[HN Gopher] Grammarly acquires Superhuman
___________________________________________________________________
Grammarly acquires Superhuman
Author : thm
Score : 167 points
Date : 2025-07-01 14:00 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| harry2quinn wrote:
| This feels like a pattern of grammarly becoming a holdco /
| following the Salesforce playbook. Find companies with - solid
| but not breakout growth (and probably slowing) - a loyal cult
| following - raised at too high a valuation in the peak era -
| talented teams - still founder led by strong product thinkers
|
| Salesforce did this with Quip, Slack, etc.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It's not a bad play, like PE rollups but arguably with more
| potential for success from a "founder/startup friendly"
| perspective. PE, historically, is very good at
| stripping/optimizing/etc (think Bending Spoons), but I think
| there is magic in startups PE simply does not have that allows
| for a different, yet more successful, outcome (growing vs
| cutting your way to financial success).
|
| We should see more of this as large, profitable startups have
| grown into long term private companies with no need to go
| public.
| chii wrote:
| > large, profitable startups have grown into long term
| private companies with no need to go public
|
| which i think is a real problem - it prevents "mom and dad"
| investors from partaking in the wealth creation process, as
| they are not sophisticated investors and thus barred from
| being able to invest in these PE investments.
|
| Public listing has become a cashing out operation, rather
| than a fund-raising operation, if this continues to happen
| more and more. And the public becomes the bag holders.
| atlantacrackers wrote:
| My history with email clients being acquired is not encouraging.
| The history is they are effectively abandoned and/or shut down on
| the order of weeks and months not years. See Dropbox/Mailbox.
| leovander wrote:
| I miss waiting in that large invite queue until you were
| finally let in, what felt like the first inbox zero proponents
| and possibly(?) introducing the swiping rows with different
| actions depending how much you swiped.
| atlantacrackers wrote:
| And, you could reorder the emails inside your inbox!
| diggan wrote:
| > My history with email clients being acquired is not
| encouraging.
|
| Ignoring the constraint of "email client", has there been any
| acquisitions where the acquired product got better post-
| acquisition?
|
| I can think of countless examples where it got worse, but from
| the top of my head, I can only think of maybe YouTube, but then
| only in the initial post-purchase period, and same goes for a
| bunch of other examples. They seem to eventually always turn
| sour.
|
| Maybe GitHub? But it traded "no new features - no downtime" for
| "some new features - a lot of downtime" after the Microsoft
| purchase, so I guess it's very subjective, probably at least
| some people like that tradeoff.
| atlantacrackers wrote:
| Honestly...true. Even Rapportive (same founder) effectively
| died post acquisition by linkedin, no?
| hiddencost wrote:
| YouTube. Android. Google maps.
| gghffguhvc wrote:
| Arm
|
| Diamond Aircraft
|
| Volvo
|
| Cirrus
|
| All retained their culture and brand and the products keep
| improving incrementally. Parent companies keep a low profile
| wrt product.
| pickledoyster wrote:
| Volvo owners I know would disagree vehemently
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| barely off topic, but your comment reminds me of SAAB
| (which i had and loved) being acquired by GM (which
| phased it out, after making it bland).
| latexr wrote:
| > See Dropbox/Mailbox.
|
| And Google/Sparrow.
| voigt wrote:
| Really miss Sparrow! To me it was the perfect email client.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Sparrow
| anilshanbhag wrote:
| Grammarly is one of the tools I pay for, and I am worried about
| the security risks of using it. Really wish there was an
| alternative that: 1) Does local processing (local LLM?) instead
| of sending all my data to their server. 2) Had a lightweight
| Chrome extension that didn't inject many MBs of scripts on each
| page.
| diggan wrote:
| Feels like that'd be trivial to build, biggest issue is having
| to ship large files (LLM weights), but maybe CNNs would be
| enough, I'm guessing Grammarly started with CNNs or similar?
|
| What are you using Grammarly for, is it just spell/grammar
| checking or something more? Is the UX particularly good?
| Personally I tried it some years ago but didn't understand/see
| what is/was special about it.
| NewsaHackO wrote:
| I personally used to have a subscription for grammar
| checking, especially for longer papers. Now, I just use a
| LLM. I personally don't see the strategic value of them
| pivoting to using genAI; there is no way I would pay $30 a
| month for something that will take at most 100k tokens using
| other LLMs. They seemed to have heavily downplayed their
| unique aspect which is the deterministic ruleset.
| nwjsmith wrote:
| Harper checks a lot of your boxes and is getting better all the
| time: https://writewithharper.com/
| jgalt212 wrote:
| How does Harper compare with LanguageTool. We use a privately
| hosted version. It's better than nothing, but in practice
| it's more like a super-charged spell checker.
| hiatus wrote:
| On the homepage it has a comparison of figures, presumably
| indicating response time, though it doesn't speak to its
| performance in terms of grammatical errors caught:
|
| Harper - 10 ms LanguageTool - 650 ms Grammarly - 4000 ms
| treetalker wrote:
| For a more-classic, more-human experience (i.e., computer flags
| potential issues, you decide and correct if necessary) there
| are proselint and vale.sh.
|
| https://github.com/amperser/proselint
|
| https://vale.sh/
| jakub_g wrote:
| FWIW: latest Chrome ships built-in AI APIs
|
| https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
|
| so it should be a matter of time to have a replacement
| extension using this local API. However the built-in model is
| Gemini Nano.
| swyx wrote:
| yeah i highly doubt people will use Nano for more than simple
| retitling because we're so used to higher intelligence for
| ~free elsewhere
| dr_kretyn wrote:
| > Grammarly's acquisition of Superhuman follows its recent $1
| billion funding from General Catalyst, which gives it dry powder
| to create a collection of AI-powered workplace tools.
|
| Dry powder to do what?! Is this americanism? I've been here for
| over 8 years and every month I find some wording that's just
| bizarre, like as if there was a competition for ways in how to
| confuse someone.
| abxyz wrote:
| "Dry powder" is cash on hand to fund acquisitions. Yes, it is
| one of the worst businessisms.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Dry powder as in gunpowder.
|
| Perhaps you are familiar with similar phrases "ammunition" and
| "war chest"?
| dr_kretyn wrote:
| You mean actual objects/entities or other financial terms?
| paulddraper wrote:
| As figures of speech.
| diggan wrote:
| > Dry powder to do what?! Is this americanism?
|
| No, is financialism, which is basically the same thing but I
| digress.
|
| > Dry powder is a slang term referring to marketable securities
| that are highly liquid and considered cash-like -
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/drypowder.asp
|
| Finance seems particularly filled with terms with no real
| connection attached to the concepts at hand, not sure why.
| Sounds cool I suppose?
| jszymborski wrote:
| I hate meaningless jargon as much as the next person, but I
| think the analogy here is pretty clear and useful.
|
| Dry gun powder is ready to use, allowing you to fire
| whenever. Much like liquid assets, ready whenever.
|
| If your powder gets wet, it'll take you a good amount of
| drying before it's of any use. Much like illiquid assets,
| would take some time to be useful, but still useful
| nonetheless.
|
| I first heard it a few months ago when Chrystia Freeland,
| then Canada's Finance Minister, resigned and used it in her
| resignation letter. The meaning was immediately clear to me.
|
| > "That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have
| the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war," Freeland
| wrote.
|
| https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2127174/finance-
| mini...
| burkaman wrote:
| I don't know if it's uniquely American but I agree it is a very
| annoying term. It just means cash. Finance bros like to pretend
| they are "going into battle" or something when they go
| negotiate an acquisition, so the analogy is that you have a
| large store of gunpowder ready to deploy at a moment's notice
| when you want to go to war (go acquire a company).
| kylecordes wrote:
| On the plus side, when you're a seller, you want buyers who
| have this attitude. That they are going to war and the only
| way they can emerge victorious is by deploying an enormous
| amount in your direction. You want buyers who will brag to
| their friends about how much they spent.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| I interviewed at Superhuman almost a decade ago, and the
| founder did indeed brag [repeatedly] to me about how they
| bought the superhuman.com domain for $300k.
| dr_kretyn wrote:
| From the context I figured this was more a "pancake mix" as
| they have the powder and now they just need to add water. You
| know, boyz be cookin'. Wouldn't figure out that this is some
| "war" analogy.
| nemomarx wrote:
| it comes from "keep your powder dry" (ready) in the
| military sense, I think.
| fakedang wrote:
| Financialisms like dry powder are fairly mainstream and I'm
| just glad that they didn't use consultantspeak.
| echelon wrote:
| > Dry powder to do what?
|
| This is a very common term for business people and especially
| investors and startups. It's a short phrase that carries a lot
| of meaning and packs a lot of punch.
|
| Google Gemini:
|
| > In finance, dry powder refers to readily available cash or
| liquid assets that a company, investor, or fund manager holds
| in reserve for future investments or to meet obligations during
| economic downturns. It's a metaphor, originating from the need
| to keep gunpowder dry for use in battle, symbolizing
| preparedness and flexibility in financial contexts.
|
| > In essence, dry powder is unspent capital waiting to be
| deployed
|
| This one term packs in all of that meaning into two words, so
| it is quite a useful tool. "Cash" alone doesn't have an implied
| context, whereas "dry powder" is immediately understood for
| strategy and positioning.
|
| It's also nice to have analogies that are striking and
| evocative. It makes language fun and flowery instead of dusty
| and spartan. Business people have to business all day, and this
| injects a little flavor and excitement with wordplay. Drawing
| up images of 17th century battles is nice when the reality is
| emailing back and forth.
|
| There lots of other phrases like this that you'll stumble upon.
| Someone should make a dictionary of these at some point.
| turnsout wrote:
| I guess that explains the Coda acquisition.
|
| Honestly, I wonder what makes anyone think that Grammarly is
| the right centerpiece for an AI rollup?
| chaosprint wrote:
| This is a bit surprising. I even didn't expect Grammarly to have
| the cash, I used to be a paying customer of theirs when I was
| writing papers, but apparently with AI I don't even need the free
| Grammarly anymore.
| icey wrote:
| They might have a lot more cash than you'd expect:
| https://www.grammarly.com/blog/company/grammarly-announces-g...
| swyx wrote:
| and superhuman might be worth less than they raised at -
| https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1940079704423506401 (or not, we
| simply do not know)
| solumos wrote:
| The undisclosed acquisition price/terms implies a down-
| round exit at best, and a fire sale at worst.
| v3ss0n wrote:
| Yeah localllms replace that job very nicely.
| nicce wrote:
| They produce convincing text but the grammar is not actually
| that good. A lot of missing commas, for example.
| mrkstu wrote:
| I would generally expect llms to mirror how the average
| human writes vs the most technically correct firm, so that
| would track.
| rcleveng wrote:
| That was my thought as well, but one of my college age kids
| still likes Grammarly over just using ChatGPT for grammar
| checking and rewriting, says it does a better job.
|
| Excited to see what they are doing now after the "acquisition"
| of Coda (seems like a bit of a reverse acquisition or acquihire
| since they buy Coda and have Coda leadership take over
| Gramarly.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I would actually agree with that, too. Grammarly certainly
| isn't perfect (it still occasionally struggles with the
| nuance of some idioms or proper nouns), but it does better
| than LLMs (I use MacWhisper with its "CleanUp" AI prompt for
| dictation). But Grammarly's inline use is actually pretty
| handy (even in this text box, I pause typing for a moment,
| and there's a Tab prompt that will auto-edit my text live).
| Fuzzy1000 wrote:
| So many unexpected moves lately. AI is really changing how
| companies assess their trajectory and business plans.
| JSTucker wrote:
| > The company claims its users send and respond to 72% more
| emails per hour, and the percentage of emails composed with its
| AI tools has increased fivefold in the past year.
|
| Is this really a good metric to aim for? Don't we want
| productivity tooling to result in less email not more?
| cik wrote:
| I find this particularly fascinating, given the post email
| world I live in now. I haven't had an email from a contact in
| over two years. It sounds like a sales tool, in a world where
| the goal is to distance from that availability.
| saaaaaam wrote:
| Was this "post email world" a choice or something that
| happened? How do you communicate rather than by email now?
| cik wrote:
| In my country, e-mail is now used _purely_ as a sales tool.
| Notifications from government and schools are also
| delivered via SMS, and either WhatsApp or Telegram. So..
| yeah, block everyone.
|
| Turns out the second you do this you eliminate 100% of the
| spam in your life. Honestly, if I ever lived in North
| America again, I think I'd also just stop reading e-mail.
| chii wrote:
| > percentage of emails composed with its AI tools has increased
| fivefold in the past year.
|
| read: spam has increased 5 fold!
| Vegenoid wrote:
| "Increased volume of email" sounds like something people would
| pay to _avoid_.
| rchaud wrote:
| That's how companies like Slack get billion-dollar
| valuations. The promise of "less".
| pchristensen wrote:
| There are many people whose job revolves around churning
| through emails (sales leads, recruiters, etc). This is a huge
| win for them.
| mrweasel wrote:
| A better metric would be: How frequently does the recipients of
| those emails need to reach out for clarification. The goal of
| any writing should be to increase clarity and ensure that your
| message is clearly received.
|
| Why do their customers even need to send 72% more email?
| slightwinder wrote:
| Why? The amount of work won't shrink just because you can
| execute each task faster.
| mattcantstop wrote:
| I think Superhuman's CEO in an interview said their product is
| specifically catered to people who are seeking inbox zero.
|
| For those people this would be a great outcome. The question is
| should this be the goal of most people? Probably not. But most
| people are not their ideal customer. They explained their ideal
| customer in depth in an episode of the Acquired Podcast.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Anecdotally: The Superhuman users I've worked with start
| skimming e-mails and sending super-short replies. Sending a
| "Good job team" or questioning something in sentence 2 that
| would have been answered if they read all the way to sentence 5
| of the e-mail is the way to clear their inbox.
|
| The inbox->outbox flow turns into the way to clear the inbox.
| It's not about better communication, it's about speedrunning
| their way to inbox zero.
|
| The worst case was a person who would respond to everything
| with a one-sentence question, then respond to the response with
| another one-sentence question, and repeat all day long. He
| could turn a brief e-mail into a thread with 15 one-line
| responses that could have been avoided by spending more than 10
| seconds thinking about it.
| cryzinger wrote:
| This old-ish Newport essay comes to mind:
|
| > The knowledge sector's insistence that productivity is a
| personal issue seems to have created a so-called "tragedy of
| the commons" scenario, in which individuals making reasonable
| decisions for themselves insure a negative group outcome. An
| office worker's life is dramatically easier, in the moment,
| if she can send messages that demand immediate responses from
| her colleagues, or disseminate requests and tasks to others
| in an ad-hoc manner. But the cumulative effect of such
| constant, unstructured communication is cognitively harmful:
| on the receiving end, the deluge of information and demands
| makes work unmanageable. There's little that any one
| individual can do to fix the problem. A worker might send
| fewer e-mail requests to others, and become more structured
| about her work, but she'll still receive requests from
| everyone else; meanwhile, if she decides to decrease the
| amount of time that she spends engaging with this harried
| digital din, she slows down other people's work, creating
| frustration.
|
| https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-
| rise...
|
| I'm hesitant to call the email-skimming workflow that you
| mentioned a "reasonable decision," but I think the point
| still stands about how one person speedrunning their inbox
| can make everyone else's inboxes that much worse.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I think the point still stands about how one person
| speedrunning their inbox can make everyone else's inboxes
| that much worse.
|
| I think you're looking a little too strictly through that
| Cal Newport quote.
|
| There's another big problem that isn't external: The people
| who speedrun their e-mail like this (which isn't every
| Superhuman user, to be fair) are also harming their own
| understanding of those e-mails.
|
| From what I've seen in a few people, it turns into a false
| sense of being productive while they self-sabotage their
| own communications. Inbox Zero becomes the goal and they
| think their job is done when those e-mails are all gone.
| apparent wrote:
| Yeah, if they could increase the quantity without affecting the
| quality (or improving it), that would be great. But there's a
| good chance that is not what's happening.
| shortformblog wrote:
| I, for one, think it's hilarious that a company that put so much
| energy into being ultra-exclusive ended up getting acquired by a
| company with such a mainstream reputation. Grammarly's target
| audience is the people who couldn't join Superhuman in a timely
| fashion.
|
| Superhuman made one of my accounts wait for four years for an
| invite.
| orliesaurus wrote:
| Superhuman, the most super-email client experience, that only
| people in the bay area (and some folks in NYC) actually use.
|
| How much did they pay for this? I hope not much.
| pickledoyster wrote:
| Those are some of the best customers to have in case your
| business is under threat and you might need a bailout (M&A) in
| the future.
| iagooar wrote:
| You would need close to 90k customers to get $35M revenue as
| they claim.
|
| 90 thousand customers sounds like a whole lot of users to me.
|
| I use it myself and it is by far the best email experience ever
| created. Is it worth the money? That depends on your needs and
| work, I guess. CEOs laugh at the cost. Developers might think
| the price is nuts.
| briandoll wrote:
| I've been looking to replace Superhuman recently. None of their
| AI or Team features matter to me. I just wanted what they
| originally set out to build -- a super fast, keyboard driven,
| desktop email client. There are daily paper cut bugs and search
| issues that have persisted for many years, and I'm not going to
| stick around through this transition which will surely make the
| product worse.
|
| What do folks like for desktop email that's keyboard driven? At
| this point I almost want to go back to Pine ;)
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Mailmate on macOS is good
| rwc wrote:
| Mimestream on Mac implements GMail's keyboard shortcuts so
| there was no learning curve for me and I'm able to enjoy a
| desktop app experience.
| briandoll wrote:
| This does seem pretty seamless to swap to, thanks!
|
| Now to figure out iOS ;)
| swyx wrote:
| chiming in with thanks, i was looking to leave Superhuman
| also.
| myflash13 wrote:
| Same here, I recently got frustrated with every email client,
| tried everything. Few days ago I finally decided to vibe code
| my own email client with Claude Code and I got a basic version
| running in a single day. Can't wait to build it exactly the way
| I want, with programmable rules/filters and AI drafts for
| specific types of emails I get, conversion to plain text or
| dark mode for readability, contextual information in sidebars
| pulled from APIs (such as email history and customer support /
| CRM info), and one click actions in other apps.
| umbra07 wrote:
| I use (neo)mutt
| jag729 wrote:
| In the same boat. Tried Notion Mail and it wasn't quite at
| Superhuman's level, though I do anticipate they'll improve it.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Never used of Grammarly and only heard of it in some random feed
| once a year in the past few years. Is money slushing like water
| in earth or what?
| lvl155 wrote:
| Grammarly has an existential crisis. It can be replaced it with
| free versions of the top models and they are much better (and I
| can control the UI anyway I want). In fact, many of these "web
| 2.0" business models are a few more updates away from getting
| replaced.
| ignoramous wrote:
| Grammarly can cut down their costs if they use those models
| themselves. The current LLM advancements aren't disruptive but
| incremental. What's the hurdle you see they can't rely on their
| existing distribution and expand from there?
| lvl155 wrote:
| That's true but I can replace Grammarly in a few hours with
| Claude. 99% of the functionality. Then, I can spend a couple
| more days to add stuff that they can't add due to copyright.
| StochasticLi wrote:
| Grammarly has a function that replaces phrases that are
| typical for LLM output. Good luck coding that in a few
| hours.
| lvl155 wrote:
| Last I read, they run it off of MSFT/OpenAI.
| StochasticLi wrote:
| I'm sure they haven't created their own model. Probably
| fine-tuned it + constantly updating a database of the
| most occurring phrases from all LLMs.
| roguecoder wrote:
| Why would using a more-expensive technology cut their costs?
| rwmj wrote:
| It's the dot-com strategy. They'll lose money on every sale
| but make it up in volume.
| JoeDohn wrote:
| not to mention languagetool
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| yet they recently received a billion dollars in financing this
| year?!
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Yes, does not seem like such a crisis to me.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| maybe not _that_ crisis, but perhaps _a_ crisis
| StochasticLi wrote:
| I'm paying for most AI models top tiers and Grammarly.
| Grammarly is a phenomenal tool. It's not that LLMs can't do it.
| Well, they can't, but the more important thing is Grammarly's
| UI.
| myflash13 wrote:
| This is such a programmers take. Bottled water is in a crisis,
| it can be easily replaced with tap water and a reusable
| container! Yet it's a $47 billion dollar market in the US.
|
| Grammarly's value is not in having a replaceable product, it's
| in the network, distribution, customer acquisition channels and
| integrations with tools. Like bottled water, it's about being
| in the customers face at the right place and the right time.
| lvl155 wrote:
| You're on the money and that's exactly why I think Grammarly
| will struggle. OpenAI/Gemini/Claude will get embedded
| further. Gemini is already on gmail. Getting OpenAI and
| Claude incorporated is trivial. Guess what? Once Apple
| figures out what they're doing with AI (which I hope is to
| buy Anthropic) they will take whatever is out there and
| incorporate them into iOS/MacOS just as they've done for so
| many third-party app ideas in the past.
| azhenley wrote:
| Having applied to YC this round with an email product, this is
| very interesting.
| nadis wrote:
| Hopefully this brings some of the Superhuman product magic to
| Grammarly. Although both products could improve AI functionality
| significantly IMO.
| stavros wrote:
| The founder of Superhuman has really got this playbook down. I
| remember his previous startup (Rapportive?) was another email-
| improving thing that got acquired by LinkedIn fairly quickly and
| got shut down. Not a bad gig.
| apparent wrote:
| This was not very quick.
| stavros wrote:
| I first heard about it last week, so it felt quick to me.
| blorto wrote:
| Looks like Superhuman investors wanted their ROI and Grammarly
| cant grow on its own that it needs to buy customers.
| voigt wrote:
| > Superhuman valued at $825 million in 2021, $35 million annual
| revenue
|
| This is nuts! I used Superhuman for about a year. And honestly, I
| might still be using it if the pricing weren't so off. It had a
| couple of nice features, and the keyboard-driven approach was a
| welcome change for mail clients.
|
| But ultimately, Superhuman had nothing that couldn't be
| replicated in a relatively short amount of time (maybe even with
| plugins?).
|
| $825 million? Maybe I should start a mail client company...
| saaaaaam wrote:
| Zoom was worth around $125 billion at the start of July 2021.
| It's now worth about $23 billion.
|
| So by that logic, Superhuman may be worth around $165 million.
|
| More interestingly though, let's assume they spent the $110
| million they raised. That means that each of the ~85k customers
| they would appear to have based on the estimated revenue cost
| them about $1300. Though probably more as a proportion of
| ongoing revenue will obviously be driving sales and retention.
|
| I did see something somewhere saying that they have very high
| customer retention. That matches my anecdotal experience - I've
| been using it for several years as have several people I
| referred.
|
| But yeah... an $800m+ valuation? That feels like Covid-era
| hype.
| daft_pink wrote:
| Superhuman user and former Grammarly user here.
|
| I'm a big fan of Superhuman as an email client and happily pay
| the premium price for it. I really hope they don't change what
| makes it great.
|
| I used to love Grammarly until they essentially ruined their
| product - much like Dropbox did. They took an app that worked
| perfectly and deprecated it, replacing it with an invasive
| keyboard replacement that was supposed to work everywhere but
| performed poorly across most programs and included functionality
| I wasn't interested in that is kept nagging me to use. When I
| complained about the issues, instead of addressing my concerns,
| they sent form letter responses about their commitment to privacy
| rather than fixing their intrusive software.
|
| This reminds me exactly of Dropbox's transformation from simple,
| reliable file storage into bloated software that cluttered my
| computer with pop-ups and background processes. When users
| complained, their team never seemed to understand why we were
| frustrated. Then they started acquiring other services I
| eventually cancelled as they tried to integrate them into their
| core service. I eventually moved to iCloud and never looked back.
|
| I hope Superhuman keeps their current excellent email client that
| I gladly pay for, rather than replacing it with some "next
| generation" product that nobody asked for and that would likely
| be inferior to what we have now. I genuinely love Superhuman as
| it is.
| noname120 wrote:
| What do you like about Superhuman that Spark Mail doesn't have?
| dgellow wrote:
| Oh no. I love superhuman :( Please don't change it
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-01 23:01 UTC)