6 ms·

[flagged]

by lukev 2y ago

[flagged]

bell-cot 2y ago
> I don't understand why... Spend some time talking to a Libertarian zealot. Not saying that you should believe any of their assertions. Let alone adopt their worldview. But you might get a sense of how less-government-is-always-better "logic" works.
- 0134340 2y ago
  Regulate people because people can do wrong but don't regulate business entities because capitalism will punish their misdeeds. That's essentially how the "logic" goes. If the airplane company kills people, we just have to stop giving them our business, problem solved, all is good now.
- matthest 2y ago
  As a half-Libertarian, the problem with a lot of libertarian logic is that it's too black and white. Less government/regulation is good if and only if the underlying market is highly competitive. High competition protects consumers. Examples: restaurants, barbers, tailors, spas, almost anywhere small businesses exist. All ancient, well-functioning industries that are comparatively minimally regulated. The problem with deregulating banks is that the banking industry is low-competition. A few corporations dominate the landscape. So deregulation just strengthens the predators. All deregulation should be accompanied by an equal effort to foster a massive amount of competition within the industry. Otherwise, things can go south rather quickly.
  - apercu 2y ago
    If you agree that all people are fundamentally "good". But that's not true, so the barber will start skimping on barbicide and people will start getting infections. We need regulation because people are not fundamentally "good", even if they mean well. I'm glad you're "half-libertarian" because you are halfway there!
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      Yes, in addition to competitiveness, complete information must be available. The customers must know that the barbers are skimping on barbicide, and also have a full understanding of the consequences of that. It's not a default situation, and a lot of regulations are about providing that transparency so that customers can make an informed decision.
      - jkubicek 2y ago
        One of the many realizations that pushed me away from libertarianism is that I don't want to research every part of my daily life. Today in the US, I can * Buy any brand of meat in any grocery store and be confident it won't make my family sick. * Visit any barber and be confident I won't get a weird scalp infection * Fly with any airline and be confident I'll get to my destination alive This confidence is incredibly valuable to me. I don't know what percentage of my taxes goes towards these regulations, but what ever it is, I'm happy to pay it.
        mikeyouse 2y ago
        There are a few other issues that prevent True Libertarianism from ever actually being possible, namely you’d need unlimited liability and juries that could appropriately assign blame and penalties but you’re still left with the principal-agent issue where a highly compensated exec could make buckets of money doing unethical business if only the firm is responsible for the outcomes. We’re much better off with minimum safety standards and relying on Capitalism to drive prices and allocate resources inside that ‘arena’.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        This isn't entirely fair. There's nothing stopping a rigorous certification system (either private or public) from existing alongside a less regulated system. USDA organic comes to mind. Just as libertarians are often overly black and white, so are regulatory regimes.
    - matthest 2y ago
      However, in reality, barbers (at least in the US) are not dangerous places. If a barber starts acting in a way that makes their customers come down with infections, customers will take their business to the other barber down the street. If this new barber does the same, you will simply go to the next barber. In this scenario, the first barber to treat their customers well (in a manner that does not pass on infections) will gobble up all the business. Hence, it makes no sense for any barber to act in a manner that gives their customers infections, as they will quickly go out of business. Same reason restaurants are naturally incentivized to cook their food as well as possible. 1 food poisoning case is all it takes for their business to go poof. A true free market (as in, one where there's sufficient competition) keeps businesses in check, and protects customers.
  - marcusb 2y ago
    I guess I’m only 1/4 libertarian. I don’t think competition is enough. The risk of harm needs to be balanced as well. With airplanes, you have not only the risk to paying customers, but to bystanders who in many cases cannot be made whole in the event of an accident (i.e., you might get a financial settlement if an airplane crashes into your house, but that won’t bring your family members who were in the house back to life.) I’m all for cutting superfluous government regulation, but deregulating airline safety is quite possibly the dumbest possible place to do it.
    - matthest 2y ago
      I'm pro airline regulation given the current state of the market. But you could also argue the airline industry is fairly concentrated. There are only so many airlines. If a Delta flight crashes, you might still fly Delta again in the future, because there are only so many options. Now imagine if there were as many airlines as restaurants. If one Delta flight messes up in any way, people would never fly them again. They'd go out of business. Of course, a market with as many airlines as restaurants isn't practical in the current day (maybe when AI robots become feasible). Hence, agree that airline regulations are necessary.
      - mint2 2y ago
        “They go out of business”… is that way to say they rebrand themselves and blend in with the crowd? As that seems highly likely with a theoretically crowded but not regulated airline market.
        dullcrisp 2y ago
        Yeah, damaging their brand would only matter if their brand was worth a lot, which would only be the case if there weren’t too many airlines for people to keep track of.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Even if AI robots somehow replaced all of the airline employees it still wouldn't be economically viable to have more than about four major airlines covering routes between all major US airports. The limiting factor is gate access. If we wanted to make room in the market for more airlines then we would have to expand most airports, or build new ones. There are a number of smaller airlines competing with the big players but they have limited route networks and little opportunity to expand.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > The problem with deregulating banks is that the banking industry is low-competition. A few corporations dominate the landscape. So deregulation just strengthens the predators. But that's not a natural state of affairs. Look at the savings and loan scandal! Without the regulation, banking was intensely competitive. Why assume that, if you took the regulation away, banking would take no notice and stay exactly the same? > All deregulation should be accompanied by an equal effort to foster a massive amount of competition within the industry. Deregulation is an effort to foster competition within the deregulated industry. Those regulations are barriers to entry, which is why large companies always want more of them.
- mbostleman 2y ago
  I'm not sure what I would be called, but institutionalizing the perpetuation of a particular party using hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars through propaganda, favors, and kickbacks not only domestically but internationally is not my idea of good government.
- dboreham 2y ago
  [flagged]
sepositus 2y ago
> so poor regulation could possibly be implicated Can you work out the logical connection for someone who wouldn't understand it?
- karlgkk 2y ago
  There is incredible amounts of regulation around plane, maintenance. From specification of parts, to maintenance schedules, even all the way down to purity and composition of the materials. This regulation is used to make sure that all airlines that operate in the US adhere to the strict and narrow requirements from the manufacturers and the safety testing done. Whether or not you or other people ideologically agree with heavy regulations around this stuff is a whole separate conversation. Considering the complexity of this industry, I’d say that overall they’ve done a pretty good job. That aside, whenever a major incident like this happens, it almost always means those regulations were incorrect, violated, or didn’t cover a specific scenario (increasingly rare). There will be extensive reviews, that will take months, if not years, to determine how to prevent something like this from happening again. Sometimes it’s regulation, sometimes it’s updates to pilot guidelines and training. Sometimes it’s something else.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    What I'm not quite convinced of is that it is the regulation that keeps the airlines following the manufacturers' specifications. I see what happens to stock prices when these companies screw up and they lose a lot more money to that than they ever to do fines from regulators. Are the regulations actually doing much here or are they just repeating what the airlines would do anyway because they have a massive incentive not to crash even if the regulations didn't exist?
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      I would think the whole Boeing saga would disabuse you of that notion. Boeing put the bean counters in charge because it made their stock price go up. Of course, it goes up until the corners you cut to juice short term profitability cause something catastrophic to happen, like the multiple 787-max crashes, the door plug blowout, etc. By the time the bad stuff happens, the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere (or, in the case of former Boeing CEO James McNerney, cashing royalty checks from his book about his stellar management style and what a smart guy he is).
kylehotchkiss 2y ago
This was landing in a 30+ mph crosswind in one of the smallest commercial passenger aircraft
- 601Jet 2y ago
  I have a lot of hours in the 600/601, don’t know about the RJ, but on the 600 models there is a 24 knot x-wind limitation if using Thrust Reversers.
- loeg 2y ago
  CRJ-900s have a crosswind limit of ~37 knots sustained (~42 mph) (though I'm seeing different numbers in a few different places, it maybe a little lower) in dry/bare conditions, and can be lower still on slippery runways. Reported winds were ~30 mph sustained with 40 mph gusts. Plausible this was a factor. I will be interested to read the report. Edit: from an avherald comment: > Tower ATC alert to Medevac :”Wind 270 Gusting 33” (Runway 23 is at 230 degrees, so the wind is at 40 degrees relative to the approach.) > CRJ 900 X Wind Limits: > • Wet runway: 22 knots for takeoff and landing > • Fair braking action: 20 knots for takeoff and landing > • Poor braking action: 15 knots for takeoff and landing > • High minimums status for PIC: 25 knots for takeoff and landing > • High minimums status for SIC: 15 knots for takeoff and landing > Crosswind estimation: > The maximum crosswind component considers the wind's speed and direction. For example, a 30-degree crosswind has a maximum limit of 50% of the wind speed. > So here a 40-degree Crosswind, gusting, wet/contaminated Runway with 2” packed snow, 1-2 inches wet snow, Blowing Snow and possible shear all add up to probably exceeding Limits.
- bobsomers 2y ago
  It wasn't quite that bad. It was Runway 23 and the METAR at the time reported winds from 270 at 28 kts gusting 35 kts, so it would have been ~18-22 knot crosswind.
fallingknife 2y ago
Is the particular issue here something that would be solved by more FAA staffing? Typically "give more money and headcount to the bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent this issue" is not actually an effective way to solve a problem, and a more intelligent approach is needed. IMO they need to be looking at more automation and less ATC headcount anyway. That DC crash wouldn't have happened if the pilots had a continuous data feed and collision prevention algorithm rather than relying on people in the control tower calling them and telling them do you see "the plane?"
CivBase 2y ago
How did the plane flip? Do we have any reason to believe it could be reasonably avoided with regulations?
- lumost 2y ago
  Maintenance is a regulatory problem. Otherwise it’s a race to the bottom looking for someone to sign off on a flight.
  - CivBase 2y ago
    Do we have reason to believe this was a maintenance issue?
    - pharrington 2y ago
      I gotta come clean now. I turned the plane upside-down. It was me.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    Is there any evidence that this incidence was due to poor regulation?
- bombcar 2y ago
  Simple. Just add a law saying planes aren’t allowed to flip.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Right wing separated on landing. Left wing remained attached. Unequal lift vector (0% right, 100% left) induced roll. Lack of right wing meant no mechanical resistance to roll. Fuselage inverted. Regulation isn't going to affect any of that. Why the plane was landing hot at a high sink-rate (1200 fpm vs. ~600 max on stabilised approach), with no flaps, might have some grounding in regulation, or more likely, maintenance and operations standards, but uninformed speculation is highly premature and the focus on such points is utterly unjustified distraction.
declan_roberts 2y ago
Well based on your post they're apparently unrelated.
fundad 2y ago
Concerning
deadbabe 2y ago
I’m truly sick and tired of how unsafe flying in the US has become.
- supernova87a 2y ago
  Sorry, but I think that statement is an incorrect perception that you're falling victim to due to a statistical blip in high publicity aircraft incidents in the last ~2 months. We live in the safest era of commercial airline travel in history. The rate of serious aircraft accidents is so low that safety researchers almost don't have real life incidents to study for new issues to fix. That is why the recent few incidents seem like such an anomaly. Certain things still need to be improved of course, and the DCA crash brings to attention ATC staffing, etc. But to say that you're sick and tired of aircraft incidents like they're happening every month is a bit ridiculous.
  - trip-zip 2y ago
    Although my conclusion is the same as yours, that flying has never been safer, it has felt like longer than 2 months that the state of aviation safety has been under scrutiny. I feel like the Boeing situation recently has caused a lot of people to really assume the worst of the industry. Again, I'm in aviation. I believe the data indicates it's safe as it's ever been. But I don't blame people for being concerned
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      Seeing video of a missing door in flight, sure no one died, the fatality statistics don't look any worse for it, but it sure erodes confidence in the system. The findings of the following investigation only made it that much worse.
- kortilla 2y ago
  It hasn’t become unsafe. You’re stuck in a bubble.
kortilla 2y ago
> so poor regulation could possibly be implicated. This has to be one of the dumbest takes out there. Try to work out what could have been cut on the US regulation side that would have caused a crash in Canada such a short time later. Do you think maybe delta just stopped following the law and let some children fly the plane? Or maybe decided to stop doing maintenance? Seriously, what is the model here that makes any sense at all?
- cuuupid 2y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

[flagged]

by lukev 2y ago

[flagged]

> I don't understand why... Spend some time talking to a Libertarian zealot. Not saying that you should believe any of their assertions. Let alone adopt their worldview. But you might get a sense of how less-government-is-always-better "logic" works.

0134340 2y ago
Regulate people because people can do wrong but don't regulate business entities because capitalism will punish their misdeeds. That's essentially how the "logic" goes. If the airplane company kills people, we just have to stop giving them our business, problem solved, all is good now.
matthest 2y ago
As a half-Libertarian, the problem with a lot of libertarian logic is that it's too black and white. Less government/regulation is good if and only if the underlying market is highly competitive. High competition protects consumers. Examples: restaurants, barbers, tailors, spas, almost anywhere small businesses exist. All ancient, well-functioning industries that are comparatively minimally regulated. The problem with deregulating banks is that the banking industry is low-competition. A few corporations dominate the landscape. So deregulation just strengthens the predators. All deregulation should be accompanied by an equal effort to foster a massive amount of competition within the industry. Otherwise, things can go south rather quickly.
- apercu 2y ago
  If you agree that all people are fundamentally "good". But that's not true, so the barber will start skimping on barbicide and people will start getting infections. We need regulation because people are not fundamentally "good", even if they mean well. I'm glad you're "half-libertarian" because you are halfway there!
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Yes, in addition to competitiveness, complete information must be available. The customers must know that the barbers are skimping on barbicide, and also have a full understanding of the consequences of that. It's not a default situation, and a lot of regulations are about providing that transparency so that customers can make an informed decision.
    - jkubicek 2y ago
      One of the many realizations that pushed me away from libertarianism is that I don't want to research every part of my daily life. Today in the US, I can * Buy any brand of meat in any grocery store and be confident it won't make my family sick. * Visit any barber and be confident I won't get a weird scalp infection * Fly with any airline and be confident I'll get to my destination alive This confidence is incredibly valuable to me. I don't know what percentage of my taxes goes towards these regulations, but what ever it is, I'm happy to pay it.
      - mikeyouse 2y ago
        There are a few other issues that prevent True Libertarianism from ever actually being possible, namely you’d need unlimited liability and juries that could appropriately assign blame and penalties but you’re still left with the principal-agent issue where a highly compensated exec could make buckets of money doing unethical business if only the firm is responsible for the outcomes. We’re much better off with minimum safety standards and relying on Capitalism to drive prices and allocate resources inside that ‘arena’.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        This isn't entirely fair. There's nothing stopping a rigorous certification system (either private or public) from existing alongside a less regulated system. USDA organic comes to mind. Just as libertarians are often overly black and white, so are regulatory regimes.
  - matthest 2y ago
    However, in reality, barbers (at least in the US) are not dangerous places. If a barber starts acting in a way that makes their customers come down with infections, customers will take their business to the other barber down the street. If this new barber does the same, you will simply go to the next barber. In this scenario, the first barber to treat their customers well (in a manner that does not pass on infections) will gobble up all the business. Hence, it makes no sense for any barber to act in a manner that gives their customers infections, as they will quickly go out of business. Same reason restaurants are naturally incentivized to cook their food as well as possible. 1 food poisoning case is all it takes for their business to go poof. A true free market (as in, one where there's sufficient competition) keeps businesses in check, and protects customers.
- marcusb 2y ago
  I guess I’m only 1/4 libertarian. I don’t think competition is enough. The risk of harm needs to be balanced as well. With airplanes, you have not only the risk to paying customers, but to bystanders who in many cases cannot be made whole in the event of an accident (i.e., you might get a financial settlement if an airplane crashes into your house, but that won’t bring your family members who were in the house back to life.) I’m all for cutting superfluous government regulation, but deregulating airline safety is quite possibly the dumbest possible place to do it.
  - matthest 2y ago
    I'm pro airline regulation given the current state of the market. But you could also argue the airline industry is fairly concentrated. There are only so many airlines. If a Delta flight crashes, you might still fly Delta again in the future, because there are only so many options. Now imagine if there were as many airlines as restaurants. If one Delta flight messes up in any way, people would never fly them again. They'd go out of business. Of course, a market with as many airlines as restaurants isn't practical in the current day (maybe when AI robots become feasible). Hence, agree that airline regulations are necessary.
    - mint2 2y ago
      “They go out of business”… is that way to say they rebrand themselves and blend in with the crowd? As that seems highly likely with a theoretically crowded but not regulated airline market.
      - dullcrisp 2y ago
        Yeah, damaging their brand would only matter if their brand was worth a lot, which would only be the case if there weren’t too many airlines for people to keep track of.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Even if AI robots somehow replaced all of the airline employees it still wouldn't be economically viable to have more than about four major airlines covering routes between all major US airports. The limiting factor is gate access. If we wanted to make room in the market for more airlines then we would have to expand most airports, or build new ones. There are a number of smaller airlines competing with the big players but they have limited route networks and little opportunity to expand.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > The problem with deregulating banks is that the banking industry is low-competition. A few corporations dominate the landscape. So deregulation just strengthens the predators. But that's not a natural state of affairs. Look at the savings and loan scandal! Without the regulation, banking was intensely competitive. Why assume that, if you took the regulation away, banking would take no notice and stay exactly the same? > All deregulation should be accompanied by an equal effort to foster a massive amount of competition within the industry. Deregulation is an effort to foster competition within the deregulated industry. Those regulations are barriers to entry, which is why large companies always want more of them.
mbostleman 2y ago
I'm not sure what I would be called, but institutionalizing the perpetuation of a particular party using hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars through propaganda, favors, and kickbacks not only domestically but internationally is not my idea of good government.
dboreham 2y ago
[flagged]

sepositus 2y ago

> so poor regulation could possibly be implicated Can you work out the logical connection for someone who wouldn't understand it?

karlgkk 2y ago
There is incredible amounts of regulation around plane, maintenance. From specification of parts, to maintenance schedules, even all the way down to purity and composition of the materials. This regulation is used to make sure that all airlines that operate in the US adhere to the strict and narrow requirements from the manufacturers and the safety testing done. Whether or not you or other people ideologically agree with heavy regulations around this stuff is a whole separate conversation. Considering the complexity of this industry, I’d say that overall they’ve done a pretty good job. That aside, whenever a major incident like this happens, it almost always means those regulations were incorrect, violated, or didn’t cover a specific scenario (increasingly rare). There will be extensive reviews, that will take months, if not years, to determine how to prevent something like this from happening again. Sometimes it’s regulation, sometimes it’s updates to pilot guidelines and training. Sometimes it’s something else.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  What I'm not quite convinced of is that it is the regulation that keeps the airlines following the manufacturers' specifications. I see what happens to stock prices when these companies screw up and they lose a lot more money to that than they ever to do fines from regulators. Are the regulations actually doing much here or are they just repeating what the airlines would do anyway because they have a massive incentive not to crash even if the regulations didn't exist?
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I would think the whole Boeing saga would disabuse you of that notion. Boeing put the bean counters in charge because it made their stock price go up. Of course, it goes up until the corners you cut to juice short term profitability cause something catastrophic to happen, like the multiple 787-max crashes, the door plug blowout, etc. By the time the bad stuff happens, the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere (or, in the case of former Boeing CEO James McNerney, cashing royalty checks from his book about his stellar management style and what a smart guy he is).

kylehotchkiss 2y ago

This was landing in a 30+ mph crosswind in one of the smallest commercial passenger aircraft

601Jet 2y ago
I have a lot of hours in the 600/601, don’t know about the RJ, but on the 600 models there is a 24 knot x-wind limitation if using Thrust Reversers.
loeg 2y ago
CRJ-900s have a crosswind limit of ~37 knots sustained (~42 mph) (though I'm seeing different numbers in a few different places, it maybe a little lower) in dry/bare conditions, and can be lower still on slippery runways. Reported winds were ~30 mph sustained with 40 mph gusts. Plausible this was a factor. I will be interested to read the report. Edit: from an avherald comment: > Tower ATC alert to Medevac :”Wind 270 Gusting 33” (Runway 23 is at 230 degrees, so the wind is at 40 degrees relative to the approach.) > CRJ 900 X Wind Limits: > • Wet runway: 22 knots for takeoff and landing > • Fair braking action: 20 knots for takeoff and landing > • Poor braking action: 15 knots for takeoff and landing > • High minimums status for PIC: 25 knots for takeoff and landing > • High minimums status for SIC: 15 knots for takeoff and landing > Crosswind estimation: > The maximum crosswind component considers the wind's speed and direction. For example, a 30-degree crosswind has a maximum limit of 50% of the wind speed. > So here a 40-degree Crosswind, gusting, wet/contaminated Runway with 2” packed snow, 1-2 inches wet snow, Blowing Snow and possible shear all add up to probably exceeding Limits.
bobsomers 2y ago
It wasn't quite that bad. It was Runway 23 and the METAR at the time reported winds from 270 at 28 kts gusting 35 kts, so it would have been ~18-22 knot crosswind.

fallingknife 2y ago

Is the particular issue here something that would be solved by more FAA staffing? Typically "give more money and headcount to the bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent this issue" is not actually an effective way to solve a problem, and a more intelligent approach is needed. IMO they need to be looking at more automation and less ATC headcount anyway. That DC crash wouldn't have happened if the pilots had a continuous data feed and collision prevention algorithm rather than relying on people in the control tower calling them and telling them do you see "the plane?"

CivBase 2y ago

How did the plane flip? Do we have any reason to believe it could be reasonably avoided with regulations?

lumost 2y ago
Maintenance is a regulatory problem. Otherwise it’s a race to the bottom looking for someone to sign off on a flight.
- CivBase 2y ago
  Do we have reason to believe this was a maintenance issue?
  - pharrington 2y ago
    I gotta come clean now. I turned the plane upside-down. It was me.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  Is there any evidence that this incidence was due to poor regulation?
bombcar 2y ago
Simple. Just add a law saying planes aren’t allowed to flip.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Right wing separated on landing. Left wing remained attached. Unequal lift vector (0% right, 100% left) induced roll. Lack of right wing meant no mechanical resistance to roll. Fuselage inverted. Regulation isn't going to affect any of that. Why the plane was landing hot at a high sink-rate (1200 fpm vs. ~600 max on stabilised approach), with no flaps, might have some grounding in regulation, or more likely, maintenance and operations standards, but uninformed speculation is highly premature and the focus on such points is utterly unjustified distraction.

declan_roberts 2y ago

Well based on your post they're apparently unrelated.

fundad 2y ago

Concerning

deadbabe 2y ago

I’m truly sick and tired of how unsafe flying in the US has become.

supernova87a 2y ago
Sorry, but I think that statement is an incorrect perception that you're falling victim to due to a statistical blip in high publicity aircraft incidents in the last ~2 months. We live in the safest era of commercial airline travel in history. The rate of serious aircraft accidents is so low that safety researchers almost don't have real life incidents to study for new issues to fix. That is why the recent few incidents seem like such an anomaly. Certain things still need to be improved of course, and the DCA crash brings to attention ATC staffing, etc. But to say that you're sick and tired of aircraft incidents like they're happening every month is a bit ridiculous.
- trip-zip 2y ago
  Although my conclusion is the same as yours, that flying has never been safer, it has felt like longer than 2 months that the state of aviation safety has been under scrutiny. I feel like the Boeing situation recently has caused a lot of people to really assume the worst of the industry. Again, I'm in aviation. I believe the data indicates it's safe as it's ever been. But I don't blame people for being concerned
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    Seeing video of a missing door in flight, sure no one died, the fatality statistics don't look any worse for it, but it sure erodes confidence in the system. The findings of the following investigation only made it that much worse.
kortilla 2y ago
It hasn’t become unsafe. You’re stuck in a bubble.

kortilla 2y ago

> so poor regulation could possibly be implicated. This has to be one of the dumbest takes out there. Try to work out what could have been cut on the US regulation side that would have caused a crash in Canada such a short time later. Do you think maybe delta just stopped following the law and let some children fly the plane? Or maybe decided to stop doing maintenance? Seriously, what is the model here that makes any sense at all?

cuuupid 2y ago
[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]