What happens when you eliminate the independence of agencies like the DOJ and FTC, replace experienced leaders with party loyalists, and tee up opportunities for selective prosecution? Equal justice under law collapses into a race to see which competitor can pay the largest ransom.
This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee.
Paul Krugman (who I often disagree with) had a good article on how the rise of tariffs will be perfect for crony capitalism: the executive branch can't pick and choose who pays income taxes, but currently the executive branch has extremely wide latitude over tariffs, and especially, who gets exemptions. Watch as corporations line up to pledge allegiance in order to get tariff exemptions.
I'm just completely at a loss at how this behavior, which would have been looked on with disgust on both sides of the political spectrum until very recently, is now so readily accepted.
Trump 45 never got off the ground because he just tried to pick the smartest generals, who in turn disagreed with him on many things and eventually broke with him. Republican legislature is similarly undisciplined. On Democrat agendas, a single senator will defect during important bills. When Republicans have control, some random Rep stages a coup against the leadership.
I think they're realizing that you don't win at party politics by failing to have a party, and the party is more than just cheerleaders and fundraising. They're clearly not done consolidating power yet, considering the withdrawal of Gaetz and the lingering of a few impeachment representatives.
Hopefully what he gains in consistency and teamwork isn't totally overshadowed by the fact that his loyal people are, in many cases, not longtime government officials.
I respectfully disagree. Sure, we may have been on our way, but I think the contrast between Jeff Sessions and Matt Gaetz/Pam Bondi really just shows how we're truly off the rails now.
Jeff Sessions appropriately recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign, because 8 years ago we still expected the Justice Department to act impartially. In doing that, Sessions got nothing but the deep ire of Trump, solely because he wasn't willing to act as the President's personal lawyer.
Now, though, both Gaetz and Bondi have basically fallen over backward saying they'll do whatever Trump asks. The only reason Gaetz wasn't confirmed wasn't because he said flatly that he would weaponize the Justice department, but it was because he's basically loathed by everyone on Capitol Hill (IMO the sex and drug allegations were more of a convenient out to not confirm him rather than the true reason for his withdrawal). The current situation is completely without precedent in my lifetime.
Trump was elected. The president is supposed to be the head of the administrative branch of the government. He has actually been quite straightforward about what he wants to do.
If a country elects a bunch of bad eggs, it all falls over. There isn't a way around it.
As far as the specifics against MSFT, I hope no one does anything. A company can choose to deal with MSFT or not, it's no mystery what they are signing up for. There are good alternatives.
I don't want independent agencies. I want agencies with accountability to the voters through their elected representatives. What you describe is madness. Government bureaucrats that aren't elected, cannot be fired by the people, and... outside the power of the president who is supposed to be in charge of the executive branch? What kind of government is this? Not democracy.
The Westminster system on which almost all of the world's democracies are based rely on an independent, unelected civil servants who serve the government of the day.
You will never get well-run governments if you require every person involved to be elected and an expert on politics and not on specific subjects e.g. renewable energy policy.
All US government agencies are created through congress, by your elected representatives. It is the executive branch (the president, who is also elected) that is then responsible for carrying out the agency's mission. All the high-level government bureaucrats are confirmed by the senate, all elected officials. If a president dismisses them, the senate has to confirm their replacement.
This kind of government is described in the US constitution.
The agencies as they currently function (creating rules) isn't "described in the US constitution". We got here via a combination of practice, legislation and court decisions over decades and decades and decades. And recently court cases are swinging back against the power of the agencies.
It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules.
It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days.
Because as we've seen time and time again innocent mistakes will be made and you want them rectified as quickly and easily as possible.
Regulatory agencies weren't even a thing until the ICC in 1887. People aren't talking about the post office when they complain about regulatory agencies. Now we have all kinds of regulatory agencies making stuff up as they go. Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing "strategic objectives" nor a vast apparatus of administrative law making entities like the the current regulatory agencies.
Regulatory agencies are constrained by the laws that Congress passes.
Where there is ambiguity (of which there is an infinite supply) the precedent was to leave up to agencies to interpret it. As opposed to requiring endless new bills to be passed.
They are constrained only by what is nowadays extremely broadly written legislation. Just read anything like dodd-frank, written by incompetent fools who left it so broad that it said both nothing and everything (no constraints in practice) - and is now the source of 100s of rules across various agencies.
Yes, precedent, part of my point. The constitution says nothing about it. The first regulatory agency came about 100 years after the constitution - that isn't by chance.
It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged.
Would be really remarkable to call yourself a populist and then kill the case against landlords colluding to raise rent, but seems like that’s what’s likely to happen.
Pro-monopoly (that's what "deregulation" in practice means) is not the same as pro-business. It's pro very specific business which wants to have no competition which is very unhealthy for business in general.
Regulation is in fact pro-monopoly. It serves as a cudgel against would-be competitors and keeps incumbents in place even where they would produce worse service at a higher cost. Deregulation as demonstrated in the industries of air travel and telecommunications have produced more competition, not less.
Is this some kind of joke? Air travel and telecommunications had some of the worst consolidations over time. Nothing good came out of it precisely due to decrease in competition.
This reminds me 1984 with its war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Now add to that your "monopoly is free market" koolaid.
Prior to the 1980s, the government price-fixed airline tickets and legally instituted AT&T as the sole national carrier of the country. Legal mandates against price competition and the entry of new competitors into a national market is not a free market. If you've been able to have conversations with someone on the other side of the world at little to no cost or you've enjoyed multiple trips across world without breaking the bank, then you've benefited from the deregulation of these industries.
> On the other their entire governing agenda is about deregulation, dismantling of federal agencies and being pro-business.
Oh, honey[1].
If the apparatchik remains spineless and lets them get away with it, there'll be some remnants the supposed agenda, but I think the real agenda is whatever makes them money. Already people close to him are charging others for access to him/cushy jobs[2]. Gosh, I'm trying to re-find this commentary account where it's headlines out of Washington but written like the way western media writes about some despotic African nation, but maybe I just need to wait until January.
Heck, Trump even bilked taxpayers by charging SS members a lot of money for accomodation in Mar-A-Lago or Trump Tower, and they had/have to stay there because they were guarding him [3]...
It sounds like your conspiracy theory is that Trump is just trying to pull off a big payday? I won't demean you by suggesting that you're unaware of the absurdity in that.
As to giving free hotel stays to the government, I'm not well attuned to the conduct of the ultra-rich, but in the reasonably comfortable ranks of the GS-teens, I assure you no one is lining up to spend his own money to make government work, despite the enormous escapes from brain damage that can often be achieved for relatively little money by just going to Staples, Home Depot, etc. and just resupplying the office on one's own dime.
> I won't demean you by suggesting that you're unaware of the absurdity in that.
It's by far the least absurd thing about Trump, who also got a press conference in a garden centre car park between a sex shop and a crematorium, which was then was mocked by furries who turned it into a VRChat environment, and the lawyer presenting that press conference got disbarred for trying to overturn the election; while the man himself has 34 felony charges for falsifying business records to hide showing he paid off a porn star that he claims not to have had sex with even though the sex part and the payment for silence is totally legal just you need to not lie about how much you spend in total on campaign finance and business expenses.
I think that's the kind of setup that Douglas Adams or Armando Iannucci would use.
Oh, and I almost forgot about the gold-coloured toilet.
The article is paywalled, but don't you have to be a monopoly to get in trouble with antitrust? This isn't the 2000s, microsoft is not really a monopoly anymore.
The whole "enterprise Office licenses are only licensed for cloud use on Azure VMs, but no other cloud's" move should 100% be investigated for antitrust.
Self hosting doesn’t mean the opposite of cloud hosted, it just means that you can run it on your companies owned server infrastructure. Whether that’s locally hosted or remote hosted.
It needs to start with a retroactive investigation of what happened with Teams, which was such an obvious anticompetitive abuse to steal market share away from Slack and others. But it needs to go a lot deeper and touch everything. The acquisitions of GitHub, LinkedIn, and other companies. Things like shoving unwanted ads into Windows due to a lack of competition. Repeated aggressive nudges to use Edge over other browsers. Copilot agents running in the background without user consent, giving their AI an advantage no one else enjoys. Overly complicated Office file formats. The funding of OpenAI and Satya’s obvious direct control over that company, seen in the situation with the previous board, where he threatened to just dismantle OpenAI by hiring away all the staff. And on and on.
One thing I want to call out is that everyone thinks Satya is some kind of soft, nice person. He joined Microsoft in 1992. He is 100% part of the old Microsoft guard. Sure he may have continued Ballmer’s bet on Bing/services into Azure/O365/etc and turned the company’s valuation around. But he is definitely familiar with the entire playbook of Microsoft using its existing products, existing contracts/renewals, existing capital, existing staff to copy others, bundle, undercut, and keep taking over market segments that under fair competition would go to other more deserving companies like startups.
I don't think people really fear the Microsoft old guard anymore. HN loves to wave around the Halloween documents as evidence of Microsoft's persisting evil, but the remaining Windows users can't be made to care. If anything, most of the Windows/Microsoft product users I speak with want the old user philosophy to return.
Ironically, the advertising, data collection and service revenue abuse of Windows doesn't appear to even be a serious concern from the looks of the report. They're more interested in Microsoft's abusive B2B contracts, which have been reputably sketchy for years now. Burning down your operating system for the sake of service revenue isn't illegal - if it was, Tim Cook would have been put behind bars a decade ago.
This is what consumer protection looks like; for modern Americans. Don't forget that, the US government does not give even the faintest shit about your awful user experience if the OEM plays fair ball. Feeling free yet?
Its telling you haven’t paid attention because some of these cases started under the Trump administration and he’s been very categorical about his disdain for big tech.
Edit: ignore this first sentence. I mistook two people. It originally said “Then why paint this as an issue with the left?” Because that’s what the original person who is now flagged was doing.
Remaining comment below.
——
It seems both parties have similar targets but for different reason.
I think Microsoft and Google are most likely feel the brunt of the government after Trump is back in, because it greatly benefits Elon’s competing ambitions.
I think Meta will largely be untouched due to Marks close relationship with Peter Thiel, and he’s already bent the knee before the election to the GOP.
Apple is the one oddity. Trump doesn’t have much against them, even though they’re outwardly the most progressive of the big tech.
I hope they at least split Office and Windows into seperate companies. Hopefully, then we may get Microsoft Office on Linux.
Office is deprecated.
Microsoft 365 has Word, Excel etc. but they are slowly transitioning to the web.
Office is on MacOS.
It'll be interesting to see how the new administration deals with all of the big tech antitrust investigations and lawsuits it inherits.
On one hand Trump and the Republicans hate these corporations, and would love the opportunity to take them down a notch.
On the other their entire governing agenda is about deregulation, dismantling of federal agencies and being pro-business.
Interesting situation to be in.
What happens when you eliminate the independence of agencies like the DOJ and FTC, replace experienced leaders with party loyalists, and tee up opportunities for selective prosecution? Equal justice under law collapses into a race to see which competitor can pay the largest ransom.
This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee.
Paul Krugman (who I often disagree with) had a good article on how the rise of tariffs will be perfect for crony capitalism: the executive branch can't pick and choose who pays income taxes, but currently the executive branch has extremely wide latitude over tariffs, and especially, who gets exemptions. Watch as corporations line up to pledge allegiance in order to get tariff exemptions.
I'm just completely at a loss at how this behavior, which would have been looked on with disgust on both sides of the political spectrum until very recently, is now so readily accepted.
It used to be the status quo, before the civil service reforms ~1875.
Thanks for your comment, it led me to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_..., which I think gives a very good overview of the history of civil service reforms in the US.
Ah, yes - let's make it great again. Like it was in 1875!
Trump 45 never got off the ground because he just tried to pick the smartest generals, who in turn disagreed with him on many things and eventually broke with him. Republican legislature is similarly undisciplined. On Democrat agendas, a single senator will defect during important bills. When Republicans have control, some random Rep stages a coup against the leadership.
I think they're realizing that you don't win at party politics by failing to have a party, and the party is more than just cheerleaders and fundraising. They're clearly not done consolidating power yet, considering the withdrawal of Gaetz and the lingering of a few impeachment representatives.
Hopefully what he gains in consistency and teamwork isn't totally overshadowed by the fact that his loyal people are, in many cases, not longtime government officials.
> I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee.
my dude, we passed that in 2016
I respectfully disagree. Sure, we may have been on our way, but I think the contrast between Jeff Sessions and Matt Gaetz/Pam Bondi really just shows how we're truly off the rails now.
Jeff Sessions appropriately recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign, because 8 years ago we still expected the Justice Department to act impartially. In doing that, Sessions got nothing but the deep ire of Trump, solely because he wasn't willing to act as the President's personal lawyer.
Now, though, both Gaetz and Bondi have basically fallen over backward saying they'll do whatever Trump asks. The only reason Gaetz wasn't confirmed wasn't because he said flatly that he would weaponize the Justice department, but it was because he's basically loathed by everyone on Capitol Hill (IMO the sex and drug allegations were more of a convenient out to not confirm him rather than the true reason for his withdrawal). The current situation is completely without precedent in my lifetime.
my dude, we passed that in 2008
Why do you think that?
Trump was elected. The president is supposed to be the head of the administrative branch of the government. He has actually been quite straightforward about what he wants to do.
If a country elects a bunch of bad eggs, it all falls over. There isn't a way around it.
Let's hopw this whole federalism thing works out and states pick up the slack when the federal government can't.
As far as the specifics against MSFT, I hope no one does anything. A company can choose to deal with MSFT or not, it's no mystery what they are signing up for. There are good alternatives.
I don't want independent agencies. I want agencies with accountability to the voters through their elected representatives. What you describe is madness. Government bureaucrats that aren't elected, cannot be fired by the people, and... outside the power of the president who is supposed to be in charge of the executive branch? What kind of government is this? Not democracy.
> What kind of government is this? Not democracy
The Westminster system on which almost all of the world's democracies are based rely on an independent, unelected civil servants who serve the government of the day.
You will never get well-run governments if you require every person involved to be elected and an expert on politics and not on specific subjects e.g. renewable energy policy.
All US government agencies are created through congress, by your elected representatives. It is the executive branch (the president, who is also elected) that is then responsible for carrying out the agency's mission. All the high-level government bureaucrats are confirmed by the senate, all elected officials. If a president dismisses them, the senate has to confirm their replacement.
This kind of government is described in the US constitution.
This is a disingenuous take.
The agencies as they currently function (creating rules) isn't "described in the US constitution". We got here via a combination of practice, legislation and court decisions over decades and decades and decades. And recently court cases are swinging back against the power of the agencies.
It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules.
It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days.
Because as we've seen time and time again innocent mistakes will be made and you want them rectified as quickly and easily as possible.
Regulatory agencies weren't even a thing until the ICC in 1887. People aren't talking about the post office when they complain about regulatory agencies. Now we have all kinds of regulatory agencies making stuff up as they go. Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing "strategic objectives" nor a vast apparatus of administrative law making entities like the the current regulatory agencies.
This is simply wrong.
Regulatory agencies are constrained by the laws that Congress passes.
Where there is ambiguity (of which there is an infinite supply) the precedent was to leave up to agencies to interpret it. As opposed to requiring endless new bills to be passed.
Nope, it's right, every single part.
Right now there are over 100,000 rules in the code of federal regulations across 50 volumes: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/CFR
Here is another link for you: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43056/9?utm_s...
Search for "major rules". Think about those.
They are constrained only by what is nowadays extremely broadly written legislation. Just read anything like dodd-frank, written by incompetent fools who left it so broad that it said both nothing and everything (no constraints in practice) - and is now the source of 100s of rules across various agencies.
Yes, precedent, part of my point. The constitution says nothing about it. The first regulatory agency came about 100 years after the constitution - that isn't by chance.
It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged.
I'm really worried about what happens to the case against RealPage.
Would be really remarkable to call yourself a populist and then kill the case against landlords colluding to raise rent, but seems like that’s what’s likely to happen.
> remarkable to call yourself a populist
Trump never used this language. (He was also aggressive against Big Tech in his first term.)
Pledge fealty and all your problems will go away
Pro-monopoly (that's what "deregulation" in practice means) is not the same as pro-business. It's pro very specific business which wants to have no competition which is very unhealthy for business in general.
Regulation is in fact pro-monopoly. It serves as a cudgel against would-be competitors and keeps incumbents in place even where they would produce worse service at a higher cost. Deregulation as demonstrated in the industries of air travel and telecommunications have produced more competition, not less.
Is this some kind of joke? Air travel and telecommunications had some of the worst consolidations over time. Nothing good came out of it precisely due to decrease in competition.
This reminds me 1984 with its war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Now add to that your "monopoly is free market" koolaid.
Prior to the 1980s, the government price-fixed airline tickets and legally instituted AT&T as the sole national carrier of the country. Legal mandates against price competition and the entry of new competitors into a national market is not a free market. If you've been able to have conversations with someone on the other side of the world at little to no cost or you've enjoyed multiple trips across world without breaking the bank, then you've benefited from the deregulation of these industries.
> On the other their entire governing agenda is about deregulation, dismantling of federal agencies and being pro-business.
Oh, honey[1].
If the apparatchik remains spineless and lets them get away with it, there'll be some remnants the supposed agenda, but I think the real agenda is whatever makes them money. Already people close to him are charging others for access to him/cushy jobs[2]. Gosh, I'm trying to re-find this commentary account where it's headlines out of Washington but written like the way western media writes about some despotic African nation, but maybe I just need to wait until January.
Heck, Trump even bilked taxpayers by charging SS members a lot of money for accomodation in Mar-A-Lago or Trump Tower, and they had/have to stay there because they were guarding him [3]...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0_JfAZ5vlc [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/11/25/trump-epsht... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/trump-...
It sounds like your conspiracy theory is that Trump is just trying to pull off a big payday? I won't demean you by suggesting that you're unaware of the absurdity in that.
As to giving free hotel stays to the government, I'm not well attuned to the conduct of the ultra-rich, but in the reasonably comfortable ranks of the GS-teens, I assure you no one is lining up to spend his own money to make government work, despite the enormous escapes from brain damage that can often be achieved for relatively little money by just going to Staples, Home Depot, etc. and just resupplying the office on one's own dime.
> I won't demean you by suggesting that you're unaware of the absurdity in that.
It's by far the least absurd thing about Trump, who also got a press conference in a garden centre car park between a sex shop and a crematorium, which was then was mocked by furries who turned it into a VRChat environment, and the lawyer presenting that press conference got disbarred for trying to overturn the election; while the man himself has 34 felony charges for falsifying business records to hide showing he paid off a porn star that he claims not to have had sex with even though the sex part and the payment for silence is totally legal just you need to not lie about how much you spend in total on campaign finance and business expenses.
I think that's the kind of setup that Douglas Adams or Armando Iannucci would use.
Oh, and I almost forgot about the gold-coloured toilet.
Oh, honey...
https://archive.ph/qq4El
Will we finally end up splitting them into MICROS~1 AND MICROS~2?
Also, splitting off Internet Explorer turned out to be entirely unnecessary, it died of stagnation all on its own.
It died because alternatives weren’t blocked from being used in certain internal OS functions.
Without it would have taken much longer.
It took a decade to die. And another decade to decay away enough to stop having to support it.
The article is paywalled, but don't you have to be a monopoly to get in trouble with antitrust? This isn't the 2000s, microsoft is not really a monopoly anymore.
If I’m reading this correctly, it seems to focus largely on Microsoft services tying you to Azure?
This could be a pretty big boon to self hosting if successful.
The whole "enterprise Office licenses are only licensed for cloud use on Azure VMs, but no other cloud's" move should 100% be investigated for antitrust.
self hosting for all the software that is increasingly becoming cloud only?
Self hosting doesn’t mean the opposite of cloud hosted, it just means that you can run it on your companies owned server infrastructure. Whether that’s locally hosted or remote hosted.
Self-hosting is not held back by Azure.
Pray tell how I can self host Microsoft Teams today on anything but azure?
It needs to start with a retroactive investigation of what happened with Teams, which was such an obvious anticompetitive abuse to steal market share away from Slack and others. But it needs to go a lot deeper and touch everything. The acquisitions of GitHub, LinkedIn, and other companies. Things like shoving unwanted ads into Windows due to a lack of competition. Repeated aggressive nudges to use Edge over other browsers. Copilot agents running in the background without user consent, giving their AI an advantage no one else enjoys. Overly complicated Office file formats. The funding of OpenAI and Satya’s obvious direct control over that company, seen in the situation with the previous board, where he threatened to just dismantle OpenAI by hiring away all the staff. And on and on.
One thing I want to call out is that everyone thinks Satya is some kind of soft, nice person. He joined Microsoft in 1992. He is 100% part of the old Microsoft guard. Sure he may have continued Ballmer’s bet on Bing/services into Azure/O365/etc and turned the company’s valuation around. But he is definitely familiar with the entire playbook of Microsoft using its existing products, existing contracts/renewals, existing capital, existing staff to copy others, bundle, undercut, and keep taking over market segments that under fair competition would go to other more deserving companies like startups.
> He is 100% part of the old Microsoft guard.
I don't think people really fear the Microsoft old guard anymore. HN loves to wave around the Halloween documents as evidence of Microsoft's persisting evil, but the remaining Windows users can't be made to care. If anything, most of the Windows/Microsoft product users I speak with want the old user philosophy to return.
Ironically, the advertising, data collection and service revenue abuse of Windows doesn't appear to even be a serious concern from the looks of the report. They're more interested in Microsoft's abusive B2B contracts, which have been reputably sketchy for years now. Burning down your operating system for the sake of service revenue isn't illegal - if it was, Tim Cook would have been put behind bars a decade ago.
This is what consumer protection looks like; for modern Americans. Don't forget that, the US government does not give even the faintest shit about your awful user experience if the OEM plays fair ball. Feeling free yet?
[flagged]
Its telling you haven’t paid attention because some of these cases started under the Trump administration and he’s been very categorical about his disdain for big tech.
This is true but he is also in bed with tech oligarchs now so he will be interesting to see how he balances this and who's demands he caves to.
Edit: ignore this first sentence. I mistook two people. It originally said “Then why paint this as an issue with the left?” Because that’s what the original person who is now flagged was doing.
Remaining comment below. ——
It seems both parties have similar targets but for different reason.
I think Microsoft and Google are most likely feel the brunt of the government after Trump is back in, because it greatly benefits Elon’s competing ambitions.
I think Meta will largely be untouched due to Marks close relationship with Peter Thiel, and he’s already bent the knee before the election to the GOP.
Apple is the one oddity. Trump doesn’t have much against them, even though they’re outwardly the most progressive of the big tech.
You must have me mistaken with the person you initially replied to because I'm not painting it as a right or left issue.
Ah sorry, my bad. Both your usernames started with a “ba” , and so I was indeed confusing you.
Oooooooooooooo. That’s a great news.
Microsoft is fucked up company. They should not own office, cloud, GitHub, LinkedIn, crm, gaming, AI, OpenAI, and much more.
I hope trump breaks them in thousand pieces.
trump won't do shit once they bribe him.
When I voted for harris i was actually voting for lina khan
[dead]
Make em sell chrome