Soundbites suck. Ask why. Test the math. Let’s move the needle. Check replies MAGA/MAHA Unfiltered? This IS my filtered cut. 🇺🇸
The Jungle
Joined September 2024
- Tweets16K
- Following3.1K
- Followers2.6K
- Likes51.7K
Pinned Tweet
Every time you hear about a new data center, think of it as a Workforce Replacement Factory. That’s what it is. And they’re still being built.
Love your “we need more unity” take, and you’re absolutely right.
Divided we fall is more than just a bumper sticker.
I’d gladly let the left dominate the coffee shops; anyone can learn to make a great cup of coffee 😝.
If you’re right wing and you can’t admit liberals (not communists) are way better at art and design and boutique coffee shops and restaurants, you’re not living in reality.
If you’re left wing and you can’t admit conservatives are way better at running cities and businesses and police departments, you’re not living in reality.
You step inside a beautiful coffee shop in the PNW and think “man, these liberals are great at this stuff…conservatives should take notes.” Then the moment you step outside and trip over a homeless drug zombie shooting up fentanyl on the sidewalk, you think “man these liberals are terrible at this stuff…they should really take notes from conservatives”
Communists make disgusting anti-beauty art, but classical liberals aren’t like that. Put the libs in charge of the coffee shops, put the conservatives in charge of city hall. This is how you get a city that is beautiful, clean, and functional.
If you can’t accept that, you need to check your tribalism. We are never getting rid of each other, so figure out how we strike a balance or else the communists swoop in and take everything from us while we quarrel over stupid bullshit…which is exactly what’s happening now.
1
2
47
Great story Maze. Thanks for sharing it.
And for the record, your authenticity matters more to me than whether or not you got paid. Just keep it real. 👊
In 2000 I graduated college and went to work for a very well known and prestigious management consulting firm. My colleagues and I would go out to lunch every day and debate politics. We did it almost every day. There was a large group of us and I was the only conservative in it.
In 2001 I was working with many of those people on a project in Atlanta. When September 11th happened, we were on one of the top floors of a building downtown, watching the events unfold on TV.
The next day a bunch of us met up in Olympic Park. We were all confused and fearful, trying to figure out what had happened and what are travel plans were since none of us lived in Atlanta.
I sat in the park on a massive blanket with a bunch of Ivy League graduates, listening to them talk about how they hoped that the terrorist attacks would not cause people to discriminate against Muslims. The buildings were still burning. This was Wednesday. They did the Norm Macdonald post perfectly.
The park was full of people. Some had even had brought American flags. I remember vividly thinking to myself "why am I not over there with those people?"
One of my coworkers told the group that he would "call out" any TSA workers for singling out Muslims to be patted down and searched. Everyone except myself agreed with him and even cheered him on. At that point I couldn't take the foolishness anymore. I told them they were the dumbest fucking people I had ever been around and then I walked back to the Westin hotel.
I lasted seven years in that industry. I didn't particularly enjoy it and truly despised the time they make you waste, but clients liked me so my company kept promoting me. I stayed until I couldn't take it any longer. Left and never set foot in corporate America again.
That feeling I had on the blanket, being surrounded by suicidally empathetic dumb fucking people, it's the same feeling I had before the midterms, watching Democrats rally around people like Abdul El-Sayed. It's why I devoted so much time and energy to posting videos of El-Sayed telling everyone over the years, in his own words, who he really is.
I didn't make one dime off of those posts or the time spent researching. Perhaps it was a complete waste of time. Maybe so.
I'm seeing all this talk on this site now about conservatives getting paid to post. How nice for them. I have never accepted money to post. I've been offered many times from conservative companies, groups and individuals, more than ever over the past year. My answer is always the same. I told people long ago that I would never post for money, so I will never post for money. All my posts come directly from me.
Many emotions, feelings, and memories have faded over the years as I have grown older. That feeling of contempt for people ushering their own demise is still strong as ever.
1
33
It’s you that’s without a clue.
Marx himself drew no big distinction between them.
In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx described two phases a lower and higher phase.
Later, in The State and Revolution Lenin explicitly said that what people call “socialism” is Marx’s first/lower phase of communist society, while full communism is the higher phase…. Look it up if you don’t believe me. I’ll wait.
U conservatives don’t even know the difference between communism and socialism 😭😭
NYC elected a socialist and life got better
2
51
Reposting without further comment 🙄
Jeff Foxworthy and Muslims
Jeff Foxworthy writes....... Have you ever wondered why it's OK to make jokes about Catholics, Jews, Christians, the Pope, the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Hungarians, the Chinese, the French (including French Canadians), the elderly, bad golfers, men/women, blacks/whites, red necks, etc., but it's insensitive to make jokes about the Muslims?
Well, it's time to level the playing field and be politically incorrect, by including our friends, the Muslims, on this grandiose list. So Jeff Foxworthy did his part to include the Muslims on his list ...
1. If you grow and refine heroin for a living, but morally object to the use of liquor, you may be a Muslim.
2. If you own a $3,000 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but can't afford shoes, you may be a Muslim.
3. If you have more wives than teeth, you may be a Muslim.
5. If you think vests come in two styles, bullet-proof and suicide, you may be a Muslim.
6. If you can't think of anyone that you haven't declared jihad against, you may be a Muslim.
7. If you consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing, you may be a Muslim.
8. If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses, other than setting off roadside bombs, you may be a Muslim.
9. If you have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four, then you, too, may be a Muslim.
10. If you find this offensive and do not forward it, you are part of the problem here in America … but if you delete this, you are most likely a Muslim. Eishhhhhh
Musk’s take is directionally sound.
Robots might be able to save the economy (that’s a big maybe) and it’s clear Congress won’t.
Here’s the rub: the economy and society are two very different animals. Robots (AI) don’t depend on high employment… they eliminate it.
While the economy could thrive with robots, the people of the nation are out of a job, out of a purpose.
That’s still not good for the nation or its people.
For robots to do much good for society, for you and me, there’s something else that’s critical to address.
We need to keep the job count as high as possible.
To do that we’ll need a lot more domestic production as quickly as we can.
We’ll need a lot more products that have a MADE in the USA label.
After DOGE, Elon came to a conclusion most people missed.
He tried to reform the state from the inside. He failed. And he said it plainly: the government can't fix its own deficit. Nobody in power actually wants to cut. The machine protects itself.
So he drew the only logical conclusion. If the state can't be reformed, there are only two ways this ends.
Either global bankruptcy. Debt keeps compounding, interest payments eat the budget, and the system collapses under its own weight.
Or robots. AI and robotics grow the economy so fast that the debt becomes manageable, and abundance makes the old fights over scarcity irrelevant.
Here's the part almost nobody sees.
For two centuries, capitalism has had a marketing problem. Its gains are real but slow and invisible. 2% growth a year doesn't feel like anything. Your life gets better over 30 years and you never connect it to the system that did it. Meanwhile, the left's promises feel immediate and concrete: a check, a subsidy, a benefit. That's why the left wins on promises even when it can't deliver them. Capitalism produces the wealth, socialism takes the credit.
Robots break that asymmetry.
When productivity doubles in a few years instead of a few decades, people will see it. Things get cheaper, services get better, opportunities appear, in real time. For the first time in history, people will connect capitalism and their rising standard of living directly, almost instantly. The causal chain becomes visible.
And that changes everything politically.
So there are two scenarios.
Scenario one: we stay in the current inertia. No breakthrough, or a breakthrough we regulate to death. The debt wins. Living standards stagnate, then fall. A frustrated electorate turns to whoever promises the most, and that pushes toward a hard collectivist left. But collectivism fails, as it always does. And when it fails, the most organized, most disciplined collectivist force left standing isn't the old left. It's radical Islamism. Bankruptcy, then communism, then something worse.
Scenario two: robots win. Abundance arrives, and it arrives visibly. The link between free enterprise and prosperity becomes obvious to everyone. And this is the key point: it becomes obvious to everyone, including the minorities the left was counting on. Because their long-term incentive is the same as everyone else's. A kid in the suburbs gains infinitely more from a booming, abundant West than from a bankrupt state handing out promises it can't keep. Abundance is the most powerful integration machine ever built.
That's the Western renaissance.
The West doesn't need to win the culture war by arguing. It needs to win it by delivering. And for the first time, it has the technology to deliver fast enough for people to notice.
The race isn't left vs right anymore. It's robots vs bankruptcy.
About a year and a half ago I made my first public comment about AI consuming jobs.
It was just a low-key remark in a reply to someone here on X (Dec 6 of ’24).
I simply said something like:
“Blue collar work won’t be first. It’s the white collar folks that will get hit first. Middle management might want to look into a welding class about now.”
The writing was on the wall before then and I knew it.
Since then, I’ve gradually gotten louder about it and data has been rolling in that supports my forecast.
Today, it’s a lot more obvious and we are beginning to see it in the stats… it WILL be getting more pronounced as we go forward.
You can call me a crack-pot if you want but one thing you won’t be calling me is wrong.
Which is scary, I’d much rather be wrong than right when it comes to this, and if anyone can show me how I am, I’m listening.
Job cuts have been happening and there’s no reason to believe that will slow down any time soon.
Cuts aren’t the only signal though, and they’re not even the best one.
Payroll employment is the cleaner measure.
The unemployment rate can stay low if people exit the labor force or shift sectors; payroll shows the actual headcount change.
Information-sector employment is down by roughly 120,000 jobs over the past year.
Meanwhile sector output has risen over the same period.
That’s more work being done by fewer people.
As more cuts show up, companies will likely use less and less language that states “AI did this.”
Instead the official lines will become more generic,
“cost cuts,” “efficiency,” “attrition,” and the like… anything but AI.
The reason is optics. It steers the conversation elsewhere and keeps the topic out of the spotlight.
Less public attention means less pressure for Congress to look at it, which delays regulation.
You can already see the pattern in the numbers.
Earlier this year, Block cut more than 40% of its workforce. In the same period its filings show personnel costs falling while software and AI fees rose.
The CEO has said the tools are what make the smaller teams viable. People out, tools in.
Amazon has already cut roughly 30,000 corporate roles. Its CEO has said generative AI and agents will reduce the corporate workforce further over the next few years.
The cuts continue under efficiency framing while AI investment stays high.
AI is still in its infancy, the data centers are still being built.
That’s right, “data centers.” Not hardly. Data is only a fraction of what these energy-hungry facilities do and they’re being built at scales we’ve never seen before.
These are massive high-power compute centers.
They are Workforce Replacements Factories. The models don’t need to be superintelligent. They just need to be good enough to do the job.
Every new facility that comes online expands how many of those jobs the systems can cover.
So every time you hear about a new data center, think of it as a Workforce Replacement Factory. That’s what it is. And they’re still being built.
Interesting to see how many blue-leading seats flip red overnight.
nitter.gq/newshour/status/211659…
If you go to bed on election night and don't know who won a midterm congressional race, that's normal. And if you wake up the next morning and find that a candidate who was behind hours earlier has since pulled ahead, that's normal, too. (via @PolitiFact) to.pbs.org/4zqnWBa
51
“Blaming AI is BS” misses the plot entirely…
I’ll bet you a dozen donuts you’re wrong.
We’re not building “data centers”.
They’re Workforce Replacements Factories.
You can call them WRFs for short.
nitter.gq/criticalplinker/status…
3
114
“Where are people supposed to go?”
That’s the million-dollar question with no simple answer.
There are important steps we need to do to help address it.
We need to get as much domestic manufacturing as we possibly can, as quickly as we can. This will help make up for the job displacement across sectors… bring manufacturing back to the USA.
573,195 announced U.S. job cuts through September.
120,136 blamed on AI.
But September hiring plans were 23% below last year… the weakest September since 2011.
Cut the jobs. Pull back hiring. Where are people supposed to go?
2
105
“Stuffing the ballot box in the middle of the night is normal”
If you go to bed on election night and don't know who won a midterm congressional race, that's normal. And if you wake up the next morning and find that a candidate who was behind hours earlier has since pulled ahead, that's normal, too. (via @PolitiFact) to.pbs.org/4zqnWBa
4
62
What’s up with all the data centers getting built?
Why do we need them?
These aren’t the data centers we’ve had before.
These are high-density AI compute clusters (HPC-style).
Data storage is part of it, but the point is the compute.
They aren’t just for chatbots.
They’re the infrastructure that lets AI handle routine work across industries cheaper than people.
They aren’t “data centers.” They’re job replacement machines on a very large scale.
I’ve laid it out in this thread…
Here’s the details…
If you’ve followed along in my other AI posts I’ve shown that AI doesn’t need to be “evil” to do serious damage to society.
It just needs to do a job cheaper than hiring (or keeping) a person. It doesn’t need to be evil for that, it doesn’t even need to be super intelligent.
It just needs to improve the profit margin line on a spreadsheet. I’ve also shown how this is happening now. Currently humans in the tech sector are being eliminated at an alarming rate.
I’ve made the claim this is especially concerning because the same features that are making it more profitable in Tech also make it an easy transition and choice for virtually any sector.
AI isn’t limited to just one or even a couple sectors. It can (and will) eliminate massive amounts of jobs across all sectors.
That’s why this is different than previous technological advancements.
This isn’t the same thing as the inventions people like to use as historical examples.
The tractor, cotton gin, railway system, computer or whatever else someone wants to compare it to were massive changes but they’re not even close to the scale of the changes we’re seeing from AI. AI scales like no other we’ve seen.
Here’s why AI encompasses so much at once…
1
1
55
The company-level numbers already show the math in action. Here’s the earlier breakdown:
nitter.gq/criticalplinker/status…
AI doesn’t need to become Skynet. It just needs to show a cost savings.
Companies are eliminating jobs because AI does the work for less, and the public numbers understate the cuts.
The difference in company cost is straightforward and scales easily.
An employee requires wages, health coverage, vacation days and other paid leave, retirement and Social Security contributions, and even bathroom breaks add up.
Employees also bring liabilities such as injury claims and workplace disputes.
A software system that performs the overlapping tasks carries none of those costs.
Its main expenses are electricity and computing time, and additional copies of the system can be added at little extra expense while the savings appear directly in the profit columns of the companies deploying it.
The system doesn’t need to be malicious to eliminate the jobs and the paychecks attached to them.
It only needs to perform the work, cost less, and scale, and it’s already doing so.
A single AI agent can run on a 24-hour schedule.
It isn’t limited to replacing one person on one shift.
When a company covers the same work around the clock, it often takes three people, and sometimes more once extra administrative positions are counted, to do what one instance of the system will handle.
In February 2026, Block, the owner of Square and Cash App, eliminated more than 4,000 positions.
The cut reduced the company from over 10,000 employees to just under 6,000, or roughly 40 percent of the workforce.
Chief executive Jack Dorsey told shareholders that the business itself was not in difficulty and that gross profit was still rising.
He stated that the intelligence tools already in use, together with smaller teams, had changed the number of people required to operate the company, and that he chose a single large reduction rather than a series of smaller ones spread over time.
While the cut was significant, time will tell whether it’s the only one.
The stock rose more than 20 percent after the announcement.
Accounts from inside the firm indicated that engineering groups were reduced more sharply than the company-wide figure, with some teams cut from eight or ten people down to one or two.
Similar eliminations have been announced at other companies this year and linked, directly or in substantial part, to the same tools.
Oracle has removed on the order of 20,000 to 30,000 jobs and has noted in filings that adoption of the technology has resulted in workforce reductions.
Meta has dismissed roughly 8,000 to 16,000 employees while directing resources toward its artificial-intelligence efforts.
Amazon has cut about 16,000 corporate roles, and its chief executive has written that wider use of the systems means fewer people will be needed for some of the work currently performed (more cuts to come).
Cisco, Dell, PayPal, and Cognizant have each announced cuts numbering in the thousands and cited artificial intelligence as a factor.
UPS has eliminated about 12,000 positions in logistics and planning and connected the decision to automated routing and operations systems.
Klarna has removed customer-service staff after moving volume to automated handling, and banks have reduced back-office and compliance headcount on comparable grounds.
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas recorded artificial intelligence as the stated reason for more than 100,000 announced U.S. job cuts in the first half of 2026, more than twice the total attributed to the technology for all of 2025.
That total of more than 100,000 covers only the portion of cuts companies were willing to tie publicly to artificial intelligence.
Other reductions are placed under different headings to soften the story.
Companies eliminate jobs in the same period they deploy the tools, then describe the cuts as restructuring, efficiency measures, or organizational changes rather than as the direct result of the software.
Monday.com provided one example in July 2026 when it eliminated roughly 20 percent of its workforce, about 630 jobs, while telling employees and regulators that the move supported an “AI-driven growth strategy” and a leaner model built around its AI Work Platform.
The co-chief executives stated at the same time that the decision “was not made to reduce costs or replace people with AI.”
Visa eliminated about 2,600 jobs, or 7 percent of its staff, the same month.
Its chief executive said artificial intelligence was “helping to accelerate” changes in how work gets done and noted that product teams had been reduced from around ten people to two-to-four while feature output rose, yet the company described the primary cause as broader efficiency rather than replacement by the tools.
In both cases the headcount fell while the firms were installing the systems, and the public explanation stopped short of saying the software had taken the jobs.
Companies and reports have begun to adjust their language to soften the blow. Instead, they prefer narratives like attrition, efficiency, or restructuring, anything but AI.
The reductions already announced follow the profit incentive. Once the system performs the work at lower cost, the savings show up on the ledger and the jobs are eliminated.
1
19
The holy grail for any large company:
a sweatshop that doesn’t pay anyone.
Workforce Replacement Factories.
The media just calls them Data Centers.
If you’ve followed along in my other AI posts I’ve shown that AI doesn’t need to be “evil” to do serious damage to society.
It just needs to do a job cheaper than hiring (or keeping) a person. It doesn’t need to be evil for that, it doesn’t even need to be super intelligent.
It just needs to improve the profit margin line on a spreadsheet. I’ve also shown how this is happening now. Currently humans in the tech sector are being eliminated at an alarming rate.
I’ve made the claim this is especially concerning because the same features that are making it more profitable in Tech also make it an easy transition and choice for virtually any sector.
AI isn’t limited to just one or even a couple sectors. It can (and will) eliminate massive amounts of jobs across all sectors.
That’s why this is different than previous technological advancements.
This isn’t the same thing as the inventions people like to use as historical examples.
The tractor, cotton gin, railway system, computer or whatever else someone wants to compare it to were massive changes but they’re not even close to the scale of the changes we’re seeing from AI. AI scales like no other we’ve seen.
Here’s why AI encompasses so much at once…
In tech AI writes and reviews code, routes tickets, and handles large parts of the work that once used to take multiple engineers.
In logistics it builds routes, sets schedules, and decides which loads move when.
In healthcare it drafts notes, flags findings, and sits in the path of treatment and billing decisions so that the approved option is the one that appears first.
In insurance it reviews claims and determines what gets paid.
In law firms it runs research, pulls relevant cases, and drafts or redlines documents.
In engineering it generates designs, checks calculations, and flags issues against standards.
In marketing it creates content, adjusts campaigns, and admin rolls.
In accounting it does math faster. In customer service it answers questions.
These are not the same tasks, but they share the same practical feature:
they are built on language, data, rules, past examples, or structured decisions that a system can process once it has been shown the inputs.
That’s why the same advantages move from one sector to any sector so effortlessly.
Point them at the new set of rules, and connect them to the existing system.
The cost difference versus a person stays the same (pennies on the dollar). A person requires wages, benefits, leave, taxes, and liability.
AI requires electricity and cycles.
Extra capacity is added at low additional cost, and it can run continuously. Let’s repeat that, it’s important. It can run 24/7 eliminating multiple jobs with a single AI agent.
Once the output is good enough for the routine work, the payroll can shrink while the work still gets done.
Companies describe the change as efficiency, attrition, or restructuring.
What they call it can vary. The savings doesn’t care what it’s called.
The same pattern is already appearing outside the technology companies.
Government agencies use the systems to process forms, permits, benefits claims, and records, and plans to reduce staff are in process.
Universities/schools use them on admissions, transcripts, scheduling, and routine questions.
Real-estate work uses them to pull information from contracts, track deadlines, and check disclosures.
Banking compliance and lending teams use them to collect documents, triage alerts, and prepare reports.
Human-resources use them to screen resumes, rank candidates against job criteria, and schedule interviews.
Marketing groups use them to generate variations and execute plans.
Utilities use them to handle billing questions, payment arrangements, and outage inquiries.
In each case the work includes decisions, classifications, drafting, or analysis that used to require people.
Once the tools reach a usable level of reliability and are connected, fewer people are needed for the routine share.
The remaining staff gets shrunk to bigger decisions and oversight.
Rules (regulation) could slow the pace in some places, but the incentives are huge across industries.
It merely depends on whether the same output can be produced at lower cost.
Previous technologies changed specific industries or specific steps inside an industry. The tractor changed farming. The computer changed calculation, record-keeping and matured slowly.
AI applies to any task built on language, data, rules, and common decisions, and scales quickly for pennies.
The economic numbers that matter are the ones that compare it to work completed.
What companies or reports call it in the headlines will vary.
The savings won’t care.
The underlying math does not change because the work moved from a technology company to a government office, a hospital, an insurance company, a law firm, a university, a real-estate transaction, a bank, a recruiting desk, a marketing team, or a utility call center.
The tools don’t need to become perfect.
They only need to be good enough, cheap, and scalable enough that keeping the old headcount stops making sense.
What makes AI an attractive tool in one sector works for any industry. We need to plan on it.
In tech AI writes and reviews code, routes tickets, and handles large parts of the work that once used to take multiple engineers.
In logistics it builds routes, sets schedules, and decides which loads move when.
In healthcare it drafts notes, flags findings, and sits in the path of treatment and billing decisions so that the approved option is the one that appears first.
In insurance it reviews claims and determines what gets paid.
In law firms it runs research, pulls relevant cases, and drafts or redlines documents.
In engineering it generates designs, checks calculations, and flags issues against standards.
In marketing it creates content, adjusts campaigns, and admin rolls.
In accounting it does math faster. In customer service it answers questions.
These are not the same tasks, but they share the same practical feature:
they are built on language, data, rules, past examples, or structured decisions that a system can process once it has been shown the inputs.
That’s why the same advantages move from one sector to any sector so effortlessly.
Point them at the new set of rules, and connect them to the existing system.
The cost difference versus a person stays the same (pennies on the dollar). A person requires wages, benefits, leave, taxes, and liability.
AI requires electricity and cycles.
Extra capacity is added at low additional cost, and it can run continuously. Let’s repeat that, it’s important. It can run 24/7 eliminating multiple jobs with a single AI agent.
Once the output is good enough for the routine work, the payroll can shrink while the work still gets done.
Companies describe the change as efficiency, attrition, or restructuring.
What they call it can vary. The savings doesn’t care what it’s called.
The same pattern is already appearing outside the technology companies.
Government agencies use the systems to process forms, permits, benefits claims, and records, and plans to reduce staff are in process.
Universities/schools use them on admissions, transcripts, scheduling, and routine questions.
Real-estate work uses them to pull information from contracts, track deadlines, and check disclosures.
Banking compliance and lending teams use them to collect documents, triage alerts, and prepare reports.
Human-resources use them to screen resumes, rank candidates against job criteria, and schedule interviews.
Marketing groups use them to generate variations and execute plans.
Utilities use them to handle billing questions, payment arrangements, and outage inquiries.
In each case the work includes decisions, classifications, drafting, or analysis that used to require people.
Once the tools reach a usable level of reliability and are connected, fewer people are needed for the routine share.
The remaining staff gets shrunk to bigger decisions and oversight.
Rules (regulation) could slow the pace in some places, but the incentives are huge across industries.
It merely depends on whether the same output can be produced at lower cost.
Previous technologies changed specific industries or specific steps inside an industry. The tractor changed farming. The computer changed calculation, record-keeping and matured slowly.
AI applies to any task built on language, data, rules, and common decisions, and scales quickly for pennies.
The economic numbers that matter are the ones that compare it to work completed.
What companies or reports call it in the headlines will vary.
The savings won’t care.
The underlying math does not change because the work moved from a technology company to a government office, a hospital, an insurance company, a law firm, a university, a real-estate transaction, a bank, a recruiting desk, a marketing team, or a utility call center.
The tools don’t need to become perfect.
They only need to be good enough, cheap, and scalable enough that keeping the old headcount stops making sense.
What makes AI an attractive tool in one sector works for any industry. We need to plan on it.
If everyone in the company meets the same brand of standards the CEO wants, the dude in the suit is the “non-conformist”. Immediately rejecting him isn’t outside the box… it’s narcissism.
Please tell me this person is trolling. There’s no way this guy is being serious… is there? nitter.gq/aeejazkhan/status/2115…
1
4
133