen, but we feel it is there. I reckon that Hogwarts Legacy unleashed a little more than I bargained for. I think it started when I saw the movie Arrival (2016) with Jeremy Renner and Amy Adams. The language shown in the movie started something in me. Not about aliens, that was clear for decades. Do you think that people really look like Dennis Rodman, for real? (LOL). No It is not about the people, it was about the language we were shown. So when you get that we take a sidestep. You might have heard of chainmail, but do you know how the rings are made? 

So as we see the rings, we take another gander towards that alien language, but now we take a sidestep, consider that every sentiment is in a ring, but more than merely sentiment and language, it become aa stage of digital markers as well, like a polyphonic approach to language and sentiment, vocal intonation. You see, we think of games, we think of NPC characters, but the need for NPC characters to become less singular dimensional becomes increasingly important and there lies the rub, you see we think of today’s emotion whilst relying on recording and programming stages that are decades old and something will have to give. 

And even as it (for now) seems impossible and largely overplayed, do you really think that this is far fetched when the PS6 comes and whatever Microsoft (if they still exist) has? We need to be thinking not merely of the games that come out in 2022, we need to think about the games that need to be made with a release date of 2030. And should we come close to the station of some kind of true AI, what we now have does not even come close to what is required and using yesterdays solutions will not cut the butter. As such my mind went wondering on the sound of the voice. If we cannot tell what is truth now, what do you think will happen next year? The only way to beat this is to look at new and innovative ways to find a way to store and retrieve them. The blue painting help me realise that and even if that solution is for now out of reach, the idea that we limit ourselves today on what CAN be done will result in a tomorrow that never comes, but Microsoft will soon learn that lesson the hard way, 50% of that happening is merely 1-2 steps away at present. And suddenly some other parts come to mind, but that is for another day, but I can tell you that it involves a stick (for now).

1 Comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Science

The double check

This is at times essential, we need (at times) double check what we did. Not the double check before we speak (which tends to be essential), but after we spoke, we get the setting that we need to make certain that we had it right. There is no shame in getting it wrong, it is the non-adjusted view that follows that makes what we do (completely) wrong.

In this, I decided to take another look at ‘Cross here to die’ an article I wrote on December 11th (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/12/11/cross-here-to-die/), there I wrote “And there is more we get to see “a wave of infection is projected that could lead to a peak of more than 2,000 daily hospital admissions, with 175,000 hospital admissions and 24,700 deaths between 1 December this year and 30 April 2022.” And it is natural that these people hide behind ‘could lead to’, Yet the stage does not match. 175,000 admissions leading to 24,700, deaths. It goes against the numbers I have so far over a lot of nations and Omicron is stated (several sources) that it is a mild version that is more easily transmitted, yet not more deadly, so the numbers do not add up”, I stand by what I wrote, yet yesterday I was given “the UK has 78,610 new cases”, which is a massive jump from the 7-day moving average of 57,000 cases. Yet (for now) the non-living rate is still 115 per 7-day average, so my view holds up, to get to the trend of 161 deaths per 7 day average, a lot more people need to stop breathing. And in the setting of the 78,610 new cases (not specific Omicron), the setting needs to be a mortality rate of a lot (too tired to do the calculation), yet if the trend continues, the numbers shift, so there is a chance it might come to fruition, but we would need to see a continuing rise of new cases of 75,000 per day for close to a month, at which case hospitals will have collapsed and those in dire need can no longer be aided in any way. So at the current rate the mortality rate will have to increase by well over 50%, which is not logical, but with 30,000 new cases the stage might not be too unrealistic, although the original article gave us ‘Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April, say scientists’ requires the daily death rate to increase to 496 a day, up from 115 a day? That is a massive jump and that is why I questioned the numbers given to us. On the plus side, housing prices in London will drop dramatically, so there is always an upside to be found.

There is another side that I actually did not look at, the idea of “175,000 hospital admissions”, even over 5 months (Dec 1st – Apr 30th) that implies 1158 admissions a day, which is almost double of what is at present the case, And consider that the average length of stay in a hospital is 8-9 days for non ICU patients and 12-18 days when ICU is required. In that setting the numbers reveal that before the end of January all hospitals are beyond breaking point and no hospital in the UK will have any beds available with optional settings that London patients might have to be  be transferred to Wales, which is hilarious on a few levels. In the first their UK passport might be rejected, they will not speak the local language and after all the joke the people in Cardiff will not stomach people from England, at times life gives them a handle on humour.


The next is speculation and presumption. There are facts, but they were facts given to us based on what was, there is too much unknown with Omicron. 

Now consider the numbers given and the fact that the numbers are from decently reliable sources, but there is still a lot we do not know on Omicron. I still have massive doubts on the numbers given to us and there will not be any decent reliability until mid January. Yet the speed at which Omicron pushes forward and the amount of people who refuse to be vaccinated, and moreover the large amount of people who refuse to wear masks are now becoming danger factors in all this. 

When you consider the image, it might not mean much, but the percentages (seen elsewhere) are 90%, 70%, 5% and 1.5%. A stage where mandatory masks lower the dangers from up to 90% to 1.5% is a massive decrease and should not be ignored. Yes, you can decide to ignore it but when your family members start dying (become non-living) do not cry like a husky, or blame Medicare, NHS or whatever. You did this (too)! I still have doubts and question marks regarding the numbers given to us, but the stage of other elements were out in the open and even as Omicron is a mild version, if the spread continues as we saw yesterday there is every chance that the hospitals will collapse before February 2022 starts , so if you do not have a relative who is a medical trained person, feel free to reserve your urn or coffin, because this will get bad soon enough (I still doubt the fear mongering 50% increased dead people). Yet the numbers if continues will also mean that the mortality rate exploded because no more medical help was available. 

As far as I can tell there is no data model for me to predict that, too many unknown factors and before you start the blame game, if hospital staff does walk out, it is because of the stupid people attacking and blaming these exhausted medical people in the street (as we can see in loads of YouTube videos). 

I believe in the double check, I believe it was essential to do so and so far my views hold up, but they are under scrutiny of the explosion of cases that were not known when I wrote this and that is why I did the double check, in other news, there is also the ‘missed’ cases of reporting as ABC (Australia) gives us 14 hours ago ‘Omicron spread leads to UK record of 78,610 COVID-19 cases in single day’, yes the 78,610 is correct, but we have no idea HOW MANY of them are Omicron, there will be a decent amount of them (speculation) but in the end we do not know and until that is known there is a larger stage that comes to mind. If a person gets Alpha, Beta or Delta now. Is there a chance they might miss Omicron? This is an important question because it takes us back to 1796. Then English doctor Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had gotten cowpox were protected from smallpox. As such people got injected with the mild version (cowpox) to avoid and be protected from smallpox. (See https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html). The event was known to me (I had history in high school), but there could speculatively a case that a similar stage exists (I am not claiming it is). And scientists have made clear statements that previous covid infections may not protect against Omicron, which I tend to believe. You see, the other speculation is done on the premise of the past where was about a very different disease. So we need to be careful and rely on SCIENTISTS to give us the goods and it would really help if the media stops being a FEAR MONGER factor here. 

We have enough problems, it would be best for the media to remember that, because after whatever this was comes to a halt the people will (hopefully) DEMAND that some media outlets lose their 0% VAT rights (as they should not be regarded as newspapers). At that point we get editors crying like little Chihuahua’s that they have a right to expression, but expression and exploitation is not the same and Justice Leveson was clear bout that, was he not?

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

A plea for our future

This is a call to students, teachers and companies all over. It is to the group that work in the field of chemistry, environments and other areas. We need their help and we need it more desperately then even they can imagine.

The issue is Fukushima!

Yes, we all know issues happened, we know mistakes were made and we know that nature itself has had an impact on the events. Fukushima stands alone, but is not the only danger we face. Yes, there are al kinds of environmentalists cheering and partying on how the bad, evil and unneeded nuclear power solution is just not a solution. This is not about their inherent lack of insight. This is about finding a solution that works!

We need to find a way to diminish radiation and a way to clean up irradiated water. Yes, I get it, there are in some conditions options where we do not need to rely on nuclear power. Yet, consider that wind farming is not always an option. The London array consists of 175 huge windmills and they give less than 50% of an above average sized nuclear reactor. Yes, the Aswan Dam is Hydroelectricity gives of a lot more then that, yet many nations lack the options to get such a solution (it’s not like every nation has a waterfall or a Nile to dam in). So Nuclear power is here to stay (for now).

Why the plea? Japan is facing more and more hazardous events with the Fukushima power plant. The water around it seems to be getting irradiated and the radiation levels in the area are too high and in some places rising. A person would get killed there in less than 4 hours. We need to find new solutions!

Not just for them, or for this situation. We see the need for nuclear type solution in many more places. Until a better solution comes, we get to live with this risk. If someone stated, no we do not! Then that person must sign a voucher approving coal plants and accepting to live in smog. If it is abroad then your taxation in carbon tax will still be levied at $500-$750 per person on national scales and a power usage limit that is 20% lower than these persons have today. See the picture?

We either accept to live in smog like conditions forever, live without view or find something better. Until true fusion comes around Nuclear reaction is what we are faced with. Just so you know, even though true fusion will be cleaner on several levels, once an accident happens there, your goose is likely cooked on a massively larger scale then a nuclear reactor could achieve. If we believe the past, then we will have to face at least two fusion reactor accidents. This gives additional power to the need to find solutions for Fukushima. Whatever direction we take, we need to find alternative ways.

Can we suck away radiation?

I am not coming with answers here, but I learned many times over that nature is a mother, a taskmaster and a teacher. If depleted Ozone was reason for UV-radiation, is this not a lesson we could use in the opposite way? I do know that they are different forms of radiation, I just wonder if scientists took a good look at alternative approaches to the Fukushima disaster. If we have a leaky basement we need a sponge to suck the last water of the floor. If the current sponge does not do the job, we will need to invent one that does. I am not claiming that there is a simple solution; I am more worried that certain scientific quests have been neglected and forgotten about.

If we do not push ourselves forward then we can never be ready for the larger quest that will hit us around the corner. There are many industrialists who will counter this with their needy call on how the new innovation will also bring new solutions. There is a truth in there, but their answers are misguided and intentionally misdirected. Because cleaning up is not a profit, it is for those people a cost. A cost that is later pushed onto others anyway. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is clear evidence of that.

Fukushima operator Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) is struggling to deal with the vast – and growing – volume of water it has used to cool the broken reactors. Growing? So if that is the case, what would happen if we treat the core with liquid nitrogen or liquid oxygen? These users seem to go for the readily available options, what if we step away from that? What other options are there?

This is exactly the issue, when a solution does not work; some seem to use it longer, hoping that this will solve it. The initial quote as we read it in the South China Morning post “The world’s nuclear watchdog has urged Japan to explain more clearly what is happening at Fukushima and avoid sending ‘confusing messages’, the country’s atomic regulator revealed.”

If that is true, then the Japanese government should hereby be placed under a mandatory position to reveal the complete chain of communications. From the spokesperson to the one giving out the information, reveal the entire chain! If we are to solve anything then it is only with proper information. It could even be that people like Kazuhiko Shimokobe and Naomi Hirose might be removed from office. This is not about bowing and apologising, this is about solving the issues. Like any scientific endeavour, that will only ever work if complete and correct information is given out. I reckon that this is even more prudent when we look at the fact that this disaster, not unlike the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki could change the Japanese landscape for decades.

The world events are also in play. The dangers of a dirty bomb has not diminished, it has actually only increased. Now consider that in the late 70’s NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) wash streets were designed to deal with radiation and irradiated dirt on vehicles and on personnel. This was 40 years ago and since then no real forward steps have been made. In 40 years of innovation, no better solution was produced. Seems odd doesn’t it?

In an age where more energy is needed on a global scale, in places where those in charge just blunder forward and where profit is the bottom line, we need to find new solutions for questions not answered for decades. We need to find them now, before we irreparable poison the well we all eat and drink from.


Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Science

A problem from luxury

It is Saturday and again the news station NOS (www.nos.nl) brings an interesting piece. Going back to my youth, I would love to walk around the marinas. I would admire the boats and their shapes. Those owners, so proud, they had their ‘yacht’. Boating in the Netherlands had always been big, now almost 40 years later thousands of boats are there. Neglected and in poor condition. Those who bought metal boats can sell it as scrap and end up with a few coins; those who bought polyester now own boats that are in a state where they are floating environmental disasters. These boats will not degrade; they are there to remain a pox on the Dutch landscape and especially marina’s from where they have no place to go, the people are often gone, many in no financial position to fess up to their choices. So now we get the issue that a fund needs to be created to clean up the mess others made. Government funding that would be needed to clean up the mess of these owners who claimed (or once were) wealthy.

So what gives?

Well, the question becomes what to do next. This is not an area of expertise for me, to the next part could be a well-intended effort to find a solution that is just plain BS (for that my apologies).

I have done a little reading and see that in some cases plastic bottles are recycled into polyester the clothing industry uses. So, if that is the case and agreeing that this initially could cost the government something, is it not an idea to crunch a boat into smaller parts and then process it into something better? Even crunching it into flakes might make this marina based solution into a less useless obstruction.

If you think that this is not an issue, or a rich person’s issue, then think again. Even though due to the size of the Netherlands (a really small nation), this nation has well over 200 marina’s, making this more than just a small problem. But what is involved?

1. Disown these neglected boats. Not unlike a car when it is no longer road worthy, if a vessel is no longer water worthy in its current state, then the owner would need to receive a writ, stating that it is fixed within a certain time, or the owner will be disowned, yet not financially disowned, so whatever loans he has out there on the boat, they will remain. The owner will get a processing fee (it is not up to a government to foot the bill for environmental hazards) and what was formerly known as a boat will be removed.

2. How to process the boats? To be honest, that is the true issue. Burning is not an option because of the toxic fumes (which are also not that environmental friendly). A boat usually will be made of polyester (the bulk/hull), aluminium (mast), metal (wires) and wood (sometimes deck, mostly internal parts). The hull is actually the big thing. That needs to be crunched into little parts. Whether we can dump the entire boat into some giant nibbler, or first manually remove parts as much as possible and then nibble it to splinters is part of this consideration.

3. What to do with the polyester. To just assume that what works for plastic bottles, would work for boats is just crazy. There are numerous versions of polyesters, which will mean that they might not be that mixable.

So what are the solutions my little brain could come up with in 30 minutes?

Option 1.

Can the polymers be liquefied and then turned into some tile, which could be used as some kind of insulation? Can they be used to be reprocessed into some other usable plastic (like bags or other usable items), especially if these are items that could be revenue making to some degree to counter the costs of processing this.

Option 2.

Can they be processed in some form to become collectible s that even not bio degradable, they could be used as some kind of foundation that even though not bio-degradable, they could be ‘dumped’ into natural places as they would not hurt nature and only take up space.

Before you attack option 2, consider that a thousand non usable boats are a blight on nature as is, to be able to bury them in a minimum size (providing we can prove it will not harm nature) is not the worst idea. The worst idea is to not do anything about it, which is what happens now.

In an age of such bad economy, this might actually prove to be a point of light. This is a niche market that has potential and seems to be in non-existence for now. Even if this is the most visible in the Netherlands, due to a largely lack of size, yet they have a massively sized marina market. Beyond this there is France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and a few more places where this, even to a smaller extent might be an issue.

The Netherlands do have one advantage. They have Wageningen University, which is one of the most renowned universities when it comes to environmental studies. When it comes to Chemistry, there are the Dutch Universities of Leiden, Rotterdam, Delft and Amsterdam. So, if a solution would be possible, then the Netherlands will be able to solve the issue that is most visible to them and create a possible new European market in the process.

An environmental issue that could help start a ‘new’ economy, who would have thunk it?


Leave a comment

Filed under Finance