[HN Gopher] Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
___________________________________________________________________
Why Tech Inevitability is Self-Defeating
Author : top256
Score : 72 points
Date : 2025-10-01 17:09 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (deviantabstraction.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (deviantabstraction.com)
| top256 wrote:
| I wrote an essay critiquing Silicon Valley's obsession with
| calling technologies "inevitable." I argue that inevitability
| isn't a fact but a rhetorical move that erases agency and
| responsibility. What if we treated predictions not as destiny,
| but as challenges?
| palmotea wrote:
| > I wrote an essay critiquing Silicon Valley's obsession with
| calling technologies "inevitable." I argue that inevitability
| isn't a fact but a rhetorical move that erases agency and
| responsibility. What if we treated predictions not as destiny,
| but as challenges?
|
| This essay?
|
| You are right. And I'd bet Silicon Valley is aping this bit of
| neoliberal rhetoric:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative.
|
| > TINA (as characterized by explicit use of "there is no
| alternative" and declarations of necessity, inevitability, and
| irrefutability of certain policies) can be considered a
| political strategy in both democratic and autocratic regimes.
| Its rhetoric allows politicians to reduce the scope of
| available policy choices, limiting the expectations of their
| electorate and avoiding the blame for bad, but "unescapable"
| policies.
|
| > TINA allows decisions to appear not as a political choice,
| but as a matter of adherence to universal truth and common
| sense. Due to the switch from public deliberations to following
| the expert opinions, debates are shortened, and therefore input
| of an individual voter is diminished, so TINA is politically
| paternalistic.
|
| Tech salesmen want you to think you have no choice but buy what
| they are selling and that you cannot resist a world where they
| sell more.
| tolciho wrote:
| Manifestations of the inevitable are older than what
| sillyvalley is cooking with (or coked up on), even older than
| the Manifest Destiny. Some pin it to the Renaissance, as
| opposed to the "dark ages" prior. Tagging the prior age dark
| (dark... that must be bad, right? We don't want to be on the
| bad team, right?) of course is a rhetorical move.
| RaAsC wrote:
| good read!
| top256 wrote:
| thanks!
| Joker_vD wrote:
| > You'll say, "They got lucky, it had to happen, if not them
| someone else.
|
| Well. If you look at the previous examples of sudden
| technological breakthroughs, it's kind of amazing how many things
| were suddenly invented almost simultaneously yet independently.
|
| But then, of course, some things just straight up failed to be
| invented e.g. Chinese-style wheelbarrow in the West.
| philipkglass wrote:
| _But then, of course, some things just straight up failed to be
| invented e.g. Chinese-style wheelbarrow in the West._
|
| Thanks for this remark. This was really interesting: "How to
| Downsize a Transport Network: The Chinese Wheelbarrow"
|
| https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/how-to-downsize-a-...
| korse wrote:
| Excellent link! Thank you.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Yes. The probability of people inventing something seems to
| vary widely from "everybody can sustain that problem for
| centuries until somebody has a good idea" to "the moment people
| know the requirements, everybody will invent this".
|
| And it's very unlikely that we can know where any invention
| falls on that distribution before it's made. We may not even be
| certain about some after they are made.
|
| Anybody talking about tech inevitability or some universal
| version of the Great Men theory (in support or rejection) is
| wrong.
| avelis wrote:
| This reminds me of a similar article that might have been posted
| on here about tech now focusing on hype as the product.
|
| https://rys.io/en/180.html#hype-is-the-product
|
| > In fact, increasingly, hype is the only thing that counts, as
| larger and larger chunk of investment money is chasing it - to
| the detriment of everything else that happens not to bolt the
| hyped tech onto its unrelated but otherwise solid product or
| service.
|
| > The bubble grows. The line goes up.
|
| > Because the hype is the product.
| palmotea wrote:
| > This reminds me of a similar article that might have been
| posted on here about tech now focusing on hype as the product.
|
| It kind of reminds me of the money-manking strategy where
| someone buys a business with a good reputation, debases its
| products, then profits from the (temporary) price premium it
| can still charge due to is prior reputation.
|
| These people are well on the way to ruining tech's reputation,
| but they don't care because they hope to get rich(er) in the
| process.
| Animats wrote:
| Technology is inevitable if a lot of people can independently do
| it without huge resources, and the result is useful.
|
| - Personal computing - inevitable. Once ICs became cheap, it
| started happening, with no one effort dominating.
|
| - Moon landing - not inevitable. Huge resource commitment
| required, and not repeated since.
|
| - Internal combustion engine - inevitable. Once fuels and steel
| were available, it was possible to contain the explosion of an IC
| engine, and many people started making them.
|
| - Nuclear weapons - not inevitable. Uranium separation is so hard
| that somebody had to spend billions to get it to work at all. It
| wasn't clear that fission could be made to work.
|
| - Radio - inevitable. Once something with gain and something that
| rectifies were invented, radio was something many people could
| work upon.
|
| - Steel - interesting case. Steel is thousands of years old, but
| mass production of steel only dates to 1880. It took considerable
| metallurgical research to get it right, with about 10,000 tries
| before the Bessemer converter worked reliably. No one had done
| that before, and one person did it.
|
| - "AI", via the machine learning route - inevitable. The concepts
| date from the 1960s, but it took half a century of IC development
| to make them feasible.
|
| Looking at the issue in this way moves it from rhetoric to
| reality.
|
| Note that none of the inevitable technologies have a "moat".
| ttoinou wrote:
| - Nuclear weapons - not inevitable. Uranium separation is so
| hard that somebody had to spend billions to get it to work at
| all. It wasn't clear that fission could be made to work.
|
| The mainstream explanation is that the threat that someone else
| could be researching and investing is enough of push to try
| yourself Looking at the issue in this way moves
| it from rhetoric to reality.
|
| I would say moving from rhetoric to a simple 3 parameters model
| ("how many people can research this, how much resources it
| takes, how useful the promised result it")
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| >Note that none of the inevitable technologies have a "moat".
|
| Ironically, despite not having a moat, the inevitable
| technologies have been however far more lucrative.
|
| With a few more examples I can make the point stronger.
|
| Inevitable: printing press, vaccines, refrigeration, social
| media Not inevitable: reusable rockets, CRISPR, GPS, high speed
| rail
| worldsayshi wrote:
| > Internal combustion engine - inevitable
|
| This fails to account for competing technologies. If batteries
| were good enough at the time when we sought to build cars we
| might've skipped ICE entirely and gone all in on electric cars.
|
| At any point in time there are multiple possible outcomes. The
| one that ends up being dominant seems so in retrospect because
| it has been refined and we can follow all the events leading up
| to it. But we don't see all the paths that failed selection
| because they weren't competitive enough at that point in time
| compared to the alternative.
| WorkerBee28474 wrote:
| You seem to link cars and ICEs, while ICEs predated cars by a
| century.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Ok sure but electric cars predated ice cars. That's what I
| was thinking of. We could've skipped ice cars entirely if
| other enabler technologies were mature enough at the time.
|
| So the ice car wasn't inevitable. It was the car that we
| could build at that time given the technology we had. So it
| was only inevitable given the context. Change the context,
| change the outcome.
| conception wrote:
| I would only note that having fuel available was not inevitable
| and we just happen to be lucky that we have lots of plant
| matter that got changed into easily accessible oil. This is one
| of the reasons why humanity is kind of cooked if there is a
| major war or collapse of civilization. That easy energy is gone
| top256 wrote:
| Thank you for the comment and engaging with my thinking.
|
| You're using hindsight to define inevitability, which is
| exactly the circular reasoning my essay critiques. "It happened
| widely, therefore it was inevitable" isn't a useful framework,
| it's survivorship bias.
|
| Using your IC example: they became cheap because of massive
| government investment in the space program and military
| procurement, not natural law. The Apollo Guidance Computer
| alone drove early IC demand. Different policy choices =
| different outcome.
|
| Personal computing almost died multiple times. Xerox PARC had
| it all in 1973 but management killed it. IBM thought the market
| was ~5 computers total. The Homebrew Computer Club was nearly
| shut down for copyright infringement. Any of these inflection
| points going differently changes history.
|
| Your "no moat" observation is telling - you're really
| describing business strategy (technologies that spread can't be
| monopolized) not philosophical inevitability. But even that's
| questionable: TCP/IP could have lost to OSI, the Web to Gopher
| or AOL's walled garden.
|
| The counterfactual test: if these were truly inevitable, we'd
| see simultaneous independent invention everywhere. Instead we
| see: singular inventors, path dependence, and technologies that
| almost weren't (or actually weren't: where's our supersonic
| passenger travel?).
|
| Calling only successes "inevitable" while ignoring what didn't
| happen or was actively prevented (nuclear proliferation, human
| cloning, various chemicals/drugs) demonstrates the selection
| bias in this thinking.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| An interesting counterpoint to the inevitability of ICs:
| Consider East Germany's semiconductor industry. They had
| state backing and proof of viability but they still couldn't
| generate a competitive product.
|
| Making things is _hard_, and embodied expertise is critical.
| top256 wrote:
| Great example. Thanks a lot! Can I add it my essay?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Sure! I'd recommend you use a more reliable reference
| than some dude online vaguely recalling a something he
| read four+ years ago :)
| BinaryIgor wrote:
| You examples with human cloning and some chemicals/drugs plus
| potentially nuclear energy being first favored then
| disfavored (now seems to be getting back to favors) are
| telling; it shows that outside the pure properties of
| technology itself, a lot depends on a given
| society/civilization value systems and who gets to decide
| what's important and allowed and what's not
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > The counterfactual test: if these were truly inevitable,
| we'd see simultaneous independent invention everywhere
|
| I don't think there is any reason to think that " a
| technology was inevitable" implies that the technology would
| be invented simultaneously in multiple places
| naasking wrote:
| > Personal computing almost died multiple times. Xerox PARC
| had it all in 1973 but management killed it. IBM thought the
| market was ~5 computers total. The Homebrew Computer Club was
| nearly shut down for copyright infringement. Any of these
| inflection points going differently changes history.
|
| Yes, history would be different, but that doesn't mean ICs
| and PCs weren't inevitable. As technology improves the
| capital required to innovate drops. At some point hobbyists
| can start making ICs at home. I think something like this
| happened with 3D printing.
|
| > The counterfactual test: if these were truly inevitable,
| we'd see simultaneous independent invention everywhere.
| Instead we see: singular inventors, path dependence, and
| technologies that almost weren't (or actually weren't:
| where's our supersonic passenger travel?).
|
| I disagree. Inevitability means that something will manifest
| at _some_ point on a long enough timeline, not that it will
| necessarily manifest nearly concurrently on that timeline.
| Concurrent invention happens a lot and is a strong argument
| for inevitability, but isn 't strictly necessary for
| inevitability.
|
| For example, death is inevitable, even if we solve aging; we
| know you won't involuntarily die of old age in such a world,
| but you will die of something else, even if it's the heat
| death of the universe.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Using your IC example: they became cheap because of
| massive government investment in the space program and
| military procurement, not natural law. _
|
| There is an underlying natural law to IC's being cheap
| without any government involvement because _printing out
| circuits with chemicals and light like a photocopier_ is
| inherently cheaper than the alternatives of vacuum tubes or
| discrete components mounted on a board. (For non-trivial
| circuits where the count /complexity of components exceed the
| capital cost of lithography etc equipment.)
|
| The privately funded researchers of Texas Instruments and
| Fairchild Semiconductor already knew integrated circuits
| would be more cost-effective _before the inventions were
| finally solved_. Eliminating the rising labor costs of wiring
| up old-style discrete components was _the motivation to
| invent integrated circuits_.
|
| Therefore, it's not realistic to ponder an alternate history
| where a government bureaucrat in charge of military spending
| would have ignored the intrinsic physical properties of ICs
| and kept choosing vacuum tubes for 1970s F-15 and F-16
| fighter jets because he believed _" ICs are not inevitable
| because I have agency to make them not inevitable"_. Every
| other rational military on the globe would have chosen ICs
| which would make American equipment uncompetitive.
|
| What government military contracts did was take intrinsically
| cheaper technology and fund more iterations to help make it
| even cheaper.
| efsavage wrote:
| I think the concepts are inevitable, not so much the specific
| implementations. PCs were an inevitable stop on the fairly
| standard adoption path from many workers to one machine
| (Mainframes), 1:1 (PCs), many machines to one worker (I have
| at least 10 computers within arms reach right now).
| IBM/Windows/Apple weren't inevitable, they were just
| manifestations of that. ICs weren't inevitable, but
| commoditized computer parts were. TCP wasn't inevitable, but
| a lingua franca for networks was. LLMs weren't inevitable,
| but AI is.
|
| To your overall point though, and to the contrary of the type
| of thinking you're critiquing, the _timing_ of these things
| is not inevitable. Computers didn 't have to happen in the
| 50s, they could easily have waited 50 or 100 years if we
| didn't have things like wars or other technological
| breakthroughs that enabled them. For AI we might be stuck on
| incremental improvements on LLMs for a generation, or they
| might be obsolete in 5 years. They will be replaced by
| something better at some point, but confusing (intentionally
| or not) inevitable with _soon_ is where the hype proves
| itself hollow.
| lesuorac wrote:
| What's your definition of a moat?
|
| There's a reason Norway makes a lot of money from oil while
| Greenland doesn't. I'm not sure why the word moat doesn't apply
| here?
|
| Sure, with enough money you can overcome any moat but to me
| that's the whole argument behind a moat. We have something
| right now that a competitor would need to spend a lot to reach
| and during that time we can just get ahead of them.
|
| If you have an existing iron mine and coal, to me you have a
| moat over generic competitor in creating steel because you
| already have suppliers for your steel mill lined up. Although
| some may argue that those are actually anchors and that you
| could import both of them for cheaper and then supply your mill
| that way.
| myfavoritetings wrote:
| After reading "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" I came away with
| the impression that development of nuclear bombs was 100%
| inevitable after 1938 when the German scientists proved
| splitting uranium isotope could sustain a chain reaction. All
| of the top physicists in the world instantly knew this could be
| used to create a super weapon. Every power in WWII had a
| nuclear program but only 1 had the resources to execute on it.
| Being the only country with a nuke is basically a checkmate on
| the world order and game theory demands it be created once it
| was known it was possible
| ath3nd wrote:
| There is also a great article about the same subject from Tom
| Renner: https://tomrenner.com/posts/llm-inevitabilism/
|
| Sam, Elon, Zuck are conmen, husks of people, empty inside and not
| knowing what to do with themselves but hoard money. In their
| pointless quest to become the proverbial dragon on a mountain of
| gold, they are trying to control, bully and manipulate the world
| to their vision of how it should be.
|
| We know how this goes:
|
| - Facebook contributed to multiple atrocities and genocides,
| actively promoted warlords and dictators
|
| - Twitter after being acquired from Musk is just an echo chamber
| of fascism and white supremacy and misinformation
|
| - Sam...is just..a slimy dude. He made a coup in something that
| was supposed to be free and open, and made it ugly and about
| money and profits, riding on the work of idealists and forgetting
| all his pledges and manifestos just in the pursuit of money
|
| Those people rising to power and prominence is not inevitable. If
| only they had childhood validation, I think they might have
| turned out to be normal people and done less harm to the world.
| Sadly, they were probably neglected as children or dropped on
| their head repeatedly. I blame the parents.
| top256 wrote:
| Thanks for the link to Tom Renner's article. I've read it and
| agree with it.
|
| I wrote this essay to convince "unbelievers" that's why I tried
| to be as rigorous as I could
| arscan wrote:
| I'm not an expert on American history, but this attitude feels a
| bit like a modern day adaptation of 'manifest destiny'.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| The premise of the article hinges on the fact that it's hard to
| make predictions, especially about the future:
|
| > ... it's impossible for us to know if a prediction is
| inevitable or not.
|
| But I think that ignores that some predictions are more likely to
| happen than others. For example, here are two predictions:
|
| 1. ASI will be achieved in the next ten years.
|
| 2. LLMs will have a large impact on the economy in the next ten
| years.
|
| I'm sure it's debatable, but I think prediction #2 is very likely
| to be true--I would say it's almost inevitable. But I don't think
| #1 is inevitable.
| top256 wrote:
| You're absolutely right that predictions exist on a probability
| spectrum. I focused on the binary for rhetorical clarity, but
| you're correct that some predictions are more likely than
| others.
|
| That being said, it doesn't change my point about agency. Your
| prediction #2 (LLMs impacting the economy) seems "almost
| inevitable" precisely because thousands of people are actively
| working to make it true. If everyone stopped tomorrow - if
| OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc., all pivoted to other projects
| - would it still be inevitable?
|
| The appearance of inevitability comes from observing massive
| coordinated human effort toward a goal, then mistaking that
| effort for natural law. It's like watching a thousand people
| pushing a boulder uphill and concluding "that boulder
| inevitably goes up."
| GMoromisato wrote:
| I get that--and it's a good point. But large groups of people
| do tend to be predictable under certain situations. Is anyone
| surprised that people hoard staples (toilet paper, etc.)
| during a crisis?
|
| It reminds me of the time a Scientific American columnist ran
| a contest. The idea was to submit a number on a postcard. The
| person who submitted the highest number would win $1 million
| divided by the winning number.
|
| The publishers almost nixed the contest. They didn't actually
| have $1 million to give away and they were worried. But the
| columnist assured them that there was no chance the prize
| would be even one dollar. As you might expect, the winning
| number was so ridiculously large that no money had to be
| sent.
|
| As for LLMs affecting the economy, I think my only
| uncertainty is in how long it will take for them to be
| integrated. I think we all agree that even in their current
| state, they are valuable for certain tasks (e.g., language
| translation). I'm pretty sure they are economically viable
| for 90% of support calls. Are they going to displace software
| developers? Lawyers? Doctors? Even if they don't, the effects
| will still be large.
|
| If we agree that they are economically viable, then I don't
| see how they don't have an impact. If a technology saves
| businesses money, it is going to get deployed. The only
| wildcard would be regulatory blocks or legislative bans. But
| you know China is not going to give up on the technology, so
| any bans will be reversed or circumvented (we'll import
| products/services from China).
|
| Now, if you don't think LLMs in their current state are
| economically viable/valuable, then none of that will happen.
| But (a) that's a different argument, and (b) then people will
| inevitably choose NOT to deploy LLMs.
|
| I get the desire for agency. I certainly wish I had more
| control over the course of the future. But people's behavior
| (in large groups) is almost always downstream of external
| events. Fukushima has an accident and Germany chooses to give
| up nuclear power. Inflation in the US goes up and people vote
| for Donald fraking Trump.
|
| Maybe there will be some event--a Fukushima for AI--that
| causes a mass change. But absent that, I think LLMs are here
| to stay.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| "Supersonic flight once looked inevitable until people stopped
| it."
|
| Things only happen if we make them happen. Game theory can make
| it hard to keep everyone from taking some action, but we can
| change the rules of the game to punish defectors more.
| top256 wrote:
| yes that's exactly what I was trying to convey. Technology is a
| human byproduct so we are collectively in charge.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| This is shallow. Game theory and coordination is the answer.
| Otherwise it's the same depth level as "if only the soldiers just
| stopped shooting at each other, the war would end".
| top256 wrote:
| Thanks for engaging. I think you meant it's obvious rather than
| shallow? If so, yes I agree but a lot of my friends disagree so
| I wrote this as rigorously as possible to explain why this is
| obvious.
|
| That being said, regarding game theory and coordination: Wars
| DO end when people change the game's parameters. WWI's
| Christmas Truce happened despite every incentive against it.
| Catalonia chose not to pursue independence despite having voted
| for it. The Montreal Protocol solved ozone depletion despite
| classic tragedy of the commons dynamics.
|
| My point isn't that coordination is easy - it's that treating
| it as impossible becomes self-fulfilling. When tech leaders
| invoke inevitability via game theory, they're choosing to
| accept those constraints rather than working to change them.
| lbrandy wrote:
| > My point isn't that coordination is easy - it's that
| treating it as impossible becomes self-fulfilling.
|
| While I see what you are getting at, and I think its super
| important we come up with philosophical frameworks to push
| back on the central idea in question (ie, the moral hazard of
| "its gonna happen anyway so why not pour a little more into
| the river").... I think your writing/responses miss the
| central point.
|
| As I see it, the fundamental issue with this essay, and your
| responses, is you keep conflating impossible with probability
| zero. People are saying "this is inevitable" to mean this has
| probability 1 of occurring, with basic game theory reasoning
| (its a giant iterative prisoners dilemna), and your response
| "but it's possible". Yes, with measure zero.
|
| Telling us that such a path surely exists isn't useful. If
| you want to push back on "inevitability" you need to find a
| credible path with probability > 0 (which is not the same as
| impossible).
| top256 wrote:
| Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think there's a
| misunderstanding (maybe my text wasn't clear. If so please
| point out where so I can fix it).
|
| We actually agree: even if the probability of successful
| coordination is only 10%, accepting inevitability makes it
| 0%. That difference matters enormously given the stakes. My
| argument isn't "coordination is definitely possible" but
| rather "believing it's impossible guarantees failure." When
| tech leaders say "AGI is inevitable," they're not
| describing reality; they're shaping it by discouraging
| attempts to coordinate. Human cloning hasn't happened
| because we maintain active resistance despite technical
| feasibility.
|
| You're asking for credible paths with P > 0. I'm saying:
| knowing P with certainty is impossible, so accepting P = 1
| narratives makes alternative paths invisible. The path
| emerges through trial and error, not before it.
| naasking wrote:
| > When tech leaders say "AGI is inevitable," they're not
| describing reality; they're shaping it by discouraging
| attempts to coordinate.
|
| No, they're describing reality. As I posted in another
| comment, progress in technology drops capital
| requirements for innovation. Even if there's global
| coordination to stop AGI development right now, progress
| in tech means that in 30 years someone in their basement
| could do what OpenAI is doing right now but with
| commodity hardware. Preventing this would require an
| oppressive regime controlling basic information
| technology and knowledge to an extent that isn't
| palatable to anyone.
| top256 wrote:
| "They're describing reality" - No, they're making
| predictions about the future. If AGI requires 30 years of
| compute improvements as you say, then it's not reality,
| it's a forecast contingent on those 30 years of
| development continuing unimpeded.
|
| As for "oppressive regime", we already do this for
| nuclear and biotech, and most people find it quite
| palatable! Nuclear materials are tightly controlled
| globally. Cloning humans is illegal almost everywhere.
| We've had the knowledge for both for decades, yet
| basement nukes and basement human clones aren't
| happening.
|
| I'm not saying we should make it illegal, I'm just saying
| there are more gray areas than what's generally accounted
| for.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| If this were so, I've yet to see any explanation that
| accounts for why human cloning has been so successfully
| prevented, even though it's relatively inexpensive
| technology, to the point that we have (had?) pet cloning
| companies selling it as a consumer service.
| naasking wrote:
| 1. How do you know human cloning has been prevented?
| Maybe you mean it's not provided as a commercial service,
| but does that entail it's not happening at all?
|
| 2. Preventing the manifestation of physical objects is a
| lot easier than preventing the dissemination of pure
| information. AIs are easy to copy, easy to run, and can
| assist in their own creation, advancement and
| proliferation, and it only gets easier over time. For an
| apt analogy, consider a cloning lab where every clone
| that escaped was compelled to create their own cloning
| lab, and everything you needed could be bought at any
| corner store.
|
| 3. All cloning requires existing biological organisms to
| participate at various stages. You need not only the
| biologists on board, but also _the surrogate_ that has to
| carry the fetus to term. What do you think will happen
| when artificial wombs become available?
| vin92997 wrote:
| TL;DR: Think for yourself.
| BinaryIgor wrote:
| Interesting, beautifully written; I especially like the ending:
|
| _" Inevitability is rhetoric, not truth. Predictions aren't laws
| of nature, they are acts of persuasion. And because no one can
| ever know how much is determined and how much is open, the only
| rational stance is to live as agents. Supersonic flight once
| looked inevitable until people stopped it. You, too, have already
| reshaped the world once; you can do it again. Don't give away
| your power."_
| top256 wrote:
| thanks a lot! I appreciate it
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| > "X is inevitable" - Stop trying to change it
|
| This is the logic flaw that got my attention.
|
| If you're told something's inevitable, ask who's claiming that
| and why.
|
| Are they trying to beat you to the punch?
|
| Do they want you to give in and buy their thing?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-01 23:01 UTC)