« first day (3322 days earlier)      last day (1744 days later) » 

12:32 AM
A Brexit deal should be released under CC-BY-SA 4.0
1:07 AM
@404 uhm... What?
To maximize the discussion potential.
Attesting that it's not allowed when you're not a lawyer and have no standing to say pretty much anything in this answer is what leads to the frustrations like Aleksandr shows. Rather than attempting to state things in big bold letters, it makes more sense to rephrase this answer to ask if we consulted lawyers, whether this is allowed, and whether we've considered all the implications. Your answer comes off as arguing for the sake of arguing rather than trying to bring up a legitimate concern that users might have and deserves an answer because your "questions" are buried. — animuson ♦ 2 days ago
Yeah. The point isn't what a license says or intends to say. It is what a sufficiently lawyered-up company can get away with.
2 hours later…
2:44 AM
@404 on the other hand... Why do people assume SE hasn't checked if it's legal? And what's the negative impact of upgrading license versions?
That's to say where exactly is the negative intent or effect?
There's lots of lovely hills to die on. Why this one?
I dunno, but some seem to really concern about their contribution.
For whatever it means.
Concern is why. I'm personally having a difficulty seeing how it affects us outside 'you can't change the license without asking us'
And I always thought we licenced our content to SE and then the content as per the site was CC
IANAL but it makes more sense
Also I saw this on Jeff Atwood's Twitter
> the absolute worst part is constantly having people (who do not care about us) tell us how to do our jobs better.
Sometimes also true for people who care
3:10 AM
Looks like most of the concern is about applying retroactively, not the new contribution. But IANAL and will never be one.
3:27 AM
hi all
is there a massive drop in SE usage activity in 2019??
4:12 AM
@MetaAndrewT. Sure but that's literally a given for any change like that
Its not like the MIT licence thing, which was a fundamental change
2 hours later…
5:43 AM
chess burnout...
5:57 AM
chest burnout...
6:08 AM
best turnout?
5 hours later…
10:50 AM
for context, see comments below the commenter's deleted post.
@ankiiiiiii Do you need to bring it up in chat? Just flag as rude and move on
They should be gone now ;)
@ankiiiiiii just ignore them and move on...
The first comment reads as "Calm down, "Idiot" is a Dostoyevsky novel"
So probably not rude. Removable as non-English.
The third one seems to be.
"You are a ram" Lol I love GTranslate
10:57 AM
the user seems to have an overall bigger problem with SE, that's all...
@M.A.R. The dude clearly speaks English, given their deleted post. And you've missed the worst ones ;)
But yes @ankiiiiiii next time just flag, don't comment back... and a mod will get them. No need to use chat too ;)
@Tinkeringbell I mean, it's the internet and it happens all the time. Do we deserve the hate? Of course not. Does it even constitute "hate" as in real life? Probably not. It's as serious as me getting pissed off at an annoying customer. Five minutes later and it's gone. Does it happen all the time? Of course.
I've probably been conditioned to love the insults. It's when the other side is trying to make an intellectual argument that gets me.
SD ✌️
@MetaAndrewT. Well that's certainly a new one
@ankiiiiiii Oh, you tried to be helpful with a comment on that Python question and that is kind of you. I considered leaving a similar comment as you did but I refrained due to the desperate tone in the comment the OP already left. Sometimes it happens that users go into some kind of retaliation. It has nothing to do with you. Just flag their comments, use a custom flag to provide context and move on. By all means don't engage and don't let it give you the creeps. Been there, done that.
Or maybe do it until you're stiffened to the average internet troll's remarks. Painful. Like Penicillin.
Did you know that allergic reactions to Penicillin are really dangerous?
They could kill.
Not like paper cuts, but really.
@M.A.R. I'm used to check user's network activity if something weird happens out of the blue. Not as efficient as Penicillin, but kind of work.
and I'm currently drop dead on the bed...
11:07 AM
Oh, poor bed
@MetaAndrewT. Tired or bored?
tired due to bored
Try stretching
@Tinkeringbell I commented firstly from my phone and then later ones after translating to help mods see the meaning. (idk if anyone knows Russian.) But yes, it was kinda weird to see such a reaction for recommending an alternate site ( as @MetaAndrewT. said), so I messaged here.
@M.A.R. I know about Combiflam, can cause liver failure if taken extra. But it is way too popular in India than it is required to be
Thanks for the consolation @rene :)
@M.A.R. Any allergic reaction can do that if you go into anaphylactic shock.
@Mithrandir But how easy it can get there is important
@ankiiiiiii What does it consist of?
11:20 AM
@M.A.R. or iocane...
@ankiiiiiii On review...
Its them not you ;p
And yes, just flag
@JourneymanGeek are we listing possible ways to die xd?
@M.A.R. Almost as fun as youtube auto subtitiles...
@ankiiiiiii Oh god
Have you not watched princess bride?
It came up in lookup, but I omitted the fictional content part. And no I haven't see it
@ankiiiiiii Great movie, a classic. You should see it
If I tell that to Tink apparently I'd get weird looks
11:31 AM
@M.A.R. She did also think the dead parrot sketch was a death threat ;p
@M.A.R. 97% RT !! But this bald man is less convincing for a villain role
@ankiiiiiii that's kinda the joke
@ankiiiiiii Not every villain is gonna be the Joker. It's a lighthearted movie with lots of powerful themes and dialog
ohh okay lol will watch next Saturday
have you seen Joker?
Not yet
Waiting on a few reviews that matter and maybe time ._.
11:37 AM
Well it's not out yet, is it?
I'd have to wait to download it anyway
that too
@JourneymanGeek Up high, Pirates of the Indian ocean
then who are the 10k reviewers on IMDB?
@M.A.R. technically I wan't watch it legitmately if it wasn't out either
@ankiiiiiii people who watched screeners? ;p
@ankiiiiiii Few people who have watched it (venerable critics), and lots of idiots.
Well, not idiots, maybe
It's more childish than stupid
11:39 AM
Pirates? ;p
@JourneymanGeek It's not even released in cinemas, so probably not
"Calm down, "Idiot" is a Dostoyevsky novel
Ha, yeah, I missed the context but it most probably was trolling
The Idiot (pre-reform Russian: Идіотъ; post-reform Russian: Идиот, tr. Idiót) is a novel by the 19th-century Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky. It was first published serially in the journal The Russian Messenger in 1868–69. The title is an ironic reference to the central character of the novel, Prince (Knyaz) Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, a young man whose goodness, open-hearted simplicity and guilelessness lead many of the more worldly characters he encounters to mistakenly assume that he lacks intelligence and insight. In the character of Prince Myshkin, Dostoevsky set himself the task of depicting...
@M.A.R. I can watch it in cinema, I don't do that usually. 4-5 times in past 2 years.
11:41 AM
@ankiiiiiii tbh, looking back at it
1. The russian is strange since there's no reason to assume you speak russian.
2. If he was trying to get a response, he's getting it. Chill
well a person shouts in native language, so understandable
Well, yes, but always useful to consider what they want, and deny them that satisfaction ;)
I am all chill :) Sunday after all
11:57 AM
@Mithrandir Nope, sorry, meta.SO is blocked in Iran . . .
Poor you...
@M.A.R. that's fine, because that's meta.stackoverfiow, not meta.stackoverflow.
To be . . . or not to be . . .
Easy mistake to make.
FR: display meta.stackoverfiow.com links (and other rickroll traps) in a different color to disambiguate them from meta.stackoverflow.com links
12:08 PM
@Mithrandir truly! are you a John Oliver fan too ?
Who's that?
@JohnDvorak he does this prank very often
@JourneymanGeek I flagged a comment in Russian, on enSO (not ruSO). It's quickly gone :)
@MetaAndrewT. so was this by the look of things ;p
2 hours later…
2:24 PM
23 messages moved to Chimney
@Conifold, the question has been understood and answered, moreover, my meditation to understand why the answers given are the answers to this question has also been answered (by me)..............And it looks valid too.........WE (royal) ARE TRAPPED, there is NOWAY to get out of it, THE TRUTH IS ON US and it is ON US FOR A BIG TIME, I am seeing it. — Explorer_N 7 hours ago
and that user...
@MetaAndrewT. What about them? </gossip>
2:55 PM
I feel like a dejavu...
@AlwaysConfused It's over a hill, not off a cliff. There is a SE-initiated thread about measuring activity.
In a nutshell: 3089410 answers posted in the first 8 months of 2018, versus 2819647 in the first 8 months of 2019. The decline of 9%. Numbers vary widely between the sites, SO with its size dominates the balance.
the star wall seems moving just now...
3:25 PM
hmmmm. Can a kind moderator modify a bounty text to correct a mistaken link, to help avoid confusion and keep discussion focused?
don't think so... I think mod can only refund the bounty...
that would also work, I can then repost immediately
say, @JourneymanGeek, are you still around?
3:42 PM
> This change is pretty concerning, as it represents a copyright grab that goes beyond the permissions originally granted; to put it plainly, it is not good internet citizenship. As has been clearly documented in Makyen's answer, SE needs to ask for permission from copyright owners (i.e. users) in order to relicense their content from CC BY-SA 3.0 to 4.0, and this is made very explicit by Creative Commons themselves.
> However, the only response from SE thus far is a pretty outrageous ad hominem attack trying to simultaneously tar the answerer and dodge the very real, and very obvious question. This answer, by Federico Poloni, has sharpened the focus into a 'proper question', as requested, and yet, two days on, SE have stayed completely silent about this.
Quoting in case it disappears like bounty text tends to do.
I don't see any mistaken links here...
@404 This answer, by OrangeDog,
instead of the Federico Poloni answer
@E.P. I would drop "pretty outrageous" while you're at it.
@E.P. tbh I'm not very happy with the way the bounty sounds
Just so it's a dish served cold.
3:50 PM
Its incredibly inflammatory
@JourneymanGeek I'm happy to consider alternative wordings
I'll refund it. I do ask you consider, very seriously your choice of words
The goal here shouldn't be to slag off folks but to win them over
but frankly it is a response to an extremely serious rights grab that is currently being treated in a pretty insulting and cavalier fashion by SE
@JourneymanGeek thanks.
@E.P. um see... That's the kinda language I mean
@JourneymanGeek apologies if the language looks strong. That's because the content it describes is strong.
3:54 PM
ugh, both 404 and E.P.'s gravatar's center has the same pattern and similar color...
@E.P. they're moving license versions
As has been clearly documented in [Makyen's answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/333094), SE needs to ask for permission from copyright owners (i.e. users) in order to relicense their content from CC BY-SA 3.0 to 4.0, and this is made very explicit by Creative Commons themselves. However, [the only response from SE thus far](https://chat.meta.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/7893343#7893343) is a basically an ad hominem attack ("you're not a lawyer, we don't need to listen to you"), and I'm having a really hard time reading it as anything other than a dodge of the very real and very
I agree with what Journeyman has replied to me 6-8 hours ago though... what if SE did have talk with their lawyer, and proceed with this?
Actually someone said they were not in the original answer
@JourneymanGeek they're changing licenses and explicitly ignoring CC advise that copyright-owner permission is required for this
3:57 PM
class action lawsuit next?
Or is the legal justification more along the lines of this answer?
A: Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow are moving to CC BY-SA 4.0

Jose Antonio Dura OlmosThe Terms of service back in Nov 5 2017 where (bold emphasis mine) You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack Exchange the ...

"we actually have the right from our TOS to do whatever we want with your stuff, you just didn't notice because we were very successful with our PR front about everything being CC BY-SA"
(as a possible reading of what's happening)
This needs a clear answer
dodging that is terrible optics
@E.P. well there's no dodging
@JourneymanGeek is there an SE response as to the legal justification that I missed?
(if so, it wasn't linked in as a comment under Makyen or OrangeDog's answers, which would be an extremely odd choice)
@E.P. That's no better. The comment isn't an ad-hominem attack, it's pointing out what the answer itself says/said: They're not a lawyer and saying in big bold font that SE doesn't have the right to do this when you're not a lawyer is no better than just asking if you're seriously worried about that stuff.
@JourneymanGeek I'm gonna post the rephrased bounty shortly -- please let me know if you still have objections to the wording
@Tinkeringbell I'm going to respectfully disagree there. It absolutely is an ad-hominem attack, as explained in the rephrased wording.
4:04 PM
@E.P. if the answer says that.... Its a response to that
Also it's worth looking to see how past CC updates went
@E.P. everything is still CC by SA
@JourneymanGeek sorry, I don't understand that comment.
@JourneymanGeek for now, anyway.
> This is particularly important looking into the future: if SE feels this confidently that it can unilaterally change the licensing conditions on the content that we the users allow it to distribute, how confident can we be that similar unauthorized re-licenses will not happen in the future, with changes that are less benign than this one?
@E.P. the question says IANAL
> I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is just my interpretation from reading the license, the current TOS, my memory of the old TOS, etc. I strongly recommend that you seek the advice of your lawyers.
@E.P. but the TOS says it will be under a CC license
That's what the answer says. Now, saying IANAL but then writing big bold statements saying SE does not have the legal right.... that's kinda 'bold'. (forgive the pun)
4:07 PM
So that won't change
if SE feels that it can unilaterally change the terms under which they re-license the content I contribute to any license they choose, then I'd quite like to know
@E.P. Then you ask... not state they have no right.
@E.P. so basically I think it's a great idea to calm down and consider what are you really trying to do?
@Tinkeringbell sigh.
But this is the problem on MSE: Posts like Makyen's get 100's of upvotes, drowning out the legitimate questions.
4:08 PM
A: License adjustment for code permitted?

Chris Jester-YoungYou can post such a requirement, but how would you meaningfully enforce it? The reason we can enforce the CC BY-SA licensing requirement is because it's explicitly stated under the Stack Exchange Network Terms of Service, which users are required to agree to before using the site. So moderators ...

"then you ask"
A: Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow are moving to CC BY-SA 4.0

OrangeDogAs animuson wanted this phrased as a question: Are you sure you're legally allowed to relicense all content without asking the copyright holders (i.e. all contributes) individually for permission? If so, by what justification? As detailed in other answers it looks like CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't allow...

... then crickets
If it's 'get people angry' - chances are you are just going to be throwing rep with no effect until you run out
@E.P. Yes. Because it is drowned out. Really, with the state that post is in, I wouldn't want to step forward and answer stuff. Oh, and it's weekend. Employees have weekends to, you know.
And I'll bet legal teams have even more weekend.
@Tinkeringbell it's a good thing the bounty runs a full week, then
> Because it is drowned out.
so you're saying that a bounty pointing out that that "drowned out" post still needs an answer isn't a good idea?
@E.P. Then point your bounty to that answer, and forget about Makyen's.
4:10 PM
I'm not sure I follow the logic
@E.P. bounty reasons aside - what is the goal here?
@Tinkeringbell apologies, but did you actually read the bounty text?
On the long term, as a mod, I'm trying very hard to get the employees to re-engage with the community
@E.P. yes she did
@E.P. This one? Yeah. You can scratch the first paragraph, it's drowning out Orangedog's answer again.
> So: can we have a proper response from SE as to what legal reasoning is being used to ignore Creative Commons' indication that copyright-owner permission is required for this type of relicensing?
4:12 PM
Angry bounty reasons... Don't help
I thought it was pretty clear
> Time to take a stand
Nope I mean the actual endgame
@JourneymanGeek I'm happy to consider suggestions
You're unlikely to get a reconsideration of what's practically supposed to be a simple increment of license version number
4:13 PM
For me, the actual endgame is weakening the public position of SE leadership as much as possible.
Its not hugely unpopular either
@404 then what?
@JourneymanGeek well, it depends, doesn't it? has SE shifted from an attitude of we're-grateful-y'all-have-posted-all-this-amazing-content from "no, actually, we own the content. what are you gonna do, go to experts exchange?"
well, they own the content the time you posted on SE though...
Then? Probably having a beer.
@E.P. well and a massive gap between staff and users
So my end game is fixing that and actually fixing the stuff that matters
4:16 PM
I feel that an in-depth realization, built into the whole SE structure, that without contributors the network is worthless, is something that actually matters
@E.P. so critically if folks have issues I'd rather practical quality of life issues over 'what if SE went full evil'
been there since the welcoming blog
@E.P. and that's literally something we cannot change with hostility
So you disagree with animuson's wording. How do you want to win over folks who make the decision into changing their minds?
And that's the difference between constructive criticism and well... Posting bounties in anger on a site where they have little real effect
@JourneymanGeek I don't want to change their minds
I don't think we have a realistic chance of doing that
I want to know where they're at
Then you are just shouting into the wind
How does a bounty do that?
4:20 PM
you're right
How does attacking folk do that?
maybe Meta really is completely broken
I hear that a lot. Even from people who.ought to know better
Fixing it needs folks on both ends to actually consider things and work with each other
Now here is what I can do. I'm going to go to bed
I'm going to read all the stuff there in the morning fresh and rested
I might possibly post an answer or yell at a few people politely
But 'i didn't get my answer/way' dosen't mean meta is broken
@JourneymanGeek what happens if you swap out 'i didn't get my answer/way' for "SE is nowhere to be seen when legitimate concerns are raised"?
@E.P. eh
I personally think this issue is blown out of proportion
But the latter is precisely the sort of thing we cannot deal with through hostility
4:26 PM
@JourneymanGeek the licensing conditions are the ground floor of trust on which the whole edifice is built on
@E.P. uhm. Honestly? Outside that the license SE posts on the footer changing...
And that's primarily aimed at people reproducing content...
Most folks probably won't even notice
^ tru dat.
sorry, I really don't think this is the actual size of the change
As I asked earlier
we seem to have gone from "you license your content universally as CC BY-SA, and we (SE) reuse it under those terms"
> you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit [your] Content
4:29 PM
Outside being a great source of drama - what's the practical effect of this specific change? What do we loose by going from CC 3.0 to 4.0?
> ...and we feel that this legal language allows us to relicense your stuff in any way we choose when we redistribute it
The MIT fiasco is already dead.
I think you are avoiding the question
What is the direct, practical effect of this specific change?
Why is going from 3.0 to 4.0 going to affect our content?
@JourneymanGeek a clear precedent that SE just dictates what license terms it redistributes stuff under, and that the contributor community has no say if SE wants to change it
4:32 PM
I'm asking about this change
@E.P. so, is the issue about applying retroactive to existing posts? not for new posts?
@MetaAndrewT. yes.
@JourneymanGeek this change is such a precedent
if precedent is your concern... Well shit, we've already changed the license once before. This is the third CC-BY-SA license used on SO; it launched with v2.5 (which we incorrectly called CC-WIKI for like four years)
Not future hypothetical changes
shiet indeed...
4:33 PM
@Shog9 ... Hi shog
@Shog9 Hi Shog.
@Shog9 ah. I was wondering about that
If you're here to pitch in, can I ask you to focus on the core question?
evening =_=
4:34 PM
@E.P. actually that was a point I made earlier
Secondly is it practical or feasible to contact and get explicit consent from every user across the network to get permission to relicensing?
(specifically: what's the legal reasoning for SE being allowed to relicense old content? Is it directly from a reading of the CC license? Is it from additional language in the TOS? In either case, what are the details?)
@Shog9 does this mean I can sue SE twice already? Nice ... I'll have my lawyer contact yours ....
@E.P. I believe it's the latter
@rene why limit yourself? Hire five lawyers & sue five times!
Pretty much we have always licenced our content to SO Corp and the terms of the current CC license covers what we see on the site.
4:38 PM
Clever! Done!
@JourneymanGeek so, what is the license that we grant SO Corp, and what are its limitations
sorry, I'm genuinely curious
> You have already voted to sue on September 8, 2019. You cannot vote to sue another until you revoke the previous one.
10 mins ago, by E.P.
we seem to have gone from "you license your content universally as CC BY-SA, and we (SE) reuse it under those terms"
this was my previous understanding
@E.P. exactly what it says on the TOS
(and it is also widely shared)
4:39 PM
@MetaAndrewT. I rage quit, stupid legalize ....
@JourneymanGeek I don't understand what parts of the TOS allow SO Corp to relicense the content
@E.P. you literally linked it
So I'm confused by what you mean
Its also in the answers of the post you bountied
@rene But, you're right: none of this matters until it goes to court. And it may not even matter then, unless the suit hinges on some very technical difference between license versions.
So... Uhm
I suspect you totally know what it is
The question that I need to understand as a pleb: what do we lose when the content on SE is changed from CC BY-SA 3.0 to 4.0?
4:42 PM
@MetaAndrewT. this to me feels very pertinent
@JourneymanGeek OK, sorry, got it. We really do live on that second world, then.
@Shog9 yes, I was going to ask who benefits and who is losing ground here but I did get that only in court that can be answered.
that's good to know.
And ought to be asked
And I feel that it would be a net benefit to the community
@rene If you look at CC's website where they list case law pertaining to their licenses... The closest relevant suit was where WikiTravel sued their former editors over re-using their CC-licensed content. That... Really should be the focus of concern here: does the change in license potentially leave folks unprotected?
4:43 PM
In fact I'll do that
Aside of "SE is now incompatible to Wikipedia!!!1!1!", that's not our problem, right?
Because, that's really what the CC license is about here: protecting y'all from us. Or from whoever buys us. If you look at the history that motivated licenses like this, that was generally the thing that happened: company solicits user contributions, then makes 'em private, then sues former users for trying to re-use their own content.
And? Does 4.0 do a better job in that respect?
4:46 PM
Given, I'm ignorant about all of this until I'm scolded.
My understanding is that v4 changes are mostly concerned with weird EU laws that I don't even begin to understand. So... YMMV; if you live in the EU maybe you care; if you don't, you probably don't.
!!/blame EU
@MetaAndrewT. It's John Dvorak's fault.
Ewww... I mean EU....
I'm in the EU and I don't care.
5:25 PM
Legal matters aside, the idea of putting ginormous bounty notices on network-wide featured posts has certain appeal.
super bounty? yeah, super bounty... one can even advertise their own product on there...
@AlwaysConfused I should have added that those stats are limited to the Public Network. The usage of private SE instances seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, but the data is not available.
Projection into 2020s: the public network is effectively a free demo version of the main SE products.
In which case the public usage does not matter all that much.
5:44 PM
any idea why the tag is missing a dash? I mean only a select can use it, but still :) initially typed it in a question with a dash, that's how I noticed
is also missing a dash
though, it's that it's ?
Hope you like gummy bears.
or their tagging system doesn't like dash for special 'status' tag...
5:49 PM
that ^ was what I was thinking but couldn't prove that, so ....
Q: Rename [status-bydesign] to [status-by-design]

ivan_pozdeevSince "by design" is two words, the current name violates the current tag naming scheme and is thus counterintuitive. The specific case that pushed me to propose this is misnaming the tag when writing its name from the top of my head at Navigating back after doing AJAX changes produces a stale c...

Everything was already proposed.
DEV ToS: "Regardless of citation, users may not post copy and pasted content that does not belong to them." Yet there is a button under every SO post for them to do exactly that.
As for the content license: "Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on DEV's web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only. [...] you may not: modify or copy the materials;"
So, no copy-paste in either direction.
@404 to be pedantic, it's one-box, not copy-paste ;)
6:20 PM
rene's site activity query has such nice colours... I wish it had a title that someone could find it by in the future...
What are you talking about. "" is a perfectly valid title.
let's call it "rene's site activity" from now...
Edit counts are truncated for some reason, and show up as essentially 0.
Presumably, because of the Great HTTPS Edit Spree.
This is such a turmoil
@Tinkeringbell \o
If there is a drop of activity, it's because of Dutch people.
6:26 PM
@Tinkeringbell Gummy bears are silent killers.
There aren't enough of them.
The supply is running out.
They kill you in your sleep. Really, don't eat sugar at night.
I dunno about Dutch but we have a pretttty blunt and snarky Polish in Chem.
Also that other guy I forgot. They were either Russian or British. Prospects are bleak either way.
Android is a sad story.
6:37 PM
It is...
Why are Biology and Chem's queries capped at 1000?
23 mins ago, by 404
Presumably, because of the Great HTTPS Edit Spree.
Which on larger sites would be so far up as to squash the rest of the chart.
FWIW, case when (sum(edits)>1000) then 1000 else sum(edits) end [edits]
@MetaAndrewT. yeah there was an insane peak in one month 2018 so I considered that an outlier and capped it. I think that is permitted in statistics ... :/
That was on Biology.se btw.
@MetaAndrewT. and done
6:52 PM
don't worry, that's what the real statistics is...
2 hours later…
8:32 PM
@MetaAndrewT. 🤣
2 hours later…
11:00 PM
@M.A.R. I hear stories about the sugar free ones.

« first day (3322 days earlier)      last day (1744 days later) »