my subscriptions
boasbane commented on a post in r/CryptoCurrency
optmspotts 4 points

i know BTC will go back, but it's a matter of how low it will go before it does. if it's going to grind its way down to 8 or even 10k, i would greatly benefit from shorting at 12.8 and getting back in on the upswing from 8

boasbane 21 points

The problem with that is you waited too long to make that kind of gamble. You would be selling low when everything is at a low. It may work out but now it’s super dangerous. Since it should rebound it’s best just to leave it and ride out. Or at least move to something that will rebound more

AGallopingMonkey 4 points

I don't think its as conspiratorial as you think it is. Lots of people just like round numbers, and that's why there are sell walls. Have you ever heard of buy the rumor, sell the news? Your one example is pretty terrible at proving your point. The rumor increased it by 100%, and then the actual news didn't do much. That's pretty common.

boasbane 1 point

Your right about the rumor and news. What I was bring up was really the volatility. The New Years broken update made XVG volatile for 12+ hours. Yesterday it was only maybe 2 hours. even after volume went up 10x.

I'm not that impressed with XVG atm. It's just very odd behavior to see.

boasbane commented on a post in r/whalechasers
geilertyp1 2 points

Python programmer here, if there's any API out there that let's you get the orderbook entries, it's definitely possible.

boasbane 1 point

it would be easy enough to at least get the dumber whales/bots who make multiple sells/buys at either same amount or abnormally high sell volumes at a set price.

boasbane commented on a post in r/whalechasers
garoodah 1 point

Buy-Whale is forcing everyone else to buy at incrementally higher prices. Someone else has set sell orders at said prices to try and take advantage of people outbidding the whale

boasbane 1 point

most likely the same person

boasbane commented on a post in r/siacoin
dcatt47 2 points

I was just hinting at the fact that you have to take in to consideration collateral since it'll be a significant part of a transaction. A lot of people forget that part.

boasbane 2 points

That’s a really good point. That could even prevent high fluctuations if the tech is adopted on a wide scale as well

boasbane commented on a post in r/CryptoCurrency
ShinSekai7 1 point

Which website is fast to update prices, CoinMarketCap or Coincap. io ? For example in the moment of writing this comment, Ripple is up for $2.22 on CoinMarketCap

& on Coincap. io it's $1.88

boasbane 1 point

Worldcoinindex is what works for me. It updates every 5-10 sec and shows prices on different exchanges

boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
brickses 118 points

Her gun control rhetoric has changed tone back and forth. It's hard to accuse her of flip-flopping because getting her to say whether she endorses a specific piece of legislation is like pulling teeth.

If you want to accuse her of flip-flopping, why go to gun control? Just mention gay rights, health care, the keystone pipeline, or the tpp.

boasbane 17 points

He mentioned gun control because it is the most controversial in the US. Though I'm sure many more people agree gay rights, health care, keystone, and the TPP are more important, gun control grabs more attention from the loudest people on both sides of politics in the US.

mkb152jr 12 points

He mentioned gun control because it is the most controversial in the US.

Not really. The general population consistently is against any level of gun control besides a few purchase controls. It's not controversial; it's just a losing issue for the Democrats that they need to give up on.

boasbane -1 points

Well i think your generalizing way to much and disagree with your comment about the general population. The fact you bring up democrats are only for this means you think this is solely a party issue and it's not. (Also it really makes it sound like your republican and are specifically belittling democrats)

But again I never said specifics, just that it's controversial. And with your comments you are cementing what I said.

Load more comments
boasbane commented on a post in r/news
[deleted] -2 points


boasbane -1 points

Well since they put out so many products some wont be that successful or great. But neither of those services, Chrome and gmail, are the worst, they just arent the best.

And until Vimeo has the user base and the amount of content youtube has it isn't truly better. It might be made better but people dont watch videos online for the video player they watch them for the content. And seeing as not many users are linking to vimeo thats not going to change soon.

And ya it seems shady for end users about the collected data but remember thats the price for using their services. The services are free monetarily but not actually free. It's why people who know about the data collection still use google. Google is the best out there and thats the price you have to pay.

[deleted] -1 points


boasbane 1 point

Quantity is everything when its so much more, quality is great but to think youtube doesnt have quality content is pretty ignorant.

Also when you type in youtube into the browser you get content and a free way to upload. When you type in vimeo you get a page that asks you to create an account and pay for usage. That scares people away making sure they will never have the same popularity. A free, longstanding, great but not the best service will always beat a perfect paid for service.

Load more comments
boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
elsparkodiablo 17 points

This certainly worked for the War on Drugs. 3 decades and counting and we've completely eliminated meth, heroin, cocaine, weed, extacy and every other drug off the continent.

boasbane -2 points

Guns and drugs aren't even comparable. Anyone can grow/make most if not all drugs fairly easily and with little advanced knowledge. Almost anyone can get the materials and supplies needed and become proficient in less than a year.

Guns take alot of effort to create from scratch. You need a forge, knowledge of metallurgy, some very specific equipment that must be bought to shape the metal, bore and rifle. And then a huge amount of knowledge and skill to assemble them. Not many people can create and machine a basic rifle from scratch, and even less could make more advanced guns. Plus they are in 2 parts to be able to work, the gun itself and then the ammo.

Creating guns is much much harder than creating drugs.

And also the fact drugs are much more popular, easy to use, and more fun for the majority of people.

plus there is plenty of evidence everywhere in the world that tighter gun laws do correlate to less gun incidents. The argument exists for less gun laws because one side claims less guns means less gun violence not less guns means less violence.

Sir_Awkward_Moose -1 points

Not really considering most of the components of a gun can now be 3D printed.

boasbane 0 points

Not that big of a deal when it still takes money and effort to do that, and the printers that are that cheap for the public to own use horrible materials to make guns.

Most people wont be eager for a plastic gun with one shot and a good change of blowing up in your hand.

Machines that make guns are exorbitantly expensive. So your point is irrelevant.

boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
MichaelApproved 3 points

If our prison system becomes so good that people want to go there to have a better life, I'm ok with that. Those people have an interest in improving themselves and add to society. I'm ok with my tax dollars going to them.

Edit: I don't mean freeloading room and food. I mean if the prison system ends up giving people a good education/training that's fine by me.

boasbane 5 points

Then they should just join the military.

boasbane commented on a post in r/news
boasbane -8 points

I can understand why people might think that the barbershop owner might be a dick but I definitely side with the owner in this case.

Seeing a man with a gun around the shop's neighborhood is going to scare away customers and hurt business. He may not be a threat, but he sure looks like one. There's almost no one who honestly wouldn't feel uneasy about being around an open carry especially after the recent mass shooting a day or two ago, and other gun related incidents with planned parenthood and at the BLM rally.

However, Lt. Rick Edwards noted that Kovacevic -- since reports started coming in Monday about him carrying a rifle in Akron -- has been spotted in predominately black communities.

Plus this is a white guy apparently walking around predominately black neighborhoods. This is already weird and a red flag. After the BLM incident and the mass shooting of the Charleston Church by a white supremacist, why would anyone want to even tolerate this behavior.

A white guy exercising his right to open carry is technically legal, but so is telling an officer to fuck off. Both are still really stupid. Tensions are high and if you go out of your way to walk the line, then don't expect things to go your way.

Edwards said police received seven calls about Kovacevic from worried citizens on Monday morning. One call came from the University of Akron police. He was seen on East Exchange, Sumner Street and in front of John R. Buchtel Community Learning Center on Copley Road.

This also shows that the shop owner wasnt the only one worried, since even some worried police called in to report it.

"I think he's doing it for the attention," Edwards said. "And he's got all the attention he wants.

This should be dealt with. I understand that the law says Kovacevic is legally in the right, but he is playing on racial tensions and right after a mass shooting. He is intentionally disturbing the public, and very likely intentionally trying to atangonise, and instigate a gun incident.

boasbane commented on a post in r/shield
LTman86 1 point

Why recast him? If he shows up in the Movies, they could still use Hugo Weaving, right? Or if they somehow manage to get him into the TV series...maybe?

Did you have something against Hugo's personification of Red Skull? I thought he did a good job. Granted, didn't read much Capt. America comics so I have no real frame of reference.

boasbane 1 point

What does have against it? The nazi part or something else?

boasbane commented on a post in r/bleach
boasbane 1 point

I bet what happens is that Nanao will actually beat Lille but the then Shunsui will die of the curse. Nanao has said they both dont believe it, but Shunsui never said that at all. In fact it seems as if he does believe it since it took this long to even tell Nanoa this story and present her her family zanpakto.

My bet is that he will die from his injuries or the family curse, especially after Nanao admitting she loved him.

boasbane commented on a post in r/bleach
SputterNutter 1 point

Keep in mind that there's still a chance I'm wrong and Soi Fon's rocket is stupidly OP. I haven't watched the FKT arc in a while.

boasbane 1 point

compared to Captain Commander though? Aizen created an arrancar for the soul purpose of dealing with his shikai which would have, if all went according to plan, destroyed all of the captains.

It appears Aizen never even considered her power at all, but had possibly his strongest arrancar creation made specifically to be a way to only slow down the commander, not even truly stop him

boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
[deleted] 4 points

I am not saying that more legal guns lead to less crime. I am just saying that the opposite view is not supported by the actual data.

boasbane 5 points

Actually your argument is less supported. In statistics it's called a third variable which does mean "correlation does not mean causation".

Increasing the amount of guns available will increase the probability of incidents involving guns. And with the population of a country, increasing the amount of guns will increase the number of gun incidents with the law of large numbers.

So talking about frequency of incidents involving gun use (though involving statistically lower number of victims) and talking about rarer and larger incidents are not just common sense but supported by statistics relevancy.

[deleted] -1 points

I think you are conflating several separate issues. First of all I am talking about gun homicides and violent crimes, not incidents. For instance gun deaths due to negligence are very statistically low, so the increase there will still be negligible. Secondly, I am talking about legal ownership. Most dangerous cities in America have the lowest gun ownership percentage. Why is that? Because there are a lot of factors a which are much more significant than legal gun ownership. The fact is that gun ownership increase does not correlate with murder increase which means that it is not a significant factor compared to other variables.

boasbane 2 points

I may be conflating separate issues, but you are also glossing over many others. There's a good chance that many gun related crimes, and guaranteed at least some crimes(like homicides and other violent crimes), were only possible because guns were involved. This is not including gun related incidents/accidents.

Also just because the cities with lower gun ownership have higher gun rates doesn't mean much without statistical evidence or more information. That's why the 3'rd variable idea has been mentioned. I bet population density is a big indicator as well as population size. It's not hard for a town of 200 in 4 sq miles in the south U.S. to have 100% gun ownership and near to little no "reported" crime. Also the fact that more people tend to know each other in these places also changes reported crimes and gun related incidents.

But if your ignoring the fact that increased legal gun circulation wont also increase all gun circulation (including illegal) then at best you are being ignorant of people willing to make money and at worst perpetuating delusions perpetuating a type of legal anarchy with punishment, an "Eye for an eye" type of enviroment.

The fact is less guns in circulation whether legal or illegal, will be less guns available to those who want guns for crimes. It's probably impossible to stop all gun crime as long as they're still available anywhere, but it's guaranteed to go up if there are more available. The guns available for those who would only obey the law will only increase the guns available for those who could care less about the law. All it does is create an arms race with one side without any rules to follow.

The sad part is without research that would be worthy of a dictatorial dissertation we will never now with a degree of certainty so we have to go with what make more sense and would lead to the least amount of violence/victims.

boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
BolshevikMuppet 2 points

I don't trust the process or parties leading this effort since they are circumventing the U.S. judicial process,

Yes, they are allowing companies to bring suit against countries in a venue other than that country's own courts.

Why in the world do you think Vietnam should trust U.S courts to impartially decide whether the U.S government's actions violate the agreement and harm Vietnamese fishing companies?

Yes, consider how they're chosen and who they are ultimately accountable to in that role. The widespread corruption we see in the U.S. would surely extend to ISDS.

Based on what? Corruption in the legal system?

If you believe the U.S legal system is corrupt to the point where an international arbiter would be corrupt as well why do you trust the U.S judiciary to begin with?

Your argument is internally inconsistent. The reason we can't trust ISDS is because the lawyers and judges involved would be taken from the corrupt U.S political and legal system. Which is why power should be in the hands of the U.S political and legal system?

Why do you trust judges who have to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate more than you trust arbiters being appointed by the independent oversight board?

They're gaining the right to override national sovereignty, essentially elevating commercial rights to a level they should NEVER attain in society (i.e., trumping society's rights when in conflict).

Except that's not what they're being given.

Nothing in ISDS says the corporations will win. Nothing in ISDS says the corporation's interests will "trump society's rights." This issue is exclusively about venue.

Again, your argument is like saying that 42 U.S.C 1983 is bad because the ability for corporations to sue claiming that raising the minimum wage violates their civil rights means it's "overriding national sovereignty."

If we're going to continue talking, please distinguish between "able to bring suit" and "would win a suit." They're not the same goddamned thing.

We're talking about tragically corrupt government officials these days and a level of corruption that reaches the highest echelons of government.

So the highest echelons of government can't be trusted. Okay, but you know that's where the U.S judiciary is appointed, right?

boasbane 3 points

Nothing in ISDS says the corporations will win. Nothing in ISDS says the corporation's interests will "trump society's rights." This issue is exclusively about venue.

Again, your argument is like saying that 42 U.S.C 1983 is bad because the ability for corporations to sue claiming that raising the minimum wage violates their civil rights means it's "overriding national sovereignty."

If we're going to continue talking, please distinguish between "able to bring suit" and "would win a suit." They're not the same goddamned thing.

It doesn't have to be a win. Even entering this suit would be costly and time consuming, which will affect some governments decisions. Regardless if a corporation wins, this is judicially giving them some say in what laws will be passed in a country. It's true that corporations may not win most of the time, but it's also true the TPP is giving them more say in what laws are passed then they had before. And it's also possible that they will win, but even if they don't they could delay laws that work against them and cause financial burden to these governments.

The real question is, should any corporation have any say in a governing bodies decision making process that they don't already have? Why should any corporation have a say in what any country does? Can we trust a corporation to leave it's purely financial goals out of it's decision to challenge laws even if it would be a detriment to citizens/government? Would giving power to delay laws from being passed through a lawsuit create problems for raising standards of living? What system would be in place for preventing corporations from abusing the tribunal to deregulate themselves and prevent/re-appeal laws that help citizens but hurt profits such as child-labor, slavery, minimum wage, overtime laws, OSHA, etc..?

It's not that good can't come out of this treaty its that, historically, corporations make decisions that benefit themselves, regardless if it helps their consumers. And no one believes all corporations would abuse this, but it only takes one bad apple to really do some damage. And since corporations have much different end goals then governments and citizens, its hard to believe they should have such a powerful say in the laws of the land.

boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
gsfgf 75 points

The Australian treaty uses United Nations Commission on International Trade Law arbitration rules which default to loser pays (Article 42). Australia is seeking court costs from the litigation, and I have no reason to think they won't get them.

boasbane 2 points

But those costs are still Australia's problem until the litigation is done and if it's in their favor. Smaller countries may not have the resources to last that long. And thats the point, allowing this behaviour allows judicial bullying which is expensive and drawn out.

Even if it's only a small chance of the corporation winning, they will eventually win. And when they don't it will cost whoever their target is money and time to fight. If they can afford to fight at all and don't just give up.

boasbane commented on a post in r/Heroes
boasbane 2 points

I know what your getting at and I think your right. There is no way for Erica to know that Quentin was what started Noah on his path. I'm sure she used him in this new timeline since he is expendable and loyal to his sister, especially after whatever revelation changed her probably changed him as well. It could have been anyone or no one who met him since the timeline changed.

So what I think will happen is that Noah will get suspicious as to why Quentin wasn't killed in this timeline. If he figures out that Quentin met his sister, isn't worried about finding her, or doesn't have a hard on for destroying Renatus then Noah will know that something is wrong. Noah knew way to much about the moral but incompetent Quentin's goals to be fooled by this new (possibly sly) Quentin's traitorous goals.

boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
poonhounds -4 points

And I always thought political polarization was because individuals choose to hold different political opinions.

It turns out, social science has proven that human beings behave like mere bacteria in a petri dish. No free will or thought process of their own.

The science is clear. Human civilization needs government thought police to control what opinions society is allowed and not allowed to be exposed to. Its for our own good.

boasbane 12 points

Or you can just admit that advertising and propaganda work. People and organizations spend billions of dollars every year on convincing people to buy their products or believe their message. They don't spend that much because they think it works, they spend that much because they know it works.

Everything in this world depends on perceived credibility and being trusted, not actually being credible. Don't downplay its power. So maybe having some rules is a good thing.

boasbane commented on a post in r/worldnews
justaguyinthebackrow -2 points

No, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Please fine a source for your definition that isn't some socialist's caricature of what they think pure capitalism would entail. Per capitalism isn't some form of lawless anarchy.

boasbane 0 points

Yes because the person who brings a source has no idea. Your the only one talking out of your ass.

idiotsonfire 0 points

Pure capitalism simply can't exist. Its like pure communism, or pure socialism, there's no way it can exist in reality since the theory removes all negative aspects from it. People talk about it like its a functional form of governance, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

boasbane 1 point

which is essentially why this argument started, because the closest thing to pure capitalism has no regulations and ignores all the negatives that would bring.

Load more comments
boasbane commented on a post in r/news
coupdetaco 1 point

Ok, so are we saying the exact same thing, but using different words? I'm not (I don't think anybody is) saying that there should be some equity scheme used to make money off of the VA, I don't even know how that would be practical. When VA privatization is discussed, the only way that I am familiar with it is letting patients/veterans choose their private doctors. that's why I keep saying medicare-style, specifically so we don't have this kind of confusion as to what privatization means.

That would just be using doctors as contractors...

be aware that there is no 'just' about this, it is absolutely opposed by VA. those who have had to use the VA choice program will tell you how VA contracted with HealthNet who is like the Comcast of VA contractors and has caused so many problems, delays, mistakes, etc. The level of incompetence in implementing this program is so vast, and because it's a VA mandate to have to go through that contractor, and with all of the other corruption they have tried to hide, some have suggested that this was a deliberate attempt by VA senior leadership to try to make outsourcing look bad.

boasbane 1 point

Well we might be talking about the same thing but remember having the VA is supposed to be about controlling costs. When you start outsourcing to private doctors outside the healthcare coverage the costs can become widely ranged thus negating the purpose of saving on costs. Needing a small surgery can range a great deal in prices depending on where you go so it makes sense that there would be restrictions on what doctors/hospitals you can use. But if the government is still controlling the costs of the procedures then it's not privatization, they are just using the doctors as contracted public employees. It may be semantics but in the legal and contract world, semantics is everything.

But going out to the private sector in anyway introduces this idea that money needs to be made for someone. That's pretty much the defining difference between private and public enterprises. And there is a reason doctors don't put themselves in the VA/Medicare coverage/employment, its usually because either the bad management/bureaucracy or they want more money from the private business they get. So right now using private doctors outside the VA would mean the VA is employing that dr to do work at the dr's asking price with the VA contracting them out. Which is why the VA shouldn't do it.

And everything your saying is true, but it is the result of bad management and perhaps regulatory capture. It is not from disallowing private personal drs. It's not the system that is at fault, just the ineptitude and corruption within. And that, though painful, could and should be fixed.

coupdetaco 1 point

Yes, those are challenges, and especially because profit is the motive in private care, so bloated prices on procedures and care can easily be attempted by doctors. 1 possibility is that the vetcare version would be more comprehensive than medicare, meaning that there would be higher price coverage in order to be more inclusive as to which providers would accept the system. another possibility is to save admin costs by making the acceptance of a veteran/patient's medical record a condition of accepting payment for a certain range of conditions. this would make much of HealthNet's domain of work obsolete.

many doctors don't want to accept medicare, that's true. but I'd say this is indicative of a larger problem in the healthcare system. I see debates all the time on why the cost of healthcare is so high. the problem is that doctors charge very high rates because they can, and because their services are sufficiently rare enough to allow them to do so. every little thing, from Q-tips to paper cups, at a hospital or clinic carries an exponentially higher price tag than just outside the doors of that facility. the argument over how to change this does tend to get political due to how regulation would be used. from the left's perspective, more regulation should be used to limit prices on medical care and make it affordable and require hospitals to provide access to care. from the right's perspective, there is too much regulation which has led to too few doctors and higher costs in dealing with it.

Another interesting theory (as to the high prices in healthcare) is as follows: the lobbying by the medical unions (American Medical Association, etc) has created an artificial scarcity of care due to doctor's unwillingness to allow ARNP's and PA's to take some of the duties in order to grant physician's the maximum amount of power within the healthcare system (the idea being that this artificial scarcity has translated into higher pricing that would actually be worsened by allowing the AMA into the equation for further regulation).

boasbane 1 point

So then it does seem we are talking about the same ideas, just with some differences in our definitions.

I would say a solution that may work would be to start "reigning in" the "wild west" of the private medical field. It's own nature doesn't really obey any form of free market and is required by everyone in this modern age. What it needs is massive regulations that don't allow for any price gouging or unfair regulations for PAs and ARNPs you mentioned.

The only(or at least the best) solution looks to be a single payer and single employer healthcare system that's designed to help the people and not make certain others (unfairly)rich.

Load more comments
boasbane commented on a post in r/politics
Cobra_Real 1 point

But human nature is intrinsically corrupt.

I don't understand why we can't take cues from history.

History has demonstrated that socialism, even if you put the word 'democratic' in front of it, inevitably resorts to oppression and persecution in order to stifle dissent.

boasbane 1 point

So does every other form of government. Corruption isn't a socialism problem it's a human problem.

People that will abuse power will abuse power whether we have a government that is socialist, totalitarian, communist, democratic, representative, or democratic socialist. Trying to spin the fact that it will only happen under certain political structures is only a waste of time and disingenuous.

And no government is literally the worst option, so the solution is try to find the best government for the people then work out the corruption. The solution is not to throw away great ideas because someone messed it up last time we tried it out. And what we've seen with our current system in practice and in theory is that some people win big while many others lose big. So we have to try something else.

Also what history of democratic socialism are you talking about? Because it sounds like your trying to compare it to something else which is pretty shady. Because Modern Democratic Socialism isn't exactly that old(it's relatively new in human history) and doesn't have much history compared to a lot of other government structures

Cobra_Real 1 point

People that will abuse power will abuse power whether we have a government that is socialist, totalitarian, communist, democratic, representative, or democratic socialist.

I'm stating that socialists tend to employ totalitarian methods far more, than, say, mercantilists. But mercantilists on the other hand, with their irresponsible libertarian economics, tend to accumulate egregious amounts of wealth, which does, admittedly, lead to economic inequality.

And no government is literally the worst option, so the solution is try to find the best government for the people then work out the corruption. The solution is not to throw away great ideas because someone messed it up last time we tried it out.

Fascism has an extremely bad reputation. In fact, its reputation is so bad that one cannot even discuss it without being attacked. There are lots of reasons why fascism is troublesome, just like there are reasons why socialism is valuable. But there is no room in the current political discourse for any mention of fascism. It's taboo.

Also what history of democratic socialism are you talking about?

I'm talking more about the far-left than anything else. Especially the rhetoric used by the far-left to galvanize the populace.

boasbane 1 point

Dude W..T..F

Fascism is literally what people think(incorrectly) socialism will bring. The control of of the economy through monopolies and laws but instead of the government, it would be through private corporations. It doesn't just have a bad reputation, it's bad in practice and theory since it gives uncontrolled power to individuals who aren't held accountable by the public and, when it was used correctly, gave power to a horrible and crazed dictator (you know that Hitler guy). It wasn't corrupted, it was corrupt in practice from it's results. It's what many fear our government is becoming today.

Also no one is talking about pure socialism, it's called democratic socialism and we already have it in America for our elementary schools, our firefighters, police, military, court system, road and transport system, democratic and representative congress, medicare, social security, town halls, mayors, governors, and the rest of our entire government. All people want to do is expand that to help the public more instead of only people who work directly for the government.

And this bullshit about the far-left trying to galvanize people? All people want the government to work more for them. It's not trying to shock people, they are trying to say they can make the system better, you know, what their job is supposed to be. Plus if you support America's military then you support democratic socialism seeing as it's all paid with taxes which means that republicans, the far right, also support democratic socialism. Hell their paycheck and healthcare is paid for by democratic socialism(taxes).

Load more comments
view more:
next ›
5,295 Karma
2,857 Post Karma
2,438 Comment Karma

Following this user will show all the posts they make to their profile on your front page.

About boasbane

  • Reddit Birthday

    August 27, 2010

Other Interesting Profiles

    Want to make posts on your
    own profile?

    Sign up to test the Reddit post to profile beta.

    Sign up