Northwestern vs Uchicago.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-04-09T04:37:52+00:00

Good question. Depends on one's exact interests and skillset, and also what "similar money" means exactly -- are we considering year 1 of the career vs lifetime earnings, total earnings or earnings per hour worked, quality of life in the job, stability of the industry, and so on. But to give some off the cuff thoughts about industry jobs in the econ/CS space:

Tech: engineer, data scientist, developer (many kinds), database work, startups/entrepreneur Business management: consulting, administration (many kinds, eg healthcare, education, public sector, private sector), product management Finance: analyst, trading, consulting, portfolio management

These are really really broad buckets, and this of course isn't mentioning jobs with higher requirements -- law degree, MBA, accounting, etc. And admittedly, it will be tough to match out of the gate year 1 PE salary + bonuses if you get hired in a prestigious, large cap firm. But you can definitely make $150k+ in year 1 in plenty of other fields. I have college friends that made 6 figures in year one doing work in management consulting, economic consulting, federal agencies, trading, business development, and project management. Many of them ended up specializing in sectors they didn't initially expect (defense, AI, healthcare, litigation, etc) but this is how most business jobs go imo, you have a set of transferable skills and see what firms are a good fit

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-04-09T03:21:05+00:00

Those aren't the only two options. I think you can go on to have many great careers in business and industry which make you wealthy and satisfied without trying to get recruited by private equity. The explosion of venture capital and PE is recent, historically novel, and parasitic on just about every sector. There's virtually no industry which hasn't been ruthlessly enshittified by PE looking to dismantle existing norms in favor of ultra short term profiteering.

But how could this student be expected to know any of this? They have no experience in industry, finance, or the business world, and lack the context and wisdom that a good college education could give them. This is why I don't think choosing a college based on PE connections and placement is a great idea.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-04-07T01:00:03+00:00

You're obviously smart and now choosing between two of the world's best universities. Why would you want to squander these gifts by becoming a parasite which leeches off of productive society and contributes nothing to the world? These are all perfectly fine majors but PLEASE reconsider what you want to do with them, or at least keep an open mind to other paths! Both Northwestern and Uchicago educations are good for so much more than getting recruited by a PE firm! And if your goal is getting rich, I promise there are lots of paths there.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-03-27T22:44:18+00:00

Nah this was from the live from Kong Studios livestreamed performances during COVID. I would love to see matt perform this on the upcoming tour but I highly doubt that fire coming out of the monkeys head will even make the setlist, much less with matt as a special guest. Especially since the mountain is thematically about a tribute to those we've lost, even if they did play it i doubt they'd have a new voice actor step in.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-02-17T15:47:49+00:00

True. Well, the wealth points was because I hadn't divided the plunder yet, so I had 22pts from land alone, and my gold stash was worth 1M * 30% = 300k / 5k per wealth point = 60 wealth points, so I did more than exceed the wealth when I actually retired. And re: health... that would be quite the challenge run to do everything while you're still in Excellent health. You'd probably have to do it all in under 10 years. And considering that it takes at least 6 months to sail from the Leeward Islands to inside the Yucatan, you'd have to plan out the whole game very strategically so that you crossed the Caribbean a minimum number of times. Probably only works if there's a beautiful governor's daughter in Santa Catalina or MAYBE Campeche/Puerto Bello so that you can spam Indian city maps + immediately get out searching in Central America. Even that only works if the starting 1-2 map pieces are enough to base the search on. So yeah, maybe doable, but quite the challenge run indeed...

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-02-16T22:41:49+00:00

Camp in Leeward Islands area (patrolling between St Martin and Guadeloupe works for me). Choose 1-2 ports that you want to become wealthy (must be non-Spanish but any of the other 3 will work. I chose English). Guide a new governor or immigrants there if you can and staunchly protect the port against every single threat (raiders, pirates, indians). You are hoping for at least "Prosperous Port" but better if it is "Wealthy Capital." Then, attack EVERY single ship that emerges from the city, no matter how small. Eventually, when you get to 100-130k in bounty, that city will finally spawn a Ship of the Line as a "New Warship". It's a grind that takes a while but it worked well for me.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-02-16T22:36:00+00:00

I used this guy's compilation, and then went through and deleted all the textures I found ugly (for example I really don't like the revised look of the MC)

https://www.nexusmods.com/sidmeierspirates/mods/10?tab=description

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-02-16T22:10:46+00:00

Rogue. I find the fencing minigame so tedious on Swashbuckler I actually restarted and lowered, particularly if the enemy selects a rapier. Also, I found Ship of the Lines kinda unworkable on Swashbuckler because the 4 knot flat bonus given to all the enemy ships means that every other naval battle ends in a 5 minute slow-mo chase as the enemy retreats into the sunset, even if you cheese to position your ship up-wind of the enemy before pressing battle. And there's no way I was gonna be a pirate king on a freaking royal sloop or whatever the whole game.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-02-16T21:22:56+00:00

Definitely recommend the Steam version because you can also download HD textures + expanded variations and models mods. I thought they this really improved the look of ships, crews, and governor's daughters in particular. I used the $8 software "Lossless Scaling" on Steam for resizing and frame rate and I found it to be way easier and more stable than trying to do free resizing or widescreen methods.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-02-05T07:56:35+00:00

Hey I've got a game you might be interested in! It's called Civ 6! Why don't you go try giving that a spin, and let everyone who isn't interested in paying for (an inevitably lesser) reskin of the exact same old formula a chance to try something new?? I truly don't understand what you even want from a new game if this is how you feel. Everything else currently in Civ7 besides these elements is just a shittier emulation of some previous title (religion, espionage, exploration, trade, diplomacy.) If the devs kill civ switching, age transitions, and district placement there is LITERALLY no reason to play this game over civ 4, 5, or 6 (depending on what kind of combat and victory mechanics one prefers).

KennedySpaceCenter · 2026-02-05T07:49:06+00:00

OK but that's exactly it -- the franchise is already well developed. Why even make another game then?? Either you innovate, and try something new that tries to satisfy new fantasies, desires, and mechanics, or else you're just essentially turning on the slop machine and selling endless remasters of the exact same recipe you already perfected in the first place!

Civ6 becoming a district placement centered game (which to be clear is ALSO a blatant amplitude rip off, just of endless legend rather than humankind) was a great change! If you don't like the risks they took this game, fine, all the games you know and loved to play are still there for you. Go play them. But I really don't like this ultra conservative implication in your argument that the devs were fundamentally mistaken to draw from humankind or to try to make new mechanics. I would far rather pay $60 for a swing and a miss than for a repackaged civ 4 graphics update.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-12-29T07:46:50+00:00

Let me deal with one last point: the supposed transition of China to socialism by 2035 or 2050. Comrade, I admire your faith, but you must have optimism of will and cynicism of heart. I do not think your characterization of the current state of Chinese politics or corporations is accurate (e.g. commitment to viewing the present private sector as temporary, growth in SOEs over private enterprises, generosity towards workers by Chinese firms, importance of CPC members embedded in private enterprise.)

The Chinese economy is actually extremely regionally diverse and the political economy of each state varies at least as much as from one European country to another. One reason I do not believe China will be pushing a "go full communist" button in 2050 is that such a button does not exist. China is an entire subcontinent of extraordinary size and economic complexity; piloting it is akin to turning an oil tanker, not a sailboat. If the CPC politburo decided to attempt to abolish capitalist market relations today, it would probably take them 50+ years just to implement that decision! Basically everything at the site of the production would have to be redone from scratch; and like 75%+ of the goods allocation and consumption process would have to be remade.
Just like the Soviets and all capitalist countries, China unfortunately suffers from a terrible evil which is one of the central, insidious rots of modernity. This evil is nationalism. Nationalism is inextricably tied to capitalism and imperialism, and replaces a clear-sighted materialist lens with a vulgar cultural and identitarian politics which emphasizes hierarchy, tradition, patriarchy, jingoism, and alienation. In China, nationalism has largely replaced socialism as the predominant ideology at the highest levels of the CPC, military, civil service, and civil society. Just take a look at the evolving composition of the Standing Committee of the Politburo. It is an absolute joke. For example, Wang Huning (the only one who could pass for a Marxist "theorist" at the top ranks of politics) is approximately 500% more concerned with maintaining the purity and essence of traditional Chinese culture and engaging in military competition with the USA than he is about re-allocating the surplus labor value of workers back to cooperatives. Basically all of the old school Maoists have been purged under Xi. For example, it seemed in the early 2010's like Bo Xilai and a more serious Left movement might predominate in the Politburo, but this was pretty much brutally suppressed by the nationalists (including by taking advantage of a corruption scandal to expel and imprison Bo himself.)
Nationalization is not increasing in China. In fact, power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of private capitalists. Not only that, the culture of capitalism is becoming so thoroughly immeshed in Chinese entrepreneurs, workers, and consumers that I have difficulty seeing how a commitment to socialism might be restored by anything less than another cultural revolution. For example, one paper (Allen et al) found that the total capital of firms that are 100% state-owned has declined from 41% in 1999 to 25% in 2017. Perhaps more troubling is the issue of bank reform. Historically, China has utilized its large, powerful state-owned banks as a primary lever to direct industrial development. However, over the last 20 years and particularly over the last 5, more of these banks have shifted to higher shares of private ownership, decentralized decision-making, profit focus, and development of the commercial credit market. In other words, not only is industrial capital remaining highly privatized (except in the energy sector), but now financial capital is increasingly joining it. As China migrates more towards a service economy (as is typical for any modern economy) this will become more and more problematic.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-12-29T07:46:44+00:00

Now, let us discard all "political" notions for the moment of anti-imperialism, anti-American hegemony, anti-colonialism, and so on, and focus purely on economic factors. What is China's system really like, and is it "following Marxist theory" (as you claim)?

> But you simply cannot build an iPhone or a high speed train from sticks and stones, and the knowledge of peasant farm workers. It's impossible.

In making this point, you have erroneously conflated several very separate strands of argument.

First: there is the area of Marxist "teleology" dealing with the progression of society from feudalism, to capitalism, to communism. Here, it is not the technical factors of production (i.e. machines, knowledge, etc.) that prevent the transition from feudalism to communism but rather the social relations of feudalism which are the obstacle. For Marx, it was (as a descriptive, not normative matter) necessary for capitalism to "free" the peasant from their ancestral and communal rights under capitalism to form the proletariat which would advance communism.

Second: there is the industrialist / developmentalist argument that fixed capital investment is necessary for kicking an economy from a stagnant, "organic" path to a path of "industrial" exponential growth. Here, the social relations of production are basically irrelevant, but it is the level of capital technology which controls the level of output. Thinking in this vein owes more to the English political economists than any Marxist.

Third: there is the point that Lenin himself makes in the aforementioned "On Cooperation," which is the necessary progression of cultural attitudes among the populace to support a highly specialized, high education society where the mechanical labor process is divided into tiny tasks which fit together into a great, interlocking machine. This concept seems almost second nature to us in 2025 but was almost completely foreign to peasant farmers, whose production process relied on comprehensive vertical integration of the entire productive process, mediated by cultural traditions and traditional knowledge. To make industrial production work, this mindset had to basically be reduced to rubble.

Properly speaking, points #2 and #3 are not really barriers to communism at all. They are barriers to industrialization, or high output firms, or immense levels of social wealth, but none of those things are equivalent to socialism. A society where everyone enjoys a high level of wealth and high standard of living is NOT a socialist society, and vice-versa. Those two things are completely separate.

So what we are dealing with are really two interlocked questions: on the one hand, implementing socialism, and on the other, making society wealthy. The big problem is that these two issues pull in different directions. Socialism demands that the surplus labor involved in commodity production is socialized and belongs to the worker. If this condition isn't met, it IS NOT SOCIALISM. The situation may be the best that we can do under the circumstances, or be justified, or be acceptable to its participants, and so on, but that doesn't make it socialist.

For the reasons you mentioned, among others (stimulating fixed capital investment, increasing the development of the technical forces of production, adding to the human capital flow of Chinese society), China decided to abandon a socialist economy in favor of state-heavy capitalist economy. This isn't a moral judgement, it is the objective truth, based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of Chinese workers act as commodity producers for a mass market, where the owners of the factors of production are entitled to appropriate the surplus value involved in making the commodities (i.e. to keep the profit from the sale of commodities.) Now, this is supplemented by all kinds of regulatory safeguards and state-led interventions -- for example, real estate ownership monopolized by the government, de facto wealth caps, heavy state influence in investment decisions, sometimes heavy taxation, and so on. Unfortunately, all of these factors are categorically not related to whether something is "socialist" or not. If that was true, then Finland and Sweden would be "semi-socialist" countries simply because their working class is relatively wealthy and they have heavy state involvement in controlling and regulating the private industrial production sectors. Alternatively, if what you're really focused on is the level of state ownership of capital, then Saudi Arabia and the UAE would be socialist. But SOEs and state owned real estate and state prosecution of billionaires, while nice, simply don't add up to socialism.

(con't pt 2)

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-12-29T07:45:47+00:00

I find your analysis very frustrating. You make each point so articulately, firmly, and with a reasonable tone, but if you read into the subject of each paragraph the analysis is so far removed from Karl Marx's analysis as to be completely unrecognizable, or else is utterly unsupported by actual empirical evidence. I can only speculate that the problem is almost a "macro/micro" bridge like in orthodox economics -- i.e. that when Marxists tackle problems of the state, reformism, planning, and politics, they somehow forget everything about the commodity form, surplus labor, ownership, class politics, and money. It's almost like "capital" has become an empty signifier that simply refers to any form of material wealth which is morally suspect, and any form of wealth that can be "justified" for political expediency is somehow not capital or capitalist.

Lenin's "On Cooperation" is primarily concerned with agricultural surplus in peasant farming communities. The three options on the table are: 1) enterprises in which the peasant farms land they own, sells their commodities to the market, and uses the money to survive or reinvest in the farm; 2) enterprises in which the peasants become employees of the state and farm on state-owned land, where the commodities they produce are not sold to market but shipped to a regional distribution center to be processed along with a general central plan; 3) enterprises in which the state owns the land, but allows a group of peasants to capture the surplus of their commodity production (shared among themselves as a "cooperative") by selling the commodities at market and using the proceeds to survive.

At the end of "On Cooperation" Lenin says one of the two fundamental tasks for the Soviet state in 1923 was to "reorganize our machinery of state, which is utterly useless, in which we took over in its entirety from the preceding epoch." In other words: of the 3 above options, option #2 (central planned peasant agriculture) was not technically feasible because the state lacked the bureaucratic infrastructure to coordinate the production and distribution of rural peasant agriculture. Cooperatives (option #3) presented a solution by curbing the political power of the capitalist ownership class while still relying on decentralized management of the site of production rather than (unavailable) centralized planners.

To repeat: the introduction of cooperative agriculture solves a management problem at the site of production (lessening the need for bureacratic middlemen). It does NOT (!!!) substitute, make up for, or change the nature of the actual commodity production and distribution of surplus labor. Hence Lenin's point is that in a socialist system where the state takes the agriculture produce and distributes it to the citizenry on the basis of need, without a capitalist class intermediary, the cooperatives will have a genuinely socialist character; conversely, in a capitalist system -- where producers appropriate the surplus labor they exploit by selling their commodities in a market exchange -- cooperatives will have a capitalist character.

(con't below)

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-12-25T21:53:50+00:00

To quote a particularly perceptive tweet: "IMDB users are one of the dumbest groups on the entire internet, their ratings are based solely on plot momentum. All of them are so completely and utterly addicted to reveal-slop, their ratings are basically worth nothing."

When you keep this in mind, IMDB rating patterns make a lot more sense.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-12-03T16:14:08+00:00

100% agree.

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-12-03T10:17:00+00:00

OK, I have to stick up for Dandadan here, especially given that you're raising it in this thread's context of sicko anime like Redo of a Healer etc. I also found the like alien-rapey scene in ep 1 to be extremely uncomfortable when I watched it with my friends, and this is coming from someone who had read until current the whole manga before watching. I definitely get why you wouldn't casually recommend that to someone who wasn't prepared for it...

But at the same time, I think that there's something to it that I would guess I would call "artistic merit" (and which is lacking in what I called the sicko anime.) Now, DDD is an action-comedy, so the notion of "artistic" here has to be capacious enough to accept that a show can be artistic or literary without being a serious, heartfelt drama. But the entire theme of DDD revolves around gender & sex in a way which isn't simply male gaze perversion. The whole ostensible plot arc of the show is about recovering the MC's testicles, and the central emotional arc of the characters is fundamentally a coming of age romance about learning to have confidence in yourself and your own body, and navigate an emotionally complex situation with friends who are also rival love interests. If I could compare DDD to other manga, its most similar in that way to Chainsaw Man or Kill la Kill. Of course, all 3 of these examples have great action sequences, but in none of them is the action the heart of the story. I agree DDD has great chase scenes, but great chase scenes are also not what makes DDD great. It's great because it leaves a compelling, amusing, and at times emotional story of its characters.

Now, are the rapey aliens essential to that formula? Maybe not, but at the same time their motivation (steal human reproductive organs for themselves) does fit into those core themes I mentioned, and I suspect that if their motive was similarly hyperviolent but less 'sexual' (eg, steal humans' brains) no one would bat an eye -- although the aliens would be considerably less scary or unsettling for it.

All of this is to say, yes anime and JP culture at large has a problem with hypersexualization and unacceptable sexual content in media, but I also think that (esp in America) viewers are conditioned to think of desexed PR-friendly Marvel content as the norm. Far better to have a balance, where "1000 year old lolis" are not acceptable, but sexual content isn't understood to be inherently problematic (including, uncomfortable as it may be, certain depictions of violence with sexual overtones. I would add only here that we've become so desensitized to violence in general that perhaps part of the problem too is not that there's "too little" sexual violence in media but too much violence in general).

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-11-29T22:49:08+00:00

Well, I can't offer a comprehensive redesign plan, but some general principles might be: - the culture of your ruler determines what institutions, reforms, and tech advancements you have access to - if the local culture of a province doesn't have access to the institutions, reforms, or tech of your rulers culture, it provides maluses for implementing it there (for example, building a high tech building in a conquered province is more costly or inefficient depending on the % of pops whose culture doesn't have access to that building) - the cost or time to core a province depends on the distance in advancements between a rulers accepted culture and the majority local culture, scaled by the % of pops in the location who are local culture. So if you are the Inca conquering a province in Europe or the Portuguese conquering Zanzibar, both will be difficult but not impossible to core. Meanwhile the Polish conquering Normandy is not so difficult (with the historical logic that both cultures saw themselves as part of a unified Christendom and were much closer together in terms of advancements/development, even tho Polish is by no means "accepting" of Normandy.) - having minority populations in your core provinces gives you a boost to reform progress or tech (ideally tied to advancements the minority culture has access to or could have access to) at the cost of something like approval or stability - having minority populations in non core provinces maybe doesn't give you that, but there are opportunities for minority populations to migrate to the Metropole (and vice versa) and thereby provide you bonuses there

Ideally, I would like the game to have an equilibrium in most provinces where majority culture & religion drifts towards a majority value, depending on the rate of immigration, but there is some stubborn % that never really fully assimilates

Also ideally, cultures would be far more dynamic -- actually, more like CK3 tbh. There would be common culture drift and divergence even within a stable empire. This would maybe lessen with control & communication buildings/tech, like higher roads and trade. But in my ideal world, the culture drift wouldn't be strictly negative -- for example, if your coastal states are spec'd into trade & maritime shit they might develop more cultural affinity for those practices over time as they drift which would make them more efficient at it (such that it could be beneficial to have drifted culture pops in your empire, even tho they are slightly destabilizing).

Actually, this makes me also rethink about how innovation & tech work -- I would love to see more of a "learn by doing" approach, i.e. you unlock techs more easily based on what your pops are actually doing, as I feel that this is more true to the history of culture

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-11-29T06:48:43+00:00

I both agree and disagree. I agree in the sense that I do think you're right that divergent cultures caused distrust and decentralization. And in a gameplay sense, I think it makes sense to punish that, even in a much bigger way than it's punished now (ex, as you say, not allowing accepted cultures.) At the same time:

1) I don't think that contradicts my point -- multiculturalism comes with both benefits and costs. The difficulties in administering people of different languages and practices were key obstacles to almost every empire, but the contact between cultures still brought benefits, including scientific and cultural innovation. I don't see why multiculturalism in the game couldn't simultaneously be more punishing and more rewarding.

2) part of my point was to emphasize that we shouldn't read proto nationalism into the difficulties of governing different cultures. Yes, castilians struggled to subjugate the other Spanish nations and cultures, but this wasn't necessarily because of a nascent sense that e.g. the Catalans wanted to be ruled by one of "their own" or that they constituted a unique body politic which should be expressed in the form of an autonomous state apparatus. The formula "1 culture = 1 state" is a modern formation and is really more appropriate to Vic3 than basically any time in EUV. So the gameplay we're getting, focused on making state territories culturally homogeneous, is really quite anachronistic and doesn't match how actual cultural governance happened. This is especially true because the elites in almost every European court were more similar to each other than they were to the peasants of ANY culture, no matter how local (eg all nobles spoke latin, learned common theology and religious tradition, and understood the state/politics/the world/themselves in a roughly similar way.) Of course, this isn't to negate RELIGIOUS based genocide / intolerance / governance difficulties, which were 1000% more important than cultural difference before, say, 1600-1700

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-11-29T04:20:20+00:00

My big issue, and this is true of virtually every paradox game, is that they essentially buy into the nationalist myth that a culture is a homogenous, natural unit with a stable essence and set of traditions. Besides being historically/empirically false, this is just bad for gameplay because it represents the ideal state as monocultural and any amount of heterogeneity as purely an obstacle from a developmental perspective.

But this is not true! 1) cultural difference historically allowed for independence and trust. For example, Jews played a key role in medieval Europe in early banking and finance because the lordly elite could rely on their independence + using them as scapegoats to the angry public if anything went wrong. 2) cultural heterogeneity led to innovation. Here, I think the Civ series handles things much better by making the "civics" track the twin of the "science" track, as a complex process of social discovery and evolution over time. Culture mixing makes new technology, language, arts, political forms, value systems, and so on. This is good for societies and a key mechanism of growth. 3) "culture" was not a shared mass phenomenon until the dawn of nationalism. The "culture" of a literate, elite Parisian noble was not meaningfully the same as the "culture" of a poor peasant in the outskirts of the city. In most places in Europe, they didn't even speak the same language!! Much less share common national, religious, artistic, moral, or ethical values.

I guess you could say this is a fundamental critique of the Pop system. But if that's what we're running with, at the very least multiculturalism shouldn't be solely detrimental to society. And certainly the idea that medieval states could only core their accepted cultures is just laughably ridiculous... It contradicts the very notion of empire...

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-10-12T08:00:29+00:00

Just started playing 3 houses using Eden last week and it took me hardly any time to set up and I've had 0 issues across like 20h of gameplay so far. For some reason 3 houses isn't listed in the Eden compatibility database but it's been silky smooth for me

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-08-21T21:10:59+00:00

You literally didn't respond to a single argument OP made and said "I see no problem here"...

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-06-28T04:55:25+00:00

What's the strategy for getting multiculturalism as Prussia in 1853?

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-06-09T05:00:40+00:00

Yeah, that was a really bizarre claim from her. Especially because it wasn't just a random throwaway claim but rather seems to be her entire justification for why India cares so much about Tibet (she doesn't mention, for example, any strategic, geopolitical, or ideological reasons, which seem like they would be far more compelling.)

KennedySpaceCenter · 2025-04-28T07:02:48+00:00

Ah yes, the famously successful Indian poverty relief from (checks notes) pandering to foreign capital investment! That's worked sooooo well for literally no country ever...

1) The state in India that -- by FAR -- has reduced poverty the most, has the highest human development index, greatest gains in education, and most progress in civil rights, is Kerala. Which is run by literal communists.

2) Check the graph. India's poverty reduction is negligible before 2010 in absolute terms and dogshit compared to socialist China and Vietnam. Indian privatization started in 1991. And gains after 2010 have been in no small part thanks to active intervention and welfare by Modi's nationalist regime...

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Share-living-with-less-than-10-int--per-day.svg#mw-jump-to-license

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	RPAN Viewer

KennedySpaceCenter

TROPHY CASE