Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. Joe also has to realise that a person with suicidal ideation who has decided that they're going to commit suicide, often comes across very upbeat. The decision to commit suicide becomes like a weight lifted off their shoulders and they appear very positive to those around them. But the reason for their positivity is they have decided to die. If you have a depressed friend who suddenly becomes really positive, that's the danger zone
    51
  2. That bearded guy has fallen down a rabbit hole and can't get up.
    15
  3. The Portland shooter was 48. The Kenosha attackers were 36, 26 and 30. The median age of those arrested in the riots is 35. Pretending this is mostly disenfranchised youth is unhelpful. This isn't disenfranchised youth, this is mostly millennials who never grew up.
    14
  4. TikTok isn't a "next thing". It's a linear alternative to Instagram/Snapchat with deeper pockets than Facebook and Snapchat combined. In the same way that reddit isn't a "next thing" but a linear alternative to Facebook. Facebook is now requiring Facebook sign in to use Occulus. That's because they have been working on a VR communications network since 2014.
    6
  5. If you spend 39 years at a company, and undertake 2 hip surgeries for them, but they put a 28 year old with 5 years experience in charge of you, you're already wasting your time and it's a ticking clock on when you'll be fired. If you're not upwardly mobile, you're expendable and shouldn't give your loyalty in return.
    4
  6. In the 60s & 70s there were people so caring and loving that they'd insist on the financial subjugation through below minimum wage welfare of those they saw as below them. In the 80s, 90s & 00s there were people so tolerant that they'd chastise and belittle anyone who disagreed with them, had differing opinions or who failed to live up to their arbitrary standards. In the 2010s there were people so open minded that they'd call anyone a bigot who had an opinion that differed from their own. This undercurrent has probably always existed, it's just easier to spread it the more interconnected we all become. Social media needs to become a regulated industry.
    3
  7. Why does everyone in the USA get hung up on this 2 weeks number from 9 months ago when nobody really knew anything about CoVID-19. Like the best minds in the world had lots of questions and very few answers. Of course that first 2 week number was going to change as our understanding of the virus improved.
    3
  8. It's interesting to hear Brett contradict himself within 2 sentences. On one hand he says redistribution of wealth is unpopular and we shouldn't pursue it. On the other hand he makes a case for UBI which is simply redistribution of wealth. His "ask the market" idea is so far off base that I'm not sure he wasn't just saying words he thought made him sound smart. I'm not one to tell people to "stay in their lane", people are far more complex than that. But Brett makes it very clear in this discussion that he doesn't really understand economics. He therefore shouldn't attempt to wade into that debate until he has improved his understanding sufficiently. Jordan doesn't get everything right, but much of what he's saying here is correct. Welfare for all (UBI) is a terrible idea that will hasten the march to societal self destruction. It just puts more people under the thumb, erodes ethics and worsens inequality. Some actors are rigging the game, sure. But some actors have ALWAYS been rigging the game. It's not a causal factor. Regulation would help, but it isn't the total answer. Like most things in life, the answers are nuance and complex.
    2
  9. Sure @greenteadisease . The first problem is that you didn't actually link to any papers. Instead you c&p a snippet from Wikipedia (or some other text) then dropped in some of their references with the links removed. That makes actually reading the references much more difficult, especially on mobile. Once one actually gets to the papers you find out that they either have very little, if anything, to do with Atrazine or they are statistically irrelevant with critically low numbers of participants. Some are even both with one paper enrolling just 3 child participants, none of which were exposed to atrazine nor was any information relevant to atrazine involved. The text is bias, it had a foregone conclusion then set about trying to find papers to try and make it seem more legitimate than it actually is. The reality is, we simply do not know what, if any, effects atrazine has on the human endocrine system. That knowledge gap caused Atrazine to be banned in the EU, because in the EU if you don't know then it's scary and needs to be banned. But in other countries such as the USA, that knowledge gap has caused a more reasonable response with RUP status being implemented meaning those using the product have to wear serious PPE. Testing has also focused on the amount making it into food stuffs, which as I previously mentioned is so small as to be near nonexistent. That humans aren't exposed to atrazine makes any even unknown side effects to exposure irrelevant.
    2
  10. Actually, DNA evidence is also as unreliable as fingerprints. The NAS has a whole report dedicated on why DNA evidence is also junk science. The reason this stuff is admissible is simple. Lawyers and judges aren't scientists and often aren't scientifically literate. The job of prosecutors and police is to close cases. Higher the profile of a case, the more pressure there is to close it. Police aren't special magic people that can see into the past, they don't know who did a thing anymore than anyone else does. But they have to close cases or they get in trouble and eventually lose their job. So with the expectation of cases where the perp isn't obvious and clear to the casual observer, they just throw shit against the wall until they believe something has stuck enough to get a conviction. Actual guilt is irrelevant, it's all about closing cases. Or it goes the opposite direction and they become emotionally involved in the outcome and develop tunnel vision for someone they want to be the perp. Again, actual guilt is irrelevant they feel they're guilty therefore they are and the case becomes about reverse engineering evidence to prove themselves right. But mostly it's because of the social outcome. If you told people the truth, you know what, all these things we call evidence are actually bullshit. We've actually got nothing, we don't actually know who murdered those girls or robbed that store or whatever and actually we have no way to find out either.... If they came out and said, hey you know want we don't know what's going on anymore that you do, you think anyone is feeling safe day to day? That society functions after that? That people keep their jobs or politicians stay in power? Of course not. Most people in the back of their head know this stuff has to be bullshit. It only takes slightly more than a passing thought on it to realise just how crazy these claims are. But people believe them, because they want to believe, they want to lie to themselves that we can somehow make society safe. That we can make life "fair" and there are consequences to people who break the rules. But if the lie were true, none of the people in power right now would be in power. They'd all be in jail.
    2
  11.  @CruzCGK  Are you kidding? Byte Dance owns an entire city. Clearly you have no idea how massive byte dance is. They completely eclipse Facebook.
    2
  12. That's because you're laughing AT Alex Jones, where a comedians job is to make you laugh with them.
    2
  13. 13:52 This is wrong Joe. Cannabis Induced Schizophrenia is a unique type of schizophrenia that can only be acquired from the use of cannabis, has no genetic root, and manifests differently than other forms of schizophrenia. Someone who otherwise has no chance of developing schizophrenia can do so through the use of cannabis. This idea stoners have that cannabis is harmless is absolutely false.
    2
  14.  @persona-wo8bi  No, I mean schizophrenia.
    2
  15. Put their sign in his window. Hmm why does that sound familiar? They targetted the ethical farming restaurant because they're competition. Before ethical farming people had the choice, factory farming or stop eating meat. That gained vegetarians and vegans a lot of members. Now there's the ethical farming choice, people can continue eating meat (which people love) and don't have some moral argument against it. That eats in to their ability to recruit new vegans. So they protest. Factory farming absolutely is necessary. It isn't just not financially viable to ethically farm for everyone, it's also not environmentally viable either. There simply isn't the land mass to ethically farm for 7.8 billion people AND INCREASING. We need factory farming. Like it or not, all of the animals that we eat from supermarkets do not exist in nature. They're all genetically modified organisms by way of multigenerational selective breeding. We made them. We made them specifically and expressly for the purpose of killing and eating them. They can't exist in the wild, when they escape farms they become feral pest that ravage the environment because they have no natural place in the food web. If we did what vegans want and everyone suddenly stopped eating meat we would have to kill all of the farm animals en mass and burn their bodies. Like have to have in order to avert an ecological disaster. Veganism is an economic flash card. A flaunt. It's saying "I'm so wealthy not only can I afford to select what I eat but I can afford to form pseudomotality surrounding food". And it does so whilst completely ignoring reality.
    2
  16. This Spotify deal was a massive mistake. They've already started selecting what episodes they're going to make available, and whether Joe wants to admit it or not that's a form of editorial control. They're calling him names, they're slandering him and there is internal pressure to dump him because he dares talk truth and open a space for ideas instead of towing the narrative line. It's inevitable that either this licencing deal gets pulled and Joe ends up having to pay a bunch of money or they start having direct editorial control which will effect the type of guests and content he has. You can't make an exclusive rights licencing deal with a ideologically leaning corporate entity and expect good things to come out of it.
    2
  17. RDR2 is a buggy, half finished mess of a game. It didn't make rockstar enough money so they've moved on to dev of the next game instead of finishing it. That's rockstars MO, they half finish their game and ship it. If the game makes enough money like GTAO did ($12 billion and counting) then they finish the game. If the game doesn't make enough money, like RDRO (less than a billion dollars so far) then they don't finish the game and move on to the next project. They're worse than EA at this point. Also, alpha builds are a dime a dozen on steam. You don't need to sub to freakin EA to get alphas. You don't even have to buy them from steam. Early alphas often end up on itch or other similar platforms before they get steam greenlit. Even AAA title alpha builds sometimes and they're completely free
    1
  18. There are 165 different vaccine candidates right now, they use different methods. That is, a few are mRNA but most aren't. The moderna and pfizer ones are, but if we're being honest they aren't actually anywhere near ready. The one that's most likely to get to released stage first, the Astrazeneca vaccine candidate, isn't an mRNA vaccine. It's a modified cold virus with a CoVID-19 spike protein that has already been used effectively to treat the CoVID-19 relative MERS. It's likely to work on the original CoVID-19 strain but there has been significant mutation since February. Incubation for example has gone from 7 days to 24 hours in some CoVID-19 strains and there is speculation of an aerosol strain. Te CSL/UQ vaccine that is showing the best long term protection of all the candidates is a molecular clamp. Because it's a molecular clamp, the mutations do not matter to it. It will hypothetically be effective regardless of how CoVID-19 mutates. So Joe, you can't say the vaccine is mRNA. A couple of the specific candidates are, but most aren't. It is critical to not spread misinformation because that's how conspiracist ideas start.
    1
  19. Walking bare foot is the best.
    1
  20. Compulsory lock down is a good idea. CoVID-19 isn't just about deaths. CoVID-19 has the potential to destroy the economy https://youtu.be/Z9P3Dg8Q7W4
    1
  21. If you have to have armed guards at your schools to keep the children inside safe, you have utterly failed as a society. No, the mass shootings didn't start with the columbine shooting. There were 6 other mass shootings in the USA the same year as Columbine, 3 of which happened before columbine. No 2019 didn't see fewer gun deaths than previous years. 2019 had the highest number of mass shooting incidents on record, and killed the most amount of people. Dan is factually incorrect on those two points and they're the two points from which everything else he says flows. The reality is mass shootings in the USA started taking off in the 1960s. Before 1960 there was 2 or fewer mass shootings in the USA per year (outside of civil war). Most years prior to 1960 had no mass shootings. Then in 1960 suddenly you start to see the rise of both the serial killer and of the mass shooter. The 1960s also saw massive social upheaval and cultural change, it isn't a coincidence that as community engagement went down, murders went up. The problem in the USA isn't guns. The problem is the level of indifference towards the lives of others that exists. With anonymity comes dehumanism and risk, that is if society strips you of identity so you become just another number is a sea of other numbers it starts to not matter to people if you live or die. It's a tactic used in every dictatorship to have ever existed. By robbing you of your identity you become objectified and people don't care about your death. But more importantly, they also don't care as much about taking your life themselves. There is no real accountability because you don't know that person. You don't know their family. You didn't grow up together. Your parents aren't friends or acquaintances. So there's no direct accountability, no real sense of bringing shame or dishonor in taking a life. This is where the USA finds itself today. If you then add on top of that people who are experiencing psychosis from drugs, people who are mentally ill, people who are disenfranchised from society (especially youth who lack the ability to fully comprehend consequence), people in desperate economic circumstances, sexually frustrated youth, and you then not only normalise but glorify violence to them through news media, political discourse, film/television, games, advertising and give them easy access to guns... Christ under those circumstances you'd be more surprised to not find mass shootings. The reason there is no "this is the solution" being put forward by anyone is in part because no one talking in the debate really understands the problem. But it's also because there is no one solution because it's not just one problem. It's a concert of problems that are all interacting in complex ways to deliver a specific end result. But each of those problems has a different solution attached. Why not start though with legislation designed to encourage media and politicians to promote a sense of unity and community. Start by mitigation of the dehumanisation of society. Instead of putting armed guards in schools, enforce uniforms and give every* child a badge that says their name and something about them. It's much harder to kill someone if you're forced in the moment to think of them as having parents, a family who love them. A person with their own agency who likes and dislikes things, who has a life just like you. It might sound dorky, but it is a meaningful mitigation technique that is used in the frontline service industry around the world to reduce abuse and has been demonstrated to work.
    1
  22. In Australia, cruises cost between $2000 - $12000 per person, twin share. That means the minimum you can spend to go on a cruise leaving Australia is $4000. That puts the price per DAY more expensive than a US cruise is in total.
    1
  23. I have 15 years as a clinical neuroscientist, and let me tell you this guys hypothesis is total crap. Just total and utter crap.
    1
  24. lol Of course this stuff isn't actually true and simulation argument falsifies itself which is why the scientific community looks down on its proponents but sure.
    1
  25. Science is the method of taking an idea (hypothesis) or claim and finding all of the holes in it that you can. Skepticism is the application of the scientific method into the everyday world of extraordinary bullshit claims. If something is true I can look for all the holes and find none. If something is false or make believe, then I'm going to find holes. You can't call that lazy because you want to believe in nonsense but the people pointing out reality are making that hard, then say they should be looking at it objectively from science. Science is what you're pushing back against when you say not to look for the holes. Objectivity is what you're pushing back against when you want to believe something and get defensive of criticisms. It isn't a coincidence that the objects in the sky look like celestial bodies such as stars, 1500 years after the event it depicts. It's a painting of a bible passage, representing everything described in the passage which includes 2 stars. I mean seriously pointing to these paintings 1500 years after a supposed magical god was killed (of which we find no actual evidence) is on the same level as me drawing a picture of Jesus with Joe Rogan and Alex Jones in the background right now, then someone pointing to it as evidence that Joe Rogan and Alex Jones are time travellers. There's having an open mind, then there's opening your mind so wide your brain falls out. This clip is well into the latter.
    1
  26. You understand that not all organisms function the same, right? A frog body works very differently than a human body. That something has a particular effect in them, is no indication of any effect in us (and vice versa)
    1
  27.  @greenteadisease   @Anthony Rende  Quoting something you find salacious doesn't instantly make it true, even if it comes from Berkley news. This is in part apt given the function of oestrogen and testosterone is different across the species you just mentioned. But also because exposure to atrazine is going to have far more adverse respiratory and reproductive effects. Whilst atrazine is classified as an EDC in mice, I can find no study demonstrating such an effect in humans. The widely held position is that we simply do not know. Your quote mentions studies demonstrating effects to oestrogen and testosterone in human cell lines (but not in primates or pigs somehow), can you please cite some such causal studies? The ethics committee must have been asleep for them. Let me be clear, I am not defending atrazine, at all. However what I said previously isn't just logical, it is factual. These species have different endocrine systems to each other. One can not simply see an effect in one species and scale that across all species, it doesn't work that way. Frog gender is being changed in suburban backyards as a result of contact with plastics, fertilizers and some plants. They're also changing genders as a result of climate change. Frog endocrine systems are very delicate given frogs naturally change genders under specific circumstances regardless of humans. Something effecting frog gender has no automatic nor implied impact on humans.
    1
  28. That is not true @grunge-mb9sb . Atrazine is NOT synthetic oestrogen nor does it act in a similar function. Atrazine is made of all organic elements and is widely used on fruit/vegetable products labelled as "organic". It is a cyanuric chloride base with ethylamine and isopropyl amine. That is, an organic chlorine with two organic ammonias. To keep this understandable by a wide audience I'll say it binds to hormones in plants that animals DO NOT have, effecting their ability to photosynthesize and thus they die of starvation. It has been demonstrated to act as a EDC (endocrine disrupting chemical) in some animals such as frogs and rodents. That's a VERY different thing from a direct synthetic hormone and we are unsure whether it has an effect in human endocrine systems. However, as atrazine is a RUP and thus requires PPE to handle and spray, and because food stuffs that contact it are thoroughly washed before sale (and should be thoroughly washed before eating as well anyway) the amount of human exposure to atrazine is extremely limited.
    1
  29.  @greenteadisease  Please actually link to statistically relevant studies about Atrazine rather than copying nonsense from Wikipedia.
    1
  30. This makes me really sad. I've loved Dan Aykroyd movies my whole life. But now, seeing him this unwell I don't think I can watch those movies anymore without feeling sad for him. He was once so great, and now he's fallen so far down the rabbit hole that he's hit the bottom and wandered out the door into wonderland. I wish Dan all the best and I hope he gets his clear mental health problems under control. We love you Dan
    1
  31.  @HighLatencyEmu  Not at all. Aykroyd is clearly experiencing some health problems.
    1
  32. Cutting threw Joes bullshit, it comes down to this. All policy decisions have to be set for the lowest common denominator. So if, as Joe admits there's a whole segment of people who don't deal well with cannabis, who do become less productive, who do become a drain on society, who do have chronic aggression problems as a result, who do have cannabis induced mental health problems, and regardless of what nonsense Joe wants to believe DIE as a result of cannabis use, then the policy has to be set for those people. If Joe feels it doesn't effect him the same way, great. But we're not setting policy for him. We're setting policy for all the people who do badly with it. The policy for alcohol is set the same way, as is the policy for literally any other thing. Some people never drive their cars above 30mph and wouldn't be seriously injured if they weren't wearing a seatbelt in such a low speed accident. But policy isn't set for those people, it's set for the people who drive fast and die if they aren't wearing one.
    1
  33. These aren't lie statements and haven't been considered lie statements by anyone in a professional setting for more than 40 years. As usual Dr Phil is talking bunk.
    1
  34. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of humanity. It's right up there with people who think waving your hands over someone (reiki) can heal someone, or the idea of ancient aliens building the pyramids. If you spend more than a passing thought on this, and you bearly need even that, then it becomes obvious that this is baseless nonsense.
    1
  35. "Fuck me and I'll put you in a movie" doesn't sound like a criminal act, let alone one worthy of 23 years in jail. You can still say no. If leverage is now criminal coercion, everyone appearing in this video is also guilty. What a farce.
    1
  36. Ritalin is a stimulant. It makes people without ADHD buzz, that's why it gets abused. If your neighbour kid "turns into a zombie" on ritalin, that's because he actually has ADHD and his synapses are now firing are a normal speed instead of slow like they used to. The "Church" of Scientology tells all of their members that psychiatry is bad, that pharmacology is bad. Because it was created by a mentally ill sci-fi writer who didn't want to be medicated. And it's now run by a cultist who expects absolute power, and how better to gain power over the mentally ill than to convince them they don't need medical intervention. Cruise is just parroting what he's been told in that interview.
    1
  37. Michael isn't pretentious, there's just no room for conspiracists and woo woo in science. It isn't dogma, it's a rigid methodology that developed to account for and attempt to overcome our own biases and human flaws. Planck's radiation law isn't some random what if idea he woke up with one day that doesn't fit into the wider theories of physics. He wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel or talking some crazy magic woo woo. He was a physicist who developed a law and a constant that fit inside our current understanding of physics. That is, Planck did exactly what Michael is talking about, the same as literally every other credible scientist on the planet. Science also never attempts to prove nor disprove anything. Those are biased actions that demonstrate a foregone conclusion. Science instead takes a hypothesis, tests it in an attempt to falsify it. Claiming to be a generic term such as "scientist" online is so open and so generic that it's near meaningless. What is clear is there is no training in scientific rigor nor terminology by anyone in this thread
    1
  38. Good luck combating the HAES movement in 2020. 50 years of campaigning, they have now reached mainstream acceptance. HAES is a problem in every western country. Look them up, it's a full on cult that has infiltrated all of western culture.
    1
  39. Yet again Joe doesn't know what he's talking about. Please stop throwing around words you do not understand and adding to the negative stigma surrounding people who do not deserve it.
    1
  40. You can't say you're giving the male and female children the same inputs, then say something like, the way you treat them when they're cold is different. That's not the same inputs. That's training them into a role. Steve is literally creating this gender difference in his kids.
    1
  41. Here's the question that should have been asked but wasn't. "Twitter's business model is built on drawing in new users and keeping them on the platform based on controversy. If you ban all of the people from one side of a political controversy, and leave the rest, thus quelling controversy, what do you think will happen to your business model in the next 2-5 years?" I think we would have gotten very different response and potentially not be in the current situation if this was framed to them in terms of, your current actions are going to cost you money. Stop trying to speak about fairness and start talking about the only thing they care about, cash.
    1
  42. You can't fight a war on drugs, if you're just arresting low end dealers. Of course that's going to fail and most people understand that. People don't want legalisation, they just want the war on drugs to actually be a war on drugs. You can't tell me that we don't know where these drugs are made. You want a war on drugs, go there. Don't arrest them, they're demonstrated to be exhibit antisocial behaviour, and you're calling it a war for a reason.
    1
  43. Plenty of men watch Law & Order, as well as it's spin offs. It's why the female partner is always an attractive, girl next door type. Law & Order is actually a show for couples. It's something bland where both genders can watch it equally. Law & Order and it's spin offs attempt to mimic reality in a controlled way. Sometimes the outcome of a case is never established. Sometimes it seems they got it wrong. In every episode some bumbling cops who have no idea what they're doing or how to tackle the case just start throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. They try to pin it on everyone that crosses their path, then they fail, some time passes, they try to pin it on someone else, they fail, some time passes, they try to pin it on someone else and this person doesn't have the resources to get out of it. Whether they're actually guilty is irrelevant, it's just about closing the case and putting someones name to it. That's how real cops operate too.    Shows like CSI, NCIS, Castle, reacher and others where the criminal is always caught are actually propaganda campaigns. They exist to change behaviour, which is why they often get preferential treatment in terms of permits and government grant funding. They target a family audience. If all you see on TV in regards to crime are shows where police always catch the person who did it then you inevitably make two assumptions 1. Police are competent at their jobs, and always catch criminals. This makes you feel safer and in turn become more productive. 2. It's pointless trying to commit a crime because you are only going to be caught. Studies have literally shown that when these kinds of crime shows are popular, instance of crime goes down...by a lot. Crime shows built for women specifically are "who done its". Women like to imagine they are very good are puzzles and deduction, so they tend to enjoy crime mysteries where they can try and figure out who did it before the show tells them.  Shows like Murder She Wrote, Veronica Mars, Nancy Drew, Mrs Marple, etc... A western is called a western because it is set in the american western frontier.
    1
  44.  @polo4941  Unless you were party to her death, you can't possibly make that statement with any kind of credibility. Least of all just because you listened to a stupid podcast. No one cares about your "gut feeling"
    1
  45.  @polo4941  lol what a loser you are.
    1
  46. Children in their early 20s when this was filmed are generation Z. Millennials are up to 39 right now.
    1
  47. The US president isn't the leader of the world 🤣 The US president is the leader of the USA. That's it, nothing else.
    1
  48. Roflmao. It's funny to hear them talk about something neither of them understand.
    1
  49. What? The depression and anxiety index, an internationally used index used by doctors to assess whether someone has depression or anxiety, literally asks questions about social context and circumstance. The doctor simply runs down the questions on the index or hands the index questionnaire to the patient directly. Answers are all on a scale and the final score gives a degree of depression and anxiety being experienced. GPs (in Australia at least) also openly discuss the social components of depression, and that's a big part of the social message. It's been that way as long as mental health came out into the open back in the 80s... Wtf is this nonsense about people not being told? Is it just to try and build some kind of controversy? Sometimes, depression is social factors. That isn't new information, it's been mainstream since the 1950s. But, also, sometimes depression is actually a chemical or hormone imbalance. Welcome to reality, it isn't black and white.
    1
  50. The idea that people have to go after what they like to do, and that they don't is down to them not trying is a ridiculous mentality. It's the lie that recent posr modern psychology and consumerism fed us that drives billions in consumer debt every year. Millions of people try to make it as comedians annually, when there's only room for a couple hundred to make it. YouTube is filled with millions of people trying to make it their career. 600 hours of video uploaded every 60 seconds. That's how many people are trying to do something they love. The overwhelming majority will fail. There simply isn't room for that many YouTube stars. There's a miniscule number of commentator jobs available, period. Those jobs usually involve some kind of notable athletic connection to the sport There's 7.8 billion people on earth, they all can't "do what they love". That's wishy washy nonsense that would destroy society. You genuinely think anyone really want to work at McDonald's making minimum wage? You think that invigorates people? Get real Joe. You're coming from an incredibly privileged position in society. You managed to have the right amount of charisma, the right friends and be in the right places to get the opportunities that made you successful. Congratulations. Do you think there's enough room doing your jobs for another 100 million people to be doing it at the same level as you for the same money? It's not "loser mentality" to be realistic about the opportunities available.
    1