Tag Archives: living

I watched Tim Cook introduce Apple Watch and now I’m depressed

I watched Tim Cook introduce Apple Watch and now I’m depressed

By on 9 Mar 2015commentsShare

As Tim Cook announced in an Apple broadcast conference today, Apple Watch is coming out in April — the 24th, for those of you who can’t wait to have an iPhone melted down and injected in your bloodstream, essentially.

Apple Watch includes the following dystopian features: Wirelessly transmitted physical taps that your friends can send to get your attention, as if the ubiquitous boodle-BOOP! tone weren’t annoying enough; the ability to send your heartbeat to a loved one, possibly to let him know that you have just drunk four Red Bulls in a row and might die; and a litany of fitness apps to make you feel shitty — with reminders! — about failing to meet your daily “calories burned” quota.

And, as Cook very creepily said during the launch announcement: “Apple Watch is the most personal device we have ever created. It’s not just with you, it’s on you.”

It’s on you.

It’s on you.

That is what you say to your friend, in an urgent tone, when a large spider has crawled into her hair.

There’s been a fair amount of talk about how no one cares about Apple Watch, no one will buy it, and maybe it will go the way of Amazon Fire. To which I can only say: God, I hope so.

Cook kicked off the conference by reminding everyone that, barring surgical intervention, we’ve become about as attached to our smartphones as humanly possible: “We never leave home without it, for the vast majority of us it’s never more than an arm’s length away.”

Again: That is not a good thing, sirI don’t like it! I don’t like the fact that I check Twitter before I put my contacts in in the morning; I don’t like the fact that I text while I eat, walk, and yes, in the spirit of candidness, occasionally drive; and I really don’t like the fact that my relationships with my many friends and family members who live far away are conducted nearly entirely through a $400 device produced by a multibillion-dollar international corporation. Which is why when Cook described Apple Watch as a “revolutionary new way to connect with others … immediately and much more intimately than ever before,” I physically flinched.

When Grist intern Liz Core temporarily lost her phone a couple weeks ago and I returned it to her, she said that she had felt a sort of “phantom limb” syndrome for the 48 hours it was gone — falsely feeling it vibrate, etc. Which smartphone-owner out there doesn’t immediately sympathize with this? Isn’t that a problem?

The announcement of Apple Watch really did make me feel depressed, and has inspired me to follow the lead of a few of my fellow Gristers and take a hiatus from my phone for a week. But not this week, because I have to travel. Goddamn it. Anyway, stay tuned!

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Original article:  

I watched Tim Cook introduce Apple Watch and now I’m depressed

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on I watched Tim Cook introduce Apple Watch and now I’m depressed

By Age 40, Your Income Is Probably as Good as It’s Going to Get

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

By age 40 you’re done. That’s the conclusion of a report from the New York Fed that looks at lifetime earnings from age 25 through retirement. The charts on the right tell the story.

The top chart shows average earnings by age. It’s a little hard to immediately see how dramatic the income peak is since the y-axis shows the log of earnings, but if you do the arithmetic it demonstrates that, on average, by age 40 you’re within about $1,000 of your peak earnings. You’ll get inflation adjustments after that, but for the bulk of us, that’s it. Real earnings pretty much plateau after age 40.

The bottom chart illustrates this in a different way. The yellow rectangle shows earnings growth for the bottom 80 percent. The blue line is for ages 25-35, and there’s a fair amount of earnings growth except at the very bottom. The red line is for ages 35-45, and it’s pretty close to zero. There’s virtually no earnings growth for anyone. And the green line is for ages 45-55. It’s actually negative. If you put the latter two age groups together, the report concludes that “average earnings growth from ages 35 to 55 is zero.”

Now, outside the yellow box we have the top 20 percent: the well off and the rich. Those folks show a lot of earnings growth when they’re young, but they also show fairly healthy growth between ages 35-45.

And the top 1 percent? That’s on the very far right, and as you can see, they show earnings growth at every age level.

None of this will come as much of a surprise to anyone, but I thought it was interesting to see it in black and white, so to speak. If you’re planning to make your fortune, you’d better do it by age 40. With only a few exceptions—and those exceptions are mostly for people already making a lot of money—you’re done by then. Your income just isn’t likely to ever go up much after that.

(Via Wonkblog’s Danielle Paquette.)

Link to article:

By Age 40, Your Income Is Probably as Good as It’s Going to Get

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on By Age 40, Your Income Is Probably as Good as It’s Going to Get

Republicans Need to Speak Up About Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Steve Benen has a question for Republican presidential candidates:

Last week, after Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made controversial comments about vaccines, almost immediately political leaders in both parties were asked to explain their own position on vaccinations. Within a day or two, every likely presidential candidate was on record, endorsing an anti-disease position.

It’d be nice if we saw similar scrutiny today about developments in Alabama. There are all kinds of political figures poised to launch presidential campaigns, and last week they told us what they think about vaccines. Maybe this week they can tell us whether they’re comfortable with Alabama counties ignoring the federal courts?

In case you missed it—not likely, but I guess you never know—earlier this week a federal judge struck down Alabama’s law banning same-sex marriage. Alabama’s chief justice then ordered local judges to ignore the federal ruling and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A hearing to resolve the issue in federal court is scheduled for Thursday.

But tomorrow’s hearing isn’t really at issue. A federal court has made a ruling, and the Supreme Court has already declined to issue a stay. The court’s decision is now good law. So the question is: should local judges follow the law, or should they continue to oppose same-sex marriage and refuse to issue licenses?

Like Benen, I’d sure like to hear what everyone has to say about this. The tap dancing would be entertaining. Chris Christie would probably pull his usual cowardly schtick and simply refuse to take a position. Jeb Bush might insist that it’s strictly a matter for Alabama and it would be improper for him to take a position. Mike Huckabee would probably counsel civil disobedience. And Scott Walker? Good question. I don’t know what he’d say. But I’d like to find out.

More:

Republicans Need to Speak Up About Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Need to Speak Up About Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling

Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming

Climate change could make deadly diseases like rotavirus even worse. A doctor administers measles vaccinations to children displaced by flooding in northern India in 2008. Manish Swarup/AP Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has suggested that vaccines cause ”profound mental disorders.” Paul has also said he’s “not sure anybody exactly knows why” the climate changes. So the likely presidential contender would probably find this fact pretty confusing: According to leading scientists, vaccines are among the “most effective” weapons in our arsenal for combating the threats that global warming poses to human health. In its landmark report (PDF) last year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that global warming poses a range of health threats—especially in the developing world. Warmer temperatures and changes in rainfall will reduce crop production, leading to malnutrition. Foodborne and waterborne illnesses will become a bigger problem. And, some scientists argue, diseases like malaria will spread as the insects that carry them migrate to new areas. So how should humanity adapt to these dangers? The IPCC report lays out a slew of public health interventions, including widespread vaccination: The most effective measures to reduce vulnerability in the near term are programs that implement and improve basic public health measures such as provision of clean water and sanitation, secure essential health care including vaccination and child health services, increase capacity for disaster preparedness and response, and alleviate poverty. There are a number of reasons that vaccines will play an important role in our efforts to adapt to a warming world. The most obvious is their ability to protect vulnerable populations from diseases that will be made worse by climate change. A prime example is rotavirus, a vaccine-preventable disease that can cause severe diarrhea. It killed roughly 450,000 children in 2008—mostly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Health Organization. “There is evidence that case rates of rotavirus are correlated with warming temperatures and high rainfall,” according to Erin Lipp, an environmental health professor at the University of Georgia and a contributor to the IPCC report. This is particularly true in developing countries with poor sanitation and drinking water sources, Lipp explained in an email. There are other, less direct, ways in which climate change can exacerbate a wide range of existing public health problems. Take measles, which is currently making a comeback in the United States—thanks in large part to the unscientific claims of the anti-vaccination movement. Measles killed nearly 150,000 people worldwide in 2013; it’s particularly common in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia that have extremely low vaccination rates—areas that will be hit especially hard by the impacts of climate change. Unlike with rotavirus, there’s no direct relationship between measles and global warming. But Kirk Smith—an environmental health expert at UC, Berkeley, and a lead author of the IPCC chapter on health impacts—points out that “a child weakened by measles is more likely to die from the malnutrition caused by climate change.” In other words, anything we can do to reduce the impact of existing health problems will be even more important in a warming world. And vaccinating children, he says, is one of the most cost-effective public health tools we have. Diseases like measles pose another threat, as well, says Alistair Woodward, who is also a lead author of the IPCC chapter. Woodward, an epidemiologist at the University of Auckland, points out that extreme climate events—crop failures in Africa, flooding in Bangladesh, and even storms like Hurricane Katrina—can displace large numbers of people. “In these circumstances, with crowding and poor living conditions, all the basic public health services are put under great strain,” said Woodward in an email. “The risks of infection go through the roof, for all communicable diseases…So ensuring that people are vaccinated is a logical thing to do as part of managing the risks of a rapidly changing climate.” Of course, making sure people are inoculated against deadly diseases isn’t easy. In the developing world, vaccination campaigns have to overcome transportation and security issues, as well as poor local health care systems. And these challenges, says Woodward, can dwarf the problems caused by the anti-vaxxer movement. Taken from: Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming

Original source:

Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Landmark, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming

Iran’s Supreme Leader Signals Support for Nuclear Deal

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hmmm:

Iran’s supreme leader offered a new signal of support Sunday for a deal to scale back his country’s controversial nuclear program as negotiators race to meet an upcoming deadline.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose recent public pronouncements have usually been skeptical about the talks, promised in a speech to Iranian air force officials that “I would go along with the agreement in the making,” the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

It is not for nothing that they call him the Supreme Leader. If Khamenei really is suggesting publicly that he might be willing to approve a nuclear agreement with the West, that’s a potentially big deal. It’s never really mattered much what anyone else thinks about the negotiations, after all.

So does this mean I should raise my expectation of a deal from 50-50 to, say, 60-40? Maybe. But I’m not sure I’m there yet.

View post:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Signals Support for Nuclear Deal

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran’s Supreme Leader Signals Support for Nuclear Deal

Scott Walker Still Having Some Teething Problems Balancing the Tea Party with the Mainstream GOP

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’ve been talking up Scott Walker as a good bet to win the Republican presidential nomination next year, but there’s no question that he first has to find the right balance between the bullheaded “Hulk Smash Democrats” persona designed to appeal to tea partiers and the more mild-mannered Midwestern executive persona designed to appeal to moderates and big-money donors. The latest example of his difficulties with this balancing act comes from a laughable attempt to change the mission statement of the University of Wisconsin. Here’s Walker’s proposal:

The mission of the system is to develop human resources to meet the state’s workforce needs, to discover and disseminate knowledge….

So far, no problem. He just wants to add a bit of boilerplate about training future workers. No one objects to that. But then there’s more. Everything he wants to delete is in bold:

….to extend knowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses and to serve and stimulate society by developing develop in students heightened intellectual, cultural, and humane sensitivities, scientific, professional and technological expertise, and a sense of purpose. Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.

By cracky, we’ll not have our universities extending knowledge beyond the borders of their campuses! And the search for truth? Sounds like a steaming pile of secular liberal claptrap. Off with its head!

But that’s not the end of it. Heather Digby Parton describes what happened next:

After the changes were revealed publicly Walker made a hilariously fatuous claim worthy of Rosemary Woods and the 18 minute gap: somehow those changes just appeared and he didn’t know nothin’ about how they got there and anyway it was the University’s fault for “overlooking” it. He has had to backtrack from that as well, admitting that his people did make these changes and the university official argued vociferously against it. But none of it is his fault because well, it just isn’t. Or anyone else’s.

Last Wednesday, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Walker finally acknowledged that university officials had raised objections about the proposal but “had been told the changes were not open to debate.” And as the Sentinel graphic on the right shows, the proposed changes were, in fact, quite deliberate.

In any case, even Walker is now being forced to pretend it was all a big misunderstanding. So what happened? My guess is that his inner circle thought the changes might win Walker some brownie points with the tea party crowd, which has always been suspicious of long-haired academics and their lefty ideas, but failed to see how bad it would look among the less wild-eyed crowd that looks to Walker as a pragmatic executive type. Walker’s team is having trouble balancing those two constituencies, and that’s a problem since Walker’s key appeal is that he bridges the gap between them.

Needless to say, this dumb little affair won’t do Walker any long-term damage. It’s just a minor dust cloud. Nonetheless, it’s an instructive dust cloud. Clearly Walker still hasn’t quite managed to polish up the balancing act that’s his biggest source of strength in the 2016 presidential race. That’s something he needs to figure out in short order.

See original:  

Scott Walker Still Having Some Teething Problems Balancing the Tea Party with the Mainstream GOP

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker Still Having Some Teething Problems Balancing the Tea Party with the Mainstream GOP

Google Can Do Well With Its New Communications Products, But Only If It Acts Like a Genuine Startup

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Brian Fung tells us that Google is making a “serious play in the communications space,” featuring an aggressive strategy that includes rollouts of new products like ultra-fast internet service, new smartphones, and even wireless service:

Google’s investments in telecom pit the company against some of the largest voice and Internet providers around. But Google has a key advantage: It doesn’t make its money from Internet service subscribers. That’s why it will be able to drive down prices for consumers, to adopt business practices that would be unsustainable for other carriers and to influence Washington policy debates in surprising ways.

“This is a multilayered strategy,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president for the consumer group Public Knowledge. “Even if Google only makes 10 percent profit margin on its fiber and wireless offerings, that’s enough for it to be successful and to achieve the desired result of driving more use of its applications.”

This isn’t quite right. Or maybe I should say it’s only half right. It’s true that these new services will probably help Google increase sales of its core products, thus offsetting low margins in the communications space. But that’s not the real reason Google can afford to do this. The real reason is that Google is a new entrant, which means that entering these new businesses doesn’t force it to cannibalize any of its current businesses.

This is the key problem that kills old companies when new technology hits the street. Every cheap new widget they sell means one less expensive old widget they sell, and very few companies have the stones to just accept reality and really dive into the new widgets regardless. So they sell the new widgets, but only half-heartedly. They defeature them. They limit their sales channels. They don’t spend enough on marketing. Meanwhile, a startup with no such issues eats their lunch because their new widgets are their main business and they just sell the hell out of them.

That’s Google’s big advantage in this space. The fact that entering the telecom business might—might!—boost sales of other Google products is great, but it’s just a bonus, and not one they should be thinking too hard about. In fact, if their new products are tailored too tightly as mere helpers for their old product lines, they could end up in the same position as all those old dinosaur companies that couldn’t quite put their hearts into new tech. That road is well trod, and it’s usually a pretty grim one.

More:  

Google Can Do Well With Its New Communications Products, But Only If It Acts Like a Genuine Startup

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Google Can Do Well With Its New Communications Products, But Only If It Acts Like a Genuine Startup

It Took a While, But Democrats Are Finally Revolting Against Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to town next month to speak before a joint session of Congress, but White House spokesman Josh Earnest says that Joe Biden’s calendar is, um, filling up or something:

Biden has to date missed only one speech by a foreign leader at a joint session of Congress, Earnest said. The vice president really likes his ceremonial duties, he added, but might be busy on March 3, when Netanyahu is scheduled to deliver his warning to Congress about U.S. negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The Obama administration considers the talks an important diplomatic opening that could lead to the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Netanyahu believes Iran has no intention of holding to any deal and U.S. diplomats are being naive.

This is all part of a growing Democratic “revolt” against Netanyahu’s speech:

Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer and Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein rushed to meetings on Capitol Hill on Wednesday trying to calm a furor created by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress next month and quell a Democratic revolt that has dozens threatening a boycott.

It didn’t work.

If anything, Democrats finished the day more frustrated….If Dermer really wants to fix the problems created by the speech, goes the consensus among Democrats in Washington, he’ll need to do more than apologize: he and Netanyahu have to cancel or reschedule the speech.

….Seven Jewish Democratic members of Congress who met Wednesday in Rep. Steve Israel’s (D-N.Y.) office…lit into Dermer. The invitation, they said, was making them choose between Netanyahu and Obama, making support for Israel into a partisan issue that they never wanted it to be, and forcing them to consider a boycott of the speech. One member, according to someone in the room, went so far as to tell Dermer it was hard to believe him when he said he didn’t realize the partisan mess he was making by going around Obama to get Boehner to make the invitation.

This has been a surprisingly slow-burning fuse. Obviously this mess puts a lot of Democrats in a tough position, but I still would have figured that they’d make their displeasure known sooner rather than later. And yet, for the week or so after Netanyahu announced his speech, we barely heard a peep of protest—even privately. But apparently Democratic anger was growing the whole time, and now Netanyahu has a full-grown public insurgency on his hands.

It’s been obvious for years—obvious to me, anyway—that Netanyahu has decided to tie his future to the Republican Party. Of course Dermer knew the speech would create a partisan mess. That was more a feature than a bug. But now it looks like Netanyahu has finally gone a step too far. After years of putting up with Netanyahu’s partisan antics, Democrats are finally getting tired of them. This episode is unlikely to end well for Israel.

Source – 

It Took a While, But Democrats Are Finally Revolting Against Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It Took a While, But Democrats Are Finally Revolting Against Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech

Obama Suckered Republicans Into an Immigration Trap—And They Charged Right In

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ed Kilgore notes that Latino approval of the Republican Party—already low in 2013—plummeted even further in 2014 when they spent all year pandering to their base and blocking any chance at some kind of comprehensive immigration reform. And it’s gotten even worse since then:

The marginally improved performance of the GOP among Latinos in the 2014 midterms probably tempted some to think disgruntlement with Obama would trump estrangement from the elephant party. But since then, of course, the president’s executive action on immigration provided fresh impetus to “deport ’em all” messaging, and the jockeying for position during the Invisible Primary for 2016 is not going to help.

I don’t have any big point to make here. I just wanted to highlight the passage above. In the same way that, say, Osama bin Laden wanted two things on 9/11—to attack the US and to provoke an insane counterreaction—President Obama wanted to accomplish two things with his immigration actions. Obviously he thought it was the right thing to do. Beyond that, though, he wanted to gain Latino support for Democrats and provoke an insane counterreaction from Republicans. He succeeded brilliantly on both counts. Republicans fell swiftly into his trap, and they show all signs of falling even further as primary season heats up. By the time 2016 rolls around, even a moderate guy like Jeb Bush is going to be so tainted by Republican craziness on immigration that he’ll get virtually no support from the Latino community.

It didn’t have to be this way. Republicans could have responded in a more measured way that would have blunted Obama’s actions. Instead they let themselves get suckered. Obama must be laughing his ass off right about now.

Read the article: 

Obama Suckered Republicans Into an Immigration Trap—And They Charged Right In

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Suckered Republicans Into an Immigration Trap—And They Charged Right In

We only got 3 minutes to save the world

Climate apocalypse or nuclear holocaust?

We only got 3 minutes to save the world

By on 22 Jan 2015commentsShare

Since 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a magazine started by the creators of the first atom bomb to inform humanity about threats to its survival, has kept time on its Doomsday Clock — how much time we have left, that is. Here’s how it works: Midnight is the end of homo sapiens sapiens, and the minute hand of the clock is adjusted every few years to reflect the direness of the day’s biggest existential crises and human extinction hazards.

Here in 2015, the Bulletin reckons, it’s three minutes to midnight — a mere 90 ticks and 90 tocks away from doomsday, thanks to carbon emissions, advanced weaponry, and poor governance in both of those arenas:

Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth.

But relax! This isn’t even the closest we’ve come to self-extermination, by the Doomsday Clock’s measure. From 1953 to 1959, the hand sat two minutes from 12 o’clock, waiting for nuclear holocaust as the U.S. and Soviet Union developed hydrogen bombs and Cold War tensions simmered.

An in-depth Quartz article on the past and present of the clock charts the historical movement of the Bulletin’s infamous indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe:

Quartz

See? We’ve made it out of tight spots before — we can be confident there’s nothing to fear here at 11:57 p.m. on doomsday. Right? It’s not like scientists are telling us that we’ve undermined key life support systems on the planet; military experts are worried that accelerating climate change will escalate violence around the globe; astrophysicists are speculating that we haven’t seen any E.T.s because all intelligent life gets stopped cold by unsustainability; or anything like that.

Gulp.

Well I, for one, can’t wait to see how it all plays out; heroic comeback or blaze-of-glory demise — either way it will be quite a show. Until then, I’ll just be chilling with my guitar singing some nice holiday tunes about the (possibly) impending ruination.

Source:
Climate change inaction pushes ‘doomsday clock’ closest to midnight since 1984

, The Guardian.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

View original article: 

We only got 3 minutes to save the world

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We only got 3 minutes to save the world