Cowboy Who?

Last week at the Kickoff Party for this year’s Art Car Parade, Bernard “Bun B” Freeman, a Grammy-nominated hip-hop artist from the Houston area, was announced as this year’s Grand Marshal. 

In this role, Bun B will lead the procession of 250 art cars through downtown Houston on Saturday, April 9. Past parade officiates include Cheech Marin, Dan Aykroyd, J.J. Watt, The Art Guys, Anise Parker, Kinky Friedman, Lynn Wyatt, and George Clinton.

About his appointment, Bun B said, “It’s a great time to be Bun B in Houston. It’s a great thing for families and we haven’t had a lot of opportunities in Houston to really have a great event where everyone and their family could come out and enjoy it, but the Art Car Parade is going to provide us that and I’m so proud and honored to be the 2022 Grand Marshal.”

For over twenty-five years, Bun B has made a significant impact on the hip-hop world, from his group UGK’s 1992 debut Too Hard to Swallow, to their 2007 hit International Players Anthem (I Choose You) featuring Outkast. But his legacy moves beyond the music charts. In 2015, a course he co-taught at Rice University with Professor Anthony Pinn on religion and hip-hop became a nationwide sensation and was made available digitally. In 2017, following Hurricane Harvey, he helped lead recovery efforts, and now, Bun B continues to work with local communities.

Aside from being a significant contributor to the Southern rap movement and his work in education and community activism, Bun B is also interested in car culture. Since 2010, he has participated in many of the Gumball 3000 rallies, an annual seven-day trek taking car enthusiasts across countries and continents. 

This year’s Art Car Parade will feature a large number of “slow, loud, and bangin’” (slab) cars — a type of custom car that originated in Houston and is known for its high-gloss paint and iconic elbow wheels. Additionally, over 100 of the cars in the parade will be never-before-seen submissions from across the United States.

While the parade will take place on Saturday, April 9 starting at 2 pm, other events during Art Car Weekend including a preview of select art cars, The Legendary Art Car Ball, and the awards ceremony, which will all take place April 7-10. For more information, visit the event’s website.

The post Houston Rapper Bun B Named Grand Marshal for the 2022 Art Car Parade appeared first on Glasstire.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
The darkest moment of my life was realizing I'm the second guy in panel 1.

Today's News:

null

On Windows editions that support x86 emulation, there are two directories for program files. The C:\Program Files directory is for programs in the native system bitness, and the the C:\Program Files (x86) directory is for programs that run under the x86-32 emulator. But why are they separate directories? Why can’t we combine them? If you have 32-bit Contoso and 64-bit LitWare, you can still put them in C:\Program Files\Contoso and C:\Program Files\LitWare, and they won’t bother each other.

That’s true, but it does create problems if a program is available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, such as Microsoft Office or Visual Studio. You couldn’t install both versions side-by-side; you’d have to pick one.

And it so happens that Windows itself comes with a lot of programs that are available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, like Internet Explorer and WordPad. Those programs could have installed themselves into separate directories like C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer and C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer (x86) to avoid the conflict, but then that runs into compatibility issues with apps that do things like launch %ProgramFiles%\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe and then start manipulating the Internet Explorer process expecting it to be the same bitness as the program that did the launching.

This sounds sort of like a lazy answer, seeing as this problem could be solved with sufficient application of application compatibility shims. But application compatibility shims are really a solution of last resort, because by their nature, they can be applied only to programs where the problem has already been identified. If there’s a way you can structure your system so that these problems never arise in the first place, then you don’t have to worry about identifying the programs that suffer from the problem: You fixed all of them at once!

Yet another problem is with the pesky Common Files subdirectory under Program Files. This is a directory that is intended for the case of separately-installed programs which nevertheless share some things in common. For example, Contoso might have two products, Contoso Standard and Contoso Deluxe, and both of the programs use the Contoso Framework. The Contoso Framework files can go into the C:\Program Files\Common Files\Contoso subdirectory.

If the 32-bit and 64-bit directories were combined into a single C:\Program Files directory, then you would have a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit components in C:\Program Files\Common Files\Contoso, and that makes nobody happy. Whoever installs first wins, and whoever installs second gets errors.

Keeping the two Program Files directories separate avoids this problem. C:\Program Files\Common Files\Contoso contains the 64-bit Contoso Framework files, and C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Contoso contains the 32-bit Contoso Framework files.

After I wrote up this answer, I realized that I already answered it some time ago, so here’s the video:

The post Why are there separate Program Files and Program Files (x86) directories? appeared first on The Old New Thing.

A new study shows the risks that can come from research into AI and biology.

One big hope about AI as machine learning improves is that we’ll be able to use it for drug discovery — harnessing the pattern-matching power of algorithms to identify promising drug candidates much faster and more cheaply than human scientists could alone.

But we may want to tread cautiously: Any system that is powerful and accurate enough to identify drugs that are safe for humans is inherently a system that will also be good at identifying drugs that are incredibly dangerous for humans.

That’s the takeaway from a new paper in Nature Machine Intelligence by Fabio Urbina, Filippa Lentzos, Cédric Invernizzi, and Sean Ekins. They took a machine learning model they’d trained to find non-toxic drugs, and flipped its directive so it would instead try to find toxic compounds. In less than six hours, the system identified tens of thousands of dangerous compounds, including some very similar to VX nerve gas.

“Dual use” is here, and it’s not going away

Their paper hits on three interests of mine, all of which are essential to keep in mind while reading alarming news like this.

The first is the growing priority of “dual-use” concerns in scientific research. Biology is where some of the most exciting innovation of the 21st century is happening. And continued innovation, especially in broad-spectrum vaccines and treatments, is essential to saving lives and preventing future catastrophes.

But the tools that make DNA faster to sequence and easier to print, or make drug discovery cheaper, or help us easily identify chemical compounds that’ll do exactly what we want, are also tools that make it much cheaper and easier to do appalling harm. That’s the “dual-use” problem.

Here’s an example from biology: adenovirus vector vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, work by taking a common, mild virus (adenoviruses often cause infections like the common cold), editing it to make the virus unable to make you sick, and changing a bit of the virus’s genetic code to replace it with the Covid-19 spike protein so your immune system learns to recognize it.

That’s incredibly valuable work, and vaccines developed with these techniques have saved lives. But work like this has also been spotlighted by experts as having particularly high dual-use risks: that is, this research is also useful to bioweapons programs. “Development of virally vectored vaccines may generate insights of particular dual-use concern such as techniques for circumventing pre-existing anti-vector immunity,” biosecurity researchers Jonas Sandbrink and Gregory Koblentz argued last year.

For most of the 20th century, chemical and biological weapons were difficult and expensive to manufacture. For most of the 21st, that won’t be the case. If we don’t invest in managing that transition and ensuring that deadly weapons aren’t easy to obtain or produce, we run the risk that individuals, small terrorist groups, or rogue states could do horrific harm.

AI risk is getting more concrete, and no less scary

AI research increasingly has its own dual-use concerns. Over the last decade, as AI systems have become more powerful, more researchers (though certainly not all of them) have come to believe that humanity will court catastrophe if we build extremely powerful AI systems without taking adequate steps to ensure they do what we want them to do.

Any AI system that is powerful enough to do the things we’re going to want — invent new drugs, plan manufacturing processes, design new machines — is also powerful enough that it could invent deadly toxins, plan manufacturing processes with catastrophic side effects, or design machines that have internal flaws we don’t even understand.

When working with systems that are that powerful, someone, somewhere is going to make a mistake — and point a system at a goal that isn’t compatible with the safety and freedom of everyone on Earth. Turning over more and more of our society to steadily more powerful AI systems, even as we’re aware that we don’t really understand how they work or how to make them do what we want, would be a catastrophic mistake.

But because getting AI systems to align with what we want is really hard — and because their unaligned performance is often good enough, at least in the short term — it’s a mistake we’re actively making.

I think our best and brightest machine-learning researchers should spend some time thinking about this challenge, and look into working at one of the growing number of organizations trying to solve it.

When information is a risk

Let’s say you’ve discovered a way to teach an AI system to develop terrifying chemical weapons. Should you post a paper online describing how you did it? Or keep that information to yourself, knowing it could be misused?

In the world of computer security, there are established procedures for what to do when you discover a security vulnerability. Typically, you report it to the responsible organization (find a vulnerability in Apple computers, you tell Apple) and give them time to fix it before you tell the public. This expectation preserves transparency while also making sure that “good guys” doing work in the computer security space aren’t just feeding “bad guys” a to-do list.

But there’s nothing similar in biology or AI. Virus discovery programs don’t usually keep the more dangerous pathogens they find secret until countermeasures exist. They tend to publish them immediately. When OpenAI slowed its rollout of the text-generating machine GPT-2 because of misuse concerns, they were fiercely criticized and urged to do the more usual thing of publishing all the details.

The team that published the recent Nature Machine Intelligence paper gave a lot of thought to these “information hazard” concerns. The researchers said they were advised by safety experts to withhold some details of how exactly they achieved their result, to make things a little harder for any bad actor looking to follow in their footsteps.

By publishing their paper, they made the risks of emerging technologies a lot more concrete and gave researchers, policymakers, and the public a specific reason to pay attention. It was ultimately a way of describing risky technologies in a way that likely reduced risk overall.

Still, it’s deeply unfair to your average biology or AI researcher, who isn’t specialized in information security concerns, to have to make these calls on an ad-hoc basis. National security, AI safety, and biosecurity experts should work together on a transparent framework for handling information risks, so individual researchers can consult experts as part of the publication process instead of trying to figure this out themselves.

There are parts of technology history (frankly, any history) that are thought to be critical to telling the story, and utterly lost. Pieces and fragments will rise up out of the darkness, but a cohesive collection of what once made up a chapter will be thought gone forever.

Sadly, this happens a lot.

But in one special exception, the Computer History Museum found itself with an opportunity to seize the moment.

Compuserve is considered to be the first major online service in the United States. Founded in the era of “time-sharing” services (paying to use a computer during the main owner’s quiet hours), this subsidiary of Golden United Life Insurance moved from 1969 to 1979 in the kind of obscurity befitting a simple business-to-business service providing access to PDP mainframes.

This all changed in 1979 with the rebranding of Compuserve Information Service (CIS), which marketed itself to mainstream computer users, providing chat, games, and storehouses of information for an hourly fee to who ever could afford the phone bills and equipment to do so. It is here that Compuserve (and later services like The Source, America On-Line and Prodigy) brought a bulk of folks online for the first time.

This service flourished through the 1980s and 1990s, and in what should be considered a reductive and surface description of the situation, slowly broke apart via acquisitions, shifting priorities and the dominance of the World Wide Web providing many aspects of what Compuserve had previously done exclusively.

By the time this 2000s-era chapter was over, Compuserve was more a brand and a memory. But it had still reigned in the minds of many as the beginning, the launching pad for a lot of what people came to expect the online world to provide.

It was assumed most of the history of Compuserve was gone – the hardware, software and documentation scattered to the winds.

Not so.

As explained in this blog entry that literally reads like a movie script, the Computer History Museum has acquired, sorted, and added a major amount of Compuserve’s archives to their stacks. The collection had been sitting for decades, and was soon to be disposed of, when it was offered to CHM and they accepted.

Among these items that have been recovered are documents that are being given to the Internet Archive to scan and place online – instructions on how to operate a Compuserve service.

These opportunities to recover assumed-lost materials are extremely rare, but hope springs eternal that in rooms, attics and file cabinets around the world, there possibly lurk further discoveries, and happy endings. Almost like a movie.

The post Mission Impossible: The Compuserve Chapter appeared first on Internet Archive Blogs.

Posted on r/AmItheAsshole by u/medusas_bf

Throwaway account because my girlfriend is on Reddit, and I don’t want her turning me into stone.

I (24M) live with my girlfriend, Medusa (20F). We were friends growing up but had lost touch after she became a priestess for Athena (F). About a month ago, though, Medusa came to my house sobbing, saying she’d been turned into a hideous green Gorgon after Athena caught her having sex with Poseidon (M) in Athena’s temple. I felt bad, so I let Medusa crash at my place—even though she’d turn me into a statue if I ever looked at her.

But one thing led to another, and now we’re in a relationship. I’ve been in love with this girl since I was twelve, so I’m super happy—even if I have to wear a blindfold to avoid literally being murdered by her objectively revolting appearance.

There’s just one problem: Medusa leaves her hair everywhere. And when I say hair, I mean snakes. And by everywhere, I mean EVERYWHERE. Hundreds of slimy little serpents landing on the floor, in our bed, even in my food! Yesterday, I bit into something slick and scaly in my gyro—next thing I know, an Ottoman viper’s lunging at my face, hissing and splattering me with tzatziki sauce. Don’t even get me started on the shower drain—it’s ALWAYS clogged with writhing Balkan whip snakes drowning in shampoo water.

I’m constantly cleaning up her mess, and frankly, it’s disgusting. (And dangerous—did I mention I had to go to the ER twelve times last week!?) Medusa always laughs it off, saying she can’t control it. Admittedly, I’ve never lived with a woman/Gorgon before, so I don’t know if shedding this much hair/snakes is normal, but like how is she not bald by now?

Now, I know things have been rough for Medusa, and she’s still recovering from being turned into this… creature. But when I asked her to do a better job cleaning up her snakes, she threw a fit and said that women just leave hair/venomous serpents everywhere, and I need to deal with it. She said I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman, and here’s where I might be the AH: I said, “Well, you don’t either—last time I checked you were a hideous reptile monster.”

She was LIVID. Luckily, I was wearing my blindfold so she couldn’t stone-ify me, but I got the hell out of the house (tripping over several spitting Bosnian adders on the way out). I’ve locked myself in my car, where I’m typing this out. She’s texting me, saying she WILL turn me to stone if I ever bring up the snake thing again. But I think she’s overreacting, and I’m at my wit’s end. AITA?

UPDATE 1: Will everyone stop fixating on how I called Medusa hideous? I don’t actually think she’s hideous. I just wrote that for context. I’ve never actually seen her face.

UPDATE 2: For those of you who think they’re SO funny for suggesting I use one of Medusa’s hair-snakes as a drain snake to unclog the shower, kindly eff off. Yes, I see the irony. But I am past the point of humor.

UPDATE 3: OK, I GET IT! I’m the asshole! Stop telling me I deserve to be chained to a rock and have my liver eaten every day for eternity. You people don’t know the first thing about human-Gorgon relationships. I live every day in constant fear. Are you happy???

UPDATE 4: Oh, gods, she’s coming to the car…

UPDATE 5: Typing this while blindfolded in case she’s lurking somewhere… I’m seriously rethinking our relationship now. There are so many red flags I’d overlooked. For example, my house is filled with dozens of stone statues of Amazon delivery workers, mail carriers, and Girl Scouts, and she REFUSES to get rid of them!! I’ve made a huge mistake…

UPDATE 6: I’m safe now. My buddy Perseus let me crash with him. He’s even volunteered to go to my place to pick up my stuff. He says he’s bringing some kind of mirrored shield? I don’t care. I’m finally done. As long as he doesn’t bring back Medusa’s head, I’ll be OK.

This post, employee said she was leaving and has been replaced, but now doesn’t know when she is going to leave , was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.

A reader writes:

I am hoping you can help me with a dilemma I’m currently facing. My small nonprofit organization has been going through some staffing issues lately, and we recently had two employees leave abruptly due to family issues. My direct report approached me and our CEO two weeks ago on a Wednesday and said she had received a job offer and would be giving formal notice once she received a contract. She stated she would have the contract the next day, Thursday. We thanked her for the heads-up and began to plan to find a replacement. Note: I would not have replaced her if I could have avoided it, but this role is critical to our functioning and given our ongoing staffing issues it is nearly impossible to function without someone in that job (it is an admin role that handles customer service and account billing — something that is not easy to cover when you also have a full-time job to do).

On Thursday, I followed up with her about her notice and she said the contract was delayed and she would be signing it during her pre-approved time off (Friday through the next Wednesday). She said she wouldn’t be able to communicate with us if she signed the offer while on her trip, but her notice would start from the date she signed it. I said okay and asked her if it was okay to go ahead and post her job, and she said that it was.

Well, I had a lot of great interest in the job posting and was able to find someone, do two rounds of interviews, and offer them the job by that Friday after she got back from her trip. She was back in the office and had seemed irritated on Thursday when I asked her about the status of the contract. On Friday, before I made any offers, I approached her privately and let her know we had someone in mind for the position and would like to go ahead and offer them her job, but wanted to be absolutely sure that she was really planning on departing soon before we offered this job, and she said it was fine.

Well, the candidate has accepted the offer and starts training next week, and my employee is now upset because the contract has been further delayed and she doesn’t want to leave the organization yet! I feel that I checked in with her multiple times in the process to say “hey, this is happening, are you okay with it?” and got confirmation each time. I would love some advice on how this situation could have been handled differently and also how I can navigate my current employee’s hurt feelings and also gently negotiate an actual time for her to be finished at our organization. I want to take the best action that is fair to the current employee and our new hire, but I feel that I am now stuck between a rock and a hard place and have no idea how to proceed delicately. (If it matters, this employee produces very high quality work but I have had to have several conversations with about her attitude and communication skills. She has only worked for us for six months as well.)

This isn’t your fault! You did everything right — you checked in with her multiple times, asked if it was okay to post the job and got her confirmation that it was, asked if it was okay to offer the job to someone else before you did, and got a confirmation that she was indeed definitely leaving soon.

In theory you could have waited until you received her formal notice, but given that it’s a crucial role and she gave you a green light every step of the way as you looked for a replacement, you didn’t act unreasonably.

If I could advise her, I would tell her not to give her notice until she had that contract and a start date set up. In fact, this kind of situation is exactly why I tell people that all the time; things can get pushed back or fall through altogether and it doesn’t make sense to quit a job until the offer is both firm and accepted. (Of course, maybe she did have reason to think the offer was both firm and accepted — but it’s still risky to tell you she was leaving before she was ready to make it official.) Even after that, though, she had a bunch of opportunities to ask you to slow down or even stop. At multiple points, you made it really clear that you were seeking her confirmation before you moved forward, and each time she waved you onward.

At this point, she’s told you to hire her replacement and you’ve done so — with her explicit blessing!

You’re a small nonprofit so I’m guessing you don’t have tons of money lying around that you can easily put toward funding two people in one role or creating an additional position for her. If you did have that ability and there was a way to use the additional slot that truly benefited the organization, it would be something you could consider. If she were a long-time employee, I’d push you to really try to find a way to do that, at least short-term — or even to have her help out in another area, especially since you said you’ve had staffing issues that maybe she could be a temporary solution to (although obviously that would depend on the skill sets involved). But if it would be a big stretch for the organization to make that work, it’s hard to argue that you should do that for someone who’s leaving after only six months, or where you’ve already had to have several conversations about her attitude (at only six months in!).

So assuming there’s no easy way to do that, all you can really do now is figure out how long you can realistically keep both her and her replacement, and then be as up-front as possible in explaining that to her. For example: “I know you’re in a tough spot — you expected the other job to have come through by now and it hasn’t. I want to make sure you know we weren’t trying to push you out before you were ready to go, and it’s why I was careful to check in with you at each stage, and relied on your go-ahead when we advertised the position and then again when we hired Jane and set her start date. The situation we’re in now is that we don’t have the budget to have a lengthy overlap between the two of you. Normally we wouldn’t want more than a week of overlap but because I know you’re in a tough position now, we could stretch that to X weeks — but I want to be up-front that that’s the maximum our budget can afford.” (Try to make X as much as you can reasonably swing. You need to be responsible with donors’ money, but part of that is making sure you’re a workplace that treats people well when situations like this arise … because of simple decency, but also because it’s important for morale/retention/future notice periods that other employees to see that you’re trying to handle it decently.) Also, if there’s any other work you can offer her beyond that period (even if it’s part-time or very different from her current role), mention that too — she may or may not want to take you up on it, but it’s worth showing that you understand the situation she’s in and are trying to do what you can to mitigate it on your side.

And everyone else: Do not resign — even informally — until everything is finalized. This is why.

The Complete Gelatin Cookbook
Soares
1978

I was a kid in the 1960s and a Midwesterner. Of course, I love my Jello. It is a staple of my childhood. My mother would take basic cherry flavor and stir in some fruit cocktail from a can. My mom also had an impressive collection of gelatin molds. She could manage a jell-o mold for any occasion.

Now that I have been in the awful library book business for over 10 years, I have a list of standards that are “musts” in every gelatin book:

• A lovely fish gelatin mold (often in the shape of a fish!)
• Something kind of green for “salad”
• A molded “loaf”

Criteria met! Now you have some great ideas for your next party!

Mary

The post Jello gone wrong appeared first on Awful Library Books.

"It's been a hobby of my life," said the owner of the retro computer collection that was hit by a Russian attack in the besieged Ukrainian city of Mariupol.

(Image credit: Dmitriy Cherepanov)

“Which Saint to Pray for Fighting Against a Covid infection? A Short Survey” [by A. Perciaccante, A. Corallic, and P. Charlier, Medicine and Public Health, vol. 18, September 2021, 100674] is one of the studies featured in “Viruses Research Review: Group Sex, Singer, Saint, Count“, which is a featured article in the special Viruses and Pandemics issue of the magazine—Annals of Improbable Research.

"Mystery Science Theater 3000" is back at it again, this time with a lucky 13th season for its dedicated fanbase to enjoy. First airing in 1988 on KTMA-TV (now WUCW) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the show was an underground oddity for a while until Comedy Central picked it up from 1989 through 1996, after which point it was canceled to immense fan uproar. This caused Sci-Fi to pick it up, for it only to be canceled again after a two-year run concluding in 1999. It would appear that the show, dubbed "MST3K" for short, would forever remain a late-20th century anomaly, garnering a cult following of cinephiles who can't get enough of bad B-movies and the hilarious commentary the show's human and robot hosts offer as the films play. Flicks ranging from "Manos: The Hands of Fate" to "Danger: Diabolik" were lampooned to great effect, which actually resulted in an increased interest in these otherwise obscure films that may have simply been lost to time.

While Netflix revived the show for the 21st century in 2017, giving audiences an 11th and 12th season of the show, it became clear that the creators desired a way to independently deliver "MST3K" episodes to viewers. With the show's forthcoming 13th season, they were able to do just that thanks to a successful Kickstarter campaign. So let's step onto the Satellite of Love and gaze at what's coming our way on this season of "Mystery Science Theater 3000".

Get Ready To Launch The Gizmoplex

That's right, "MST3K" will now be available to stream through its very own service called The Gizmoplex, which will exclusively run new episodes every other week for the next year. It took 218 episodes and a feature film to get here, but it's amazing that a show with such low-budget roots has been able to sustain a fanbase that fervently supports the best practices for the team behind the content. 

For the inaugural weekend of The Gizmoplex, a weekend-long lineup of new "MST3K" episodes will air. "Santo in The Treasure of Dracula" will kick things off on May 6, followed by "Robot Wars" on May 7, and "Beyond Atlantis" on May 8. For those curious as to how to navigate this new streaming service and the new episodes it'll be producing, here's a handy excerpt from the new season's official press release:

"To see the new season, visitors will be able to buy tickets to livestream events ($10 each), rent the new episodes ($8 each), or get a 'Season Pass' ($135) that includes tickets to over 25 livestream events and a digital copy of the new season to keep!

Plus, to celebrate the launch of the Gizmoplex, all visitors will be able to stream every available classic episode of MST3K for free – on demand and without commercials – for a limited time! The Gizmoplex will be available via a web portal and also on a wide variety of OTT platforms, including apps for both iOS and Android devices, Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and more."

What Can We Expect From Season 13?

While the first weekend of films has already been announced, there's certainly a trove of cinematic trash/treasure that awaits viewers, with the official trailer featuring a slew of titles to be tackled in the forthcoming season, including "Munchie" and "Demon Squad." For a full run-down of what's to come, the jam-packed trailer is just a click away.

If you want something a bit more in-depth to satisfy your curiosity ahead of the season's May release, here's a synopsis hot off of the official press release:

"For the first time, not one, but three humans will be subjected to the bittersweet agony of watching the world's cheesiest movies, as returning test subject Jonah Heston (Jonah Ray) shares hosting duties with the newest kidnapped Gizmonic technician, Emily Connor (Emily Marsh) and original host Joel Robinson (show creator Joel Hodgson).

Accompanied by wisecracking robot pals Crow T. Robot (Hampton Yount / Kelsey Ann Brady), Tom Servo (Baron Vaughn / Conor McGiffin) and GPC (Rebecca Hanson / Yvonne Freese), our heroes will have to survive 13 new movies, 12 new shorts, and the unveiling of Kinga's newest scheme for world domination: THE GIZMOPLEX, the First Cineplex on the Moon. Will they finish the season with their sanity intact?"

Also re-joining the cast will be Felicia Day as Kinga Forrester, Patton Oswalt as Max, and Mary Jo Pehl as grandmother Pearl Forrester. Stacked in every possible way, it appears that 13 really might be the show's lucky number after all. 

Read this next: The 15 Best '90s Comedies Ranked

The post How to Watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 Season 13 appeared first on /Film.

Over the years, Adam Fung has explored the natural world through paintings of icebergs, landscapes, and the cosmos. He may be best known for his hyper realistic style, though at times his works contain geometric designs and abstraction, with some pieces including a combination of the two styles. 

A new body of work by the Fort Worth-based artist recently debuted at Cufflink Art, a gallery located in the city’s Near Southside neighborhood. Stepping into the exhibition is like stepping into a parallel universe of Fung’s design. Familiar elements of past works are present like the undulating waters of the Arctic Ocean, lone icebergs at sea, and celestial bodies hanging in the vibrant sky.

Some unexpected imagery includes fire-red skies, trees hanging from cliffs with their roots exposed, and cloaked figures appearing in a landscape and staring eerily at the viewer, looking as if they’re wearing a childhood DIY ghost costume. An investigation of both the effects of our changing climate and digital realms’ focus on oversaturation and intensification of imagery, this new body of work is at once captivating and haunting.

Adam Fung: possible magic is on view from March 26 – May 21, 2022 at Cufflink Art.

The post A Peek into the World of Adam Fung appeared first on Glasstire.

This post, my ex-boss wants me to pay a phone bill for months I didn’t work there , was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.

A reader writes:

When I was hired at my former job, it was to replace two employees who were leaving to start their own business. They were the owner’s only two employees (red flag, I know!). The way this woman talked about it made it seem like they had really screwed her over. I felt bad for her since she’d had this business for decades. Plus I was really happy to get a much-needed job.

I felt I’d made a big mistake within two weeks. She was all over the map with work. She wouldn’t let it go about the employees who left. She’d text them at 3 am, saying she’d been like a mother to them, they had mistreated her, she thought “we were family,” and on and on. She sent them a cease and desist because she was convinced they were hacking our computers and sabotaging her because she kept making mistakes she was convinced she’d never make otherwise. I need to write a book about my time there!

Over two years, the craziness, flipping out, and incompetence was off the charts. Clients were leaving because they didn’t trust her anymore or would ask to be transferred to me. She never answered communications. I was constantly covering for her. She forgot everything, daily. She told me almost monthly for a year, “I hope I can pay you this month.” I’d be so stressed, and then she would turn around and buy a car or decide she was going on vacation (leaving me to handle the business alone). My hair was falling out. My anxiety was beyond. She vacillated between “we are sisters and partners!” to “I’m the boss!” Then she’d do something nice, I’m convinced to keep me from leaving. When I told her my personal computer had died, she insisted she buy me one as a “bonus.” I didn’t feel comfortable about it, but it was nice to at least be appreciated. She insisted on getting me a cell phone and putting it on the company plan. She said it would save her money over the phone stipend she was paying me.

At the end, I had just had it. A client posted a job opening at their company, and I applied. I was offered the job, which was exciting, but I was still feeling guilty about whether I should go because I knew this house of cards would come down if I did (and it did). After a call where my boss asked me to “please be honest with her” about my job concerns – which I stupidly did thinking it might help – she emailed me the next morning to say I HAD to take my two weeks of vacation, effective immediately. I knew that was a bad sign, so I took the other job.

Things seemed to go well with my departure. Since I knew I’d have to return my cell, I asked her repeatedly if she could come with me to the cell store so she could authorize the transfer of my number to my new phone. Like she did with everyone else, she ignored me, and I ended up getting a new number, which was a huge pain but whatever. I cleared out the phone, returned it to her, and I thought I was done.

Two months later, out of the blue, she emails me – at my new company email — with an invoice and one line – “you can mail a check.” The invoice was for two months of cell service, for the two months AFTER I left. Because she’s easily confused, she apparently saw my old cell number on her bill – the number she now owns, as well as the phone – and decided I somehow still had access and should pay for it. I sent a very professional response explaining I had not had any access to the phone or number in those two months. I thought a light bulb would go off and that would be that.

Today, I get another email saying it wasn’t fair to her that she didn’t understand the number would still be active and she “assumed” it had been taken care of when I returned it. She said “you know it’s the right thing to do” to pay those two months. She brought up the bonus computer and how she was sure I’d chosen the most expensive one and got to keep it, and she only bought it because “I thought you were in this with me for the long haul.” She said she understood it was “frustrating” to have to write that check, but “I guarantee it will serve you to do it.” More guilt trips and manipulation. I responded, explaining again about the wireless bill, told her I’d done an exceptional job for her, and asked her to please not contact me again. I also let her know I was aware she’d sent my new employer an email saying “I wouldn’t hire her if I were you” and trashing me but that I’d always speak highly of her. I wished her well, then blocked her everywhere.

Was blocking the right thing to do? Now I have this anxiety that she’s emailing and texting and going ballistic that she’s blocked, and my anxiety is through the roof wondering how she responded, because I know she did. I’m waiting for her to try to sue me for the stupid cell phone bills which, of course, she’ll lose, but I have such PTSD from her toxicity. Should I have just paid the invoice?

No!

You did nothing wrong, your boss is out of her gourd, and blocking her was the right move.

Sometimes it is easier to throw some money at a problem to make it go away, but this is almost certainly not one of those cases. First, there’s the principle of it — you don’t owe her this money. Second, you have a different, better way to make her go away and you took it when you blocked her. It’s possible she’ll try to get around your blocks and reach you in some other way, but if she does you can ignore/block her there too.

Since she emailed your new employer suggesting they not hire you (!) it’s possible that if she’s really motivated she’ll try to contact them again. But I can pretty much guarantee that your new boss already knows from that original email that she’s not credible; that’s just not something stable, trustworthy people do. Plus, now they know you from working with you, and you have presumably demonstrated that you are a responsible, reliable person. They’re not likely to give much credence to someone engaging in clearly unbalanced behavior — for the second time now — over you.

Totally separate from all that … it’s worth noting that you stayed in a truly bananas situation for two years! Granted, the last two years were not the easiest time to find a job (and it sounds like you might have started right around the start of the pandemic) but I hope you will take lessons from that experience going forward — things like if your boss is texting former employees at 3 am to complain they left, get out! If your boss is telling you monthly she doesn’t know if she can pay you, get out! If your boss is generally a chaotic mess of bad judgment and vindictiveness, get out! (And if any of this is happening at a two-person business, get a time machine and get out yesterday, because at a tiny business it’s all going to fall on you with zero buffer.) I’m sure you know that now — but it could be interesting to reflect on what made you stay as long as you did. If it were that you had a thick skin and a high tolerance for chaos, that would be one thing — but it sounds like you were constantly stressed while you were there, and I suspect you might have stayed as long as you did because the toxicity warped your sense of what was acceptable. So make sure that at some point you’re working through that! Meanwhile, though, enjoy your freedom from this nut and don’t pay any bills for her.

This post, should I withdraw from an interview process to force an offer? , was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.

A reader writes:

As a hopeful job hunter, I’ve recently twice encountered the dreaded and oft-lamented phenomenon of being ghosted or strung along after multiple rounds of interviews. In one instance, my follow-ups get no response whatsoever, but I see that the job is re-posted on LinkedIn (albeit with very few applicants). In the other, I was told by the (internal) recruiter that I am still in the running, but that the hiring manager has not made a decision.

My suspicion in both instances is that I am a second or third choice candidate, and that the hiring manager is negotiating with their top pick(s) and/or pushing the recruiter to go back to the well for more applicants (both of these are scenarios where the company is hiring for multiple, similar positions) while keeping me “on the hook” as a back-up candidate.

I was recently told by one of my mentors that emailing the recruiter and gracefully thanking them and the manager while also withdrawing my candidacy with no explanation or a simple “focusing on other opportunities” is a good way to either (a) mentally close out the opportunity from a position of strength by walking away or (b) trigger a psychological reaction to loss in the hiring manager to get an offer (i.e., we all want what we can’t have).

What are your thoughts on using the above teqhnique? Admittedly it’s not as powerful as coming back with another offer (and it takes the ability to do so away in the future) but could this be an effective technique to speed things along one way or the other? My fear would be that the hiring manager or recruiter might see through it, or at worst, it might hurt my ability to apply for other roles with the company in the future.

Do not do this!

If you announce that you’re withdrawing your candidacy, the most likely outcome is that they will assume you are withdrawing your candidacy — because you’ve accepted another job or you’ve decided this one isn’t a good fit for you — and that will be the end of that. Some recruiters or hiring managers will ask you about why, but it’s pretty rare for them to try to change your mind! It does occasionally happen, but it’s far, far more likely that they’ll simply accept your decision and move on to other candidates.

“Triggering a psychological reaction to loss in the hiring manager to get an offer” is not really a thing … except in hiring managers and candidates who play games, and you don’t want to be one of those or work with one of those. If you’re right that you’re the first or second choice and they’re negotiating with their first choice, withdrawing from the process won’t make you leapfrog over the top choice. And if they’re going back to the well for more applicants, in most cases it’s because they’re not convinced you’re a really strong match with the role — and withdrawing isn’t going to make them suddenly change that assessment. They might think, “Damn, waited too long to decide,” but they’re not likely to chase you. It’s possible — but it’s a really low probability, so if the move is intended to get you the offer, it’s incredibly risky and isn’t going to work 19 times out of 20. Instead, you’ll just end up losing any chance at getting the job — even if otherwise you might have gotten it if you waited.

About “mentally closing out the opportunity from a position of strength” — is it really a position of strength to say, essentially, “I’m rejecting you before you can reject me”? If anything, I’d argue it’s a position of weakness! It’s of course fine to withdraw from any hiring process you don’t want to stay in. But if you’re doing it because you’re frustrated at how long it’s taking or because you think you’re not their top choice and you’d rather be the one to issue the final verdict … well, you’d be prioritizing a very fleeting form of psychological comfort over a job you might happily accept if you waited.

I get that waiting to hear back about a job is frustrating and nerve-wracking. Truly, I do! But employers move on their own timelines, timelines that usually have little to do with you — they’re about other priorities (which can legitimately be more important) and their internal processes and sometimes things you might have no awareness of at all, like that someone else on the team is leaving and they need to figure out how that’ll affect both roles before they hire, or that a major project is changing in ways that have ramifications for who they should hire, or all sorts of other things that you can’t know from the outside. Usually the only time you can speed up a hiring timeline is if you genuinely have another offer that you need to make a decision on, and even then a lot of employers won’t move any faster for you (especially if they haven’t decided you’re their top candidate, and sometimes not even then).

If you let yourself believe there are things you can do to speed up a decision on the employer’s side, it’s only going to add to your aggravation — because it will keep you dwelling in a place where you’re feeling like maybe there’s something else that you could or should be doing, when in fact it’s likely out of your hands. It’s why I’m always advising that the best thing you can do after interviewing for a job is to assume you didn’t get it, put it out of your mind, and let it be a pleasant surprise if they do contact you.

Ideally you’d find a way to just mentally move on and see what happens. But even if you can’t, please don’t withdraw from a hiring process in the hopes that they’ll chase you, because they probably won’t — and you’ll just be guaranteeing that the answer at the end of the whole process is “no” when what you were hoping for was “yes.”

Our 8th most-read article of the 2022.

Originally published March 28, 2022.

“The Academy Awards briefly came to a stunning halt Sunday night when Chris Rock made a joke about Jada Pinkett Smith, after which Will Smith went to the stage and hit him in the face.” — Washington Post, 3/27/22

I’m just gonna go ahead and say it—Will Smith stole my night. With that one theatrical slap, he undid months of work, not just by me, but by my entire team of stylists. I could overlook it if I’d just shown up in Dior women’s wear. After all, Harry Styles has been showing up in women’s wear to everything, so it’s not like I would have expected those ripples to be huge. But I showed up in Dior women’s wear and no shirt, and that, people, is a Discourse Move.

Except now, of course, The Discourse will be about duels and alopecia. Truly, when I slid the sumptuous fabric of my lace blazer over my sleeveless arms, I thought the only smooth skin anyone would be talking about tonight was the stuff on my chest, visible for all to see and enjoy. Leave it to Jada Pinkett Smith to show up with a medical condition and hog the entire spotlight.

Look, if we’re being honest, I would have been a little put out by that alone. But then her devoted husband had to go full pistols-at-dawn at Chris Rock for that tired G.I. Jane reference, and now NOBODY is talking about my gender-bending bravery and my luscious, buttery bare chest. Seriously, my chest is like if a bolt of silk made love to a saucer of the freshest cream, but will that be the headline today? Most certainly not!

Instead of talking about my bold attempt to play with my own masculinity, all anyone’s gonna be talking about is Will Smith’s, and whether it’s the toxic kind or not. Will anyone even remember that I came dressed as the perfect sex matador? That my pendant dangled seductively mid-chest, inviting your gaze lower? That I wore a lace overlay that somehow made you imagine things about my dick? Of course not; they’ll be too busy tearing each other apart over whether or not violence is ever the answer and if it’s equally toxic white feminism to say it’s not. And for this, I will never forgive Will Smith or Chris Rock. Or feminists, even though I definitely am one.

Just you wait: this entire week will be nothing but blue-check Twitter brawls and straight-faced think pieces in legacy publications. Eventually, it’ll all settle down, but by the time it does no one will even remember my boots. And yet Will, Jada, and Chris will all still be unimaginably famous and wealthy. How is this fair??

Anyway, I hope you’re all happy. This week was gonna be a glorious rain of Timothée Chalamet nip-slip memes, but instead, you’re all in for a year-plus of slap memes, Lupita Nyong’o reaction .gifs, and late-night jokes cribbed from Facebook comments. And speaking of nip-slips, I don’t even get to walk away with best bare chest of the night. Thanks a LOT, Venus Williams. You know what? Maybe next time, I’ll just stay home. Or worse, show up in Carhartt.

Head over to our Patreon page (unlocked!) to read an interview with Emily Flake about writing this piece.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Thank you for shaming me, patreon typo squad.

Today's News:

“A New Species of the Genus Eurytoma Illiger Parasitic on Bees of the Genus Ceratina Latreille (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae and Apoidea)” [by Robert E. Bugbee, Pan-Pacific Entomologist, vol. 42, no. 3, 1966, pp. 210-211.] is the study featured in “May We Recommend: Bugbee on Bugs that Bug Bees“, which is a featured article in the special Viruses and Pandemics issue of the magazine—Annals of Improbable Research.

[link] [89 comments]

Police in Littlemore, England found a mountain of allegedly stolen bicycles in a man's backyard. The pile of two-wheelers was so large it was visible in a Google Earth satellite image. From Oddity Central :

"A large number of bicycles, believed to be stolen, have been recovered from the property.

— Read the rest

We’ve covered some of the difficulties Trump’s Truth Social is having getting users to actually use the platform, and the same appears to be true for the various other Trumpist Twitter wannabes like Parler and GETTR. NBC News has a somewhat hilarious story in which its reporters went to talk to “conservative influencers” to get their thoughts, and they all seem unenthusiastic about those other platforms, whining that they’re all just “echo chambers.”

That buzz was tempered by influencers who said while they do use these platforms, they don’t see them as a replacement for the wide reach of the mainstream options. Many of them used the phrase “echo chamber” when discussing their concerns about the platforms.

“I think the challenge that a lot of these newer ones have is to not be an echo chamber for people who hold similar beliefs,” said Alex Weber, a content creator who was embraced by conservatives online after posting videos criticizing mask mandates, vaccine mandates and the mainstream media. “I think why Instagram and Facebook and all these are so impactful is because you’ve got all different types of people.”

This is amusing (and telling) on multiple levels. First of all, considering how much time they spent whining about how Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. were their own “echo chambers” they actually know, deep down, that those sites actually have “got all different types of people.” That’s because contrary to the Trumpist narrative, none of those sites actually ban people based on ideology. They only do so if you violate their rules. The narrative of viewpoint-based discrimination is bullshit. And conservatives know it.

It’s also amusing in that it emphasizes that these “influencers” are only doing this because they want to engage in culture wars. They get clout by “owning the libs” or whatever other nonsense, and you can’t do that unless you can rile people up.

But, most importantly, it should put into stark relief what many of these pretend “free speech” battles are about. It’s not about the right to speak — because they have that on all these other platforms. What they’re really demanding is a right to an audience, and no matter what Elon Musk says, “free speech principles” have never included that.

[link] [92 comments]

New comic!
Today's News:

Tall grass is truly the great equalizer.

The Washington Post reports Russian troops in Ukraine "have relied, with surprising frequency, on unsecured communication devices such as smartphones and push-to-talk radios." But this is leaving Russia's units "vulnerable to targeting...further underscoring the command-and-control deficiencies that have come to define Moscow's month-long invasion, observers say." The Russian military possesses modern equipment capable of secure transmission, but troops on the battlefield have reached for simpler-to-use but less-secure lines because of uneven discipline across the ranks, an apparent lack of planning for conducting a sustained fight over long distances, and Russian attacks on Ukraine's communication infrastructure that it, too, has relied on, experts say. A European intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss NATO's battlefield assessments, said that since the invasion began in late-February, there have been multiple instances of Russian commanders confiscating their subordinates' personal phones for fear they would unwittingly give away a unit's location.... There is evidence that the United States and other NATO countries have provided Ukrainian forces with electronic warfare equipment capable of interrupting Russian transmissions and allowing them to target Russian command posts, said Kostas Tigkos, a Russian military expert at the defense analysis firm Janes Group. By destroying Russia's communication nodes, the Ukrainians could pressure their adversaries to use less-secure equipment, he said, increasing the likelihood their conversations will be intercepted or their positions triangulated.... There is anecdotal evidence that Russia's unsecured communications have led to battlefield losses. One Russian general was purportedly killed in an airstrike after his cellphone was detected by the Ukrainians, the New York Times reported earlier this month. The Post reports that Russian military transmissions over unsecured lines are now even being listened to by amateur radio enthusiasts at online sites like WebSDR (a software-defined radio receiver connected to the internet). "Don't say the last names on air!" one Russian service member was apparently overheard saying by Shadow Break International, a U.K.-based open-source intelligence consultancy.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The judiciary cannot be part of the chain of command.

The Supreme Court on Friday evening decided, no, it was not going to needlessly insert itself in the military chain of command above President Joe Biden.

The Court’s decision in Austin v. U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 largely halted a lower court order that permitted certain sailors to defy a direct order. A group of Navy special operations personnel sought an exemption from the Pentagon’s requirement that all active duty service members get vaccinated against Covid-19, claiming that they should receive a religious exemption.

A majority of the Court effectively ruled that, yes, in fact, troops do have to follow orders, including an order to take a vaccine.

The decision is undeniably a win for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary that has prevailed for many decades. But the fact that the Court had to weigh in on this at all — not to mention that three justices, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the majority — is a worrisome sign about America’s judiciary.

As Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in a brief opinion laying out why the lower court erred, this court “in effect inserted itself into the Navy’s chain of command, overriding military commanders’ professional military judgments.” Had the Court ruled the other way in SEALs, it would have effectively placed itself at the apex of the military’s chain of command, displacing Biden as commander-in-chief.

But as Kavanaugh correctly notes in his concurring opinion, there is a long line of Supreme Court precedents establishing that courts should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with military affairs.

In Gilligan v. Morgan (1973), for example, the Court held that “the complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments,” and that “it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.”

Nevertheless, Judge Reed O’Connor, a notoriously partisan judge in Texas who is best known for a failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, ruled in favor of the service members who refused to follow a direct order. And the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused the Navy’s request to stay key parts of O’Connor’s order.

That left the responsibility of restoring the military’s proper chain of command to the Supreme Court. Though the Court’s order does not wipe out O’Connor’s decision in its entirety, it temporarily blocks that decision “insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.”

But the astonishing thing about the SEALs order is that the Supreme Court needed to intervene in this case at all.

Order prevailed, but several justices wanted to upend things

The most astonishing thing about the SEALs order is that at least three justices dissented. (While it is likely that six justices sided with the Navy here, only four justices — the three dissenters plus Kavanaugh — chose to reveal how they voted. So it is possible that one other justice silently dissented.)

Thomas did not explain why he dissented, but Alito published a brief opinion, joined by Gorsuch, which lays out why he thinks that judges should be allowed to countermand orders handed down to military personnel by their commanders. Among other things, Alito complains that the Navy did not provide service members with a meaningful process they could use to request a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement.

The Navy provided the Court with several statements from high-ranking officers explaining why it requires nearly every sailor to be vaccinated, and why it generally considers unvaccinated special warfare personnel undeployable.

According to Adm. William Lescher, the Navy’s second-highest-ranking officer, Navy vessels have only limited medical facilities. So, if one of the ship’s crew becomes seriously ill, that “would require a return to port or an emergency medical evacuation by helicopter” — potentially forcing the whole ship to abandon its mission to accommodate one unvaccinated service member.

Special warfare personnel, moreover, often deploy in very small units. So one member becoming sick is a big blow to the team. And, the Navy argued, special operations “are often conducted in hostile, austere or diplomatically sensitive environments” where a severely ill service member might not be able to obtain local medical care and may need to be evacuated by the Navy — an operation that is itself dangerous and that could force the sick service member’s fellow sailors to risk their lives on his or her behalf.

To these concerns, Alito essentially said, “Prove it.”

“In order to win at trial,” Alito wrote in response to the Navy’s warnings, “it would not be enough for the Government to posit that sending an unvaccinated Seal on such a mission might produce such consequences.” Rather, the Navy would have to prove that requiring vaccination “is the least restrictive means of furthering the interest it asserts in light of the present nature of the pandemic, what is known about the spread of the virus and the effectiveness of the vaccines, prevalent practices, and the physical characteristics of Navy Seals and others in the Special Warfare community.”

I want to emphasize the sheer enormity of what Alito is suggesting here. Once the Supreme Court permits a single servicemember to defy a direct order, that opens the door to any member of the armed services who disagrees with an order running to court to seek an exemption.

Think of the kinds of orders that military personnel have to obey — “take that hill,” “guard this prisoner,” “cease fire.” And even if Alito did not intend for his dissent to apply to such battlefield orders, his dissent could effectively neutralize major military assets while religious liberty cases brought by service members are being litigated. Imagine, for example, if the captain of an aircraft carrier is ordered to deploy his ship close to Ukraine — but the captain refuses because, for religious reasons, that captain believes that Vladimir Putin should prevail in his war against Ukraine.

The Court has understood for many decades that the military simply cannot function if its members think orders may be optional. As the Supreme Court held in Goldman v. Weinberger (1986), “the essence of military service ‘is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.’”

Permitting service members to seek exemptions from the courts, Goldman explains, would undermine service members’ “habit of immediate compliance with military procedures and orders” — a habit that “must be virtually reflex with no time for debate or reflection.”

At the end of the day, every service member must know who their commander is, and everyone must respect the chain of command. There can only be one person at the apex of that chain, and it can either be Joe Biden or Samuel Alito.

And, as Kavanaugh notes in his opinion, the Constitution is very clear about who is at the top of that chain. It says, in unambiguous terms, that “the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

Checking out this neat Intel Atom mini PC, known as the Green PC from Sassy's Computers in Asheville, North Carolina! It was billed as a low-power, eco-friendly desktop computer, which is really a Shuttle XS35GT V2 underneath. So let's upgrade and restore it with an SSD and Windows XP Media Center Edition!

● LGR links:
https://www.patreon.com/LazyGameReviews
https://www.twitter.com/LazyGameReviews
https://www.facebook.com/LazyGameReviews

● Download the Sassy's logo wallpapers here:
https://archive.org/details/sassys-logos

● All background music licensed from:
http://www.epidemicsound.com

#LGR #Computer #Restoration