|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 15 2026 23:03 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2026 21:20 micronesia wrote:On August 15 2026 20:23 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2026 18:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 15 2026 10:40 Sermokala wrote:On August 15 2026 05:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 15 2026 05:25 EnDeR_ wrote:
So... It sounds dumb but what's the argument 'for' steam launchers? More thrust. Proven system (decades). Saltwater resistant. Easy repairs. Low tech. Less electrical peak load. These are not true, the new launchers can be dialed in for more weight than any plane they'd have land on a carrier. The system that it uses is identical to high speed rail. You can protect the rails very easily from salt water, and simply clean them. Steam power has a lot more moving parts and various things that need to be maintained while useing mag rails There are almost no moving parts in comparison and the ones that are can be easily machined on a super carrier. At this point they would have to effectively design a new system from a white page, have factories build up from scratch to make these parts because no one makes large steam-powered launches, redesign the carrier to fit this new system, and surprise it takes up more space, test it to make sure that it works, then install it into the in-process carrier. Meanwhile getting mag rail lines is very easy as high speed rail tech as well as parts can be found across the globe. It would be like a railroad company wanting to bring back a steam-powered train when they all run on Diesel-Electric ones now. I was asked for the theoretical ways steam launchers are better and the ones listed are correct. You however are also correct these are not real advantages. The new launchers does have enough power to launch anything they need too, they don't need more. The problem with saltwater corrosion has been solved (but I remember reading about it early on with the teething problems. The new system requires considerably less maintenance completely negating the theoretical advantage that it's lower tech to fix a broken pipe. Electrify is a thing super carriers are good at generating. Decades of use is nice but the new systems have some time with excellent results and it's not like time compounds anything. The problems were found and solved, now they run fine. So in practice the theoretical advantages mean nothing. The advantages are huge: You can set launch power reducing wear on aircraft. You can launch low weight aircraft like drones without the risk of tearing them apart. Faster recharge compared to steam (that has to build up pressure) so theoretical higher launch cadence (can be important, especially for things like drone swarms). Much lower maintenance and thus crew requirements. Simplified power plant requirements. Etc etc. There is a reason the French and the Chinese are also switching. China may simply have a better system than we do for all we know. It's not simply a matter of "muh tech" steam vs. EM but the specific engineering solution. Also, China went for EM catapults irrespective of nuclear. Their carriers are conventional. France is literally just going to buy US EMALS, it's not a separate system. Besides which, France only has one aircraft carrier. The US roughly can deploy about a third of its fleet at any time. So of 11 fleet carriers, maybe 3-4. Respectfully to France's defense needs, and the reputation of their professional, experienced military, including FFL, when it comes to the navy, the aircraft carrier specifically, while not theoretical, is partially performative. It spends most of its time not being deployed and is not critical because when deployed it supports whatever the US is already doing in NATO. I mean it's impossible for it to be critical if it has deployment gaps. They have it but it's something of a luxury. China's bet, while interesting, is not determinative. They never used steam catapults to begin with and have never used an aircraft carrier in a war. US defense has to be practical because we actually use it. On August 15 2026 18:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 15 2026 17:40 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote:On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote:
If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory. Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast. So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around. On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote:
But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision. This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them "Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable. Trump has already proven himself retarded with his love for steam launchers. If you also want to prove that you are a retard by defending them that's a choice I guess. Thank you.  I will continue to defend the... 40 steam catapults in the US Navy. They are good when paired with A4W reactor plants, like what you see on Nimitz Class. Against reactionists who suddenly know EMALS is the greatest thing since sliced bread I am also here, and I was literally in the room when the commanding officer of the Ford returned from deployment and gave his opinion on sortie performance (granted, it was probably like the third or fourth time he was doing it--my office was not first on his list). It's conversely not necessary to go ALL in on EMALS. It doesn't make sense to pursue steam catapults on Ford class in 2026. The system has been war-tested all of ONE TIME in the world. By the US, in the USS Ford's deployment at the beginning of the Iran War. The decision to make a plan to build out CVN-81 (one ship that hasn't even been laid down yet) with steam was only made AFTER that. After seeing Ford and Lincoln both in action. Make of that what you will. I think we've all already made of it exactly what we will. Can the powerplant on the Nimitz class even produce enough electricity for EMALS?
EMALS takes less electricity to use than Steam launchers, the only thing that the ship itself needs to do is to get the rotors to speed, and then can harvest electricity on the backend.
The issue with refitting older carriers to use EMALS is that you would have to rip out all the Steam infrastructure, or just cut open the room needed to operate EMALS just under the deck. Its definitly possible and would result in about a billion a year in savings but the savings wouldn't justify the cost to do the work.
There is also again, no one making steam powered launchers or anything of the sort on the scale that a carrier needs. Its an entire field that would need to be revived, redesigned, retooled to be in production. They make the parts for EMALS across the globe in a similar manner beacuse high speed rail is a big deal in developed countries.
|
On August 16 2026 04:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2026 23:31 dyhb wrote:On August 15 2026 15:35 Sermokala wrote:On August 15 2026 11:33 dyhb wrote:
You seriously say electromagnetic catapults have less moving parts than steam catapults? And electromagnetic launch systems have less things that must be maintained? The rest looks correct, but those things need revision. Yes, far far less moving parts, just imagine for a moment all the different pipes, valves, tanks, that are involved. You need an entire system to superheat the water-air mix. To keep it maintained at the right mix, the right temperature. You need an entire complex of pipes to manage all of these things, some of which involve extreme heat and the pressures needed to push the aircraft at high velocity. You are constantly moving air and water into the tank, and you need swaths of tools to monitor and manage this. The tubes go through hundreds of feet throughout the ship. You need to be able to change the amount of force you use for each launch, as every plane has different weights. That means you need to have the ability to control how much steam is being put out, you need probes and monitors to make sure that the valves are operating correctly under such heat and pressure. The extent to which you talk about non-moving parts makes me think you already agree with me, but didn't know it yet. Or maybe you didn't read "The rest looks correct." Meanwhile, an electromagnetic catapult "just" needs electricity. It has spinning rotors, and the energy is taken out of them in pulses as the shuttle goes down and each section turns on and off, then it just spins those rotors up in between launches. These however are our good friend the brushless motor, and so has the lifespan and reliability we don't appreciate enough of. A computer basically flips the switches of each section, and high-powered wires travel to each section. Wires are easily manufactured inside of a supercarrier, and replacements for the sections can be stacked and shipped easily. The nature of these electronics means that they can be tested easily and constantly. The only moving part is the shuttle itself and even this is used to harvest electricity back. Yeah this is just special pleading from you. I didn't ask about the ease of shipping out replacement parts and testing failed parts (hinting at failure modes, maintenance issues, the sum of "things that must be maintained"). You're making tradeoffs and glossing over them because you believe the sum of tradeoffs favor the electromagnetic catapult. The systems of electromagnetic launch are generalized in an overview, the steam is minutely descriptive. On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote:On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote:
If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory. Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast. If you're calling steam a lot of moving parts, try electrons. This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision. I'm indulging a digression from Kwark and elaboration from Sermokala. Everything regarding Trump was always correct. No I specifically don't agree with you, there is one moving part with EM launchers, that is specifically just the shuttle itself that is being launched. You think that there are more moving parts on EM launchers than a steam launcher. That is either you not knowing what a "moving part" is or not understanding the vast gulf in the things that need checking and mantaining between the two systems. I'm calling the valves, tanks, pumps, moving parts because they move. Compared to electrons moving through copper wires thats night and day. The rotors don't move? The cooling system for them (etc) doesn't move? Coolant pumps, valves for them, fans for them?
The tradeoffs are entierly on the side of the EM launchers though. I'm sorry for assuming that people were more aware of how steam power works than Electromagnetic fields. I think the tradeoffs favor EM designs ultimately, without dumbing down differences.
|
United States44398 Posts
The core concept here is one that ought to be familiar to anyone who knows how an electric motor works.
|
On August 16 2026 05:17 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2026 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On August 15 2026 23:31 dyhb wrote:On August 15 2026 15:35 Sermokala wrote:On August 15 2026 11:33 dyhb wrote:
You seriously say electromagnetic catapults have less moving parts than steam catapults? And electromagnetic launch systems have less things that must be maintained? The rest looks correct, but those things need revision. Yes, far far less moving parts, just imagine for a moment all the different pipes, valves, tanks, that are involved. You need an entire system to superheat the water-air mix. To keep it maintained at the right mix, the right temperature. You need an entire complex of pipes to manage all of these things, some of which involve extreme heat and the pressures needed to push the aircraft at high velocity. You are constantly moving air and water into the tank, and you need swaths of tools to monitor and manage this. The tubes go through hundreds of feet throughout the ship. You need to be able to change the amount of force you use for each launch, as every plane has different weights. That means you need to have the ability to control how much steam is being put out, you need probes and monitors to make sure that the valves are operating correctly under such heat and pressure. The extent to which you talk about non-moving parts makes me think you already agree with me, but didn't know it yet. Or maybe you didn't read "The rest looks correct." Meanwhile, an electromagnetic catapult "just" needs electricity. It has spinning rotors, and the energy is taken out of them in pulses as the shuttle goes down and each section turns on and off, then it just spins those rotors up in between launches. These however are our good friend the brushless motor, and so has the lifespan and reliability we don't appreciate enough of. A computer basically flips the switches of each section, and high-powered wires travel to each section. Wires are easily manufactured inside of a supercarrier, and replacements for the sections can be stacked and shipped easily. The nature of these electronics means that they can be tested easily and constantly. The only moving part is the shuttle itself and even this is used to harvest electricity back. Yeah this is just special pleading from you. I didn't ask about the ease of shipping out replacement parts and testing failed parts (hinting at failure modes, maintenance issues, the sum of "things that must be maintained"). You're making tradeoffs and glossing over them because you believe the sum of tradeoffs favor the electromagnetic catapult. The systems of electromagnetic launch are generalized in an overview, the steam is minutely descriptive. On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote:On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote:
If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory. Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast. If you're calling steam a lot of moving parts, try electrons. This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision. I'm indulging a digression from Kwark and elaboration from Sermokala. Everything regarding Trump was always correct. No I specifically don't agree with you, there is one moving part with EM launchers, that is specifically just the shuttle itself that is being launched. You think that there are more moving parts on EM launchers than a steam launcher. That is either you not knowing what a "moving part" is or not understanding the vast gulf in the things that need checking and mantaining between the two systems. I'm calling the valves, tanks, pumps, moving parts because they move. Compared to electrons moving through copper wires thats night and day. The rotors don't move? The cooling system for them (etc) doesn't move? Coolant pumps, valves for them, fans for them? Show nested quote +The tradeoffs are entierly on the side of the EM launchers though. I'm sorry for assuming that people were more aware of how steam power works than Electromagnetic fields. I think the tradeoffs favor EM designs ultimately, without dumbing down differences.
They're brushless motors, they spin in place and don't need to be maintained. The technology is insanely reliable and doesn't operate on the friction of a moving part. They're called rotors because they are inherently there to convert the DC of the ship into AC for the system. I've seen brushless motors that have been running from the 70's when they were put into robot arms that are still operating and have never been cracked open to see inside. If they do fail they can be repaired onboard. Super carriers are built at that scale so that they can have an onboard machine shop to facilitate repairs while at sea that smaller carriers like the japanese and french can't. They were scaled to be able to repair the steam catapult and the EM one is an order of magnitude lower on the need for these repairs.
You would just the same air conditioning system the rest of the ship uses. The electromagnetic fields are online for a split second and would have the largest heat sink available on a giant piece of metal nearby.
|
On August 15 2026 01:13 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't like data centers. WASHINGTON, D.C. — Seven in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers for artificial intelligence in their local area https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-centers-area.aspxArmed with that information, establishment/third way Democrats are going to fight hard to overcome that. You see, Democrats can fight for unpopular policy, but only when their Epstein class donors tell them too. + Show Spoiler +Haven't really looked into this guy but from what I can remember, in the primary he beat the lady who hated holidays, which seems like a pretty unique way to shoot yourself in the foot. I actually agree that the Democratic party at large is once again missing a chance to capitalize on a genuine popular movement, with the usual suspects being the notable exceptions. + Show Spoiler +The stupid thing is that it's not like they (Bernie and AOC) are completely aggressively anti-AI, no where near as vitriolic as the reddit brigade accusing anyone even casually using local versions of "burning down the planet and stealing intellectual property", but that doesn't stop the Neo-liberal crowd from painting them as Luddites who just want America to lose to China.
I think that in an alternative universe where Kamala won there would be an actual AI tzar who is not a shill for the industry who would sit down with a team of very smart people, invited the big players to the table and figured out a reasonable way of doing this, because there is very little indication that if all of this infrastructure gets built it will be used, since the demand is simply not there, and then you end up with megaprojects that don't get finished benefiting no one like the Foxcon factory.
That plus the very likely financial meltdown when the bubble bursts.
You know what's more popular than data centers to have built locally (and somewhat related to this nonsense about catapults)? Nuclear power plants.
Americans are so against the construction of artificial intelligence data centers in their local areas that they'd rather see a nuclear power plant built nearby, according to new polling data released by Gallup.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/05/13/people-would-rather-have-nuclear-power-plants-in-their-area-than-ai-data-centers/
They also aren't useless (other than as the nightmare fuel fascist FLOCK/Palantir dystopia data hubs) if the AI bubble pops.
|
On August 16 2026 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2026 01:13 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Haven't really looked into this guy but from what I can remember, in the primary he beat the lady who hated holidays, which seems like a pretty unique way to shoot yourself in the foot. I actually agree that the Democratic party at large is once again missing a chance to capitalize on a genuine popular movement, with the usual suspects being the notable exceptions. + Show Spoiler +The stupid thing is that it's not like they (Bernie and AOC) are completely aggressively anti-AI, no where near as vitriolic as the reddit brigade accusing anyone even casually using local versions of "burning down the planet and stealing intellectual property", but that doesn't stop the Neo-liberal crowd from painting them as Luddites who just want America to lose to China.
I think that in an alternative universe where Kamala won there would be an actual AI tzar who is not a shill for the industry who would sit down with a team of very smart people, invited the big players to the table and figured out a reasonable way of doing this, because there is very little indication that if all of this infrastructure gets built it will be used, since the demand is simply not there, and then you end up with megaprojects that don't get finished benefiting no one like the Foxcon factory.
That plus the very likely financial meltdown when the bubble bursts. You know what's more popular than data centers to have built locally (and somewhat related to this nonsense about catapults)? Nuclear power plants. Show nested quote +Americans are so against the construction of artificial intelligence data centers in their local areas that they'd rather see a nuclear power plant built nearby, according to new polling data released by Gallup.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/05/13/people-would-rather-have-nuclear-power-plants-in-their-area-than-ai-data-centers/They also aren't useless (other than as the nightmare fuel fascist FLOCK/Palantir dystopia data hubs) if the AI bubble pops.
Huge calculation centers aren't useless even if the AI bubble pops. Nobody could afford the cost of running them continuously though. Even before AI super computers were built. AI centers are incorrectly configured but has a lot of compute you could adapt.
Centralize current slow distributed solutions: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/
Run the military calculations for the next war.
Better Climate/Weather models
...
|
Genocidal Mulllahs make a correct assumption, you can't have "Deals" with the US as long as Trump is in charge.
|
On August 16 2026 20:23 KT_Elwood wrote:
Genocidal Mulllahs make a correct assumption, you can't have "Deals" with the US as long as Trump is in charge.
There is exactly one kind of deal you can make. One where you get stuff right now, and are always in the positive if the US randomly decides they no longer want to do the thing.
So basically, the US has to hand over the cash/collateral first before you start even thinking of doing anything. Because tomorrow Trump may decide to throw the whole deal out.
|
On August 16 2026 17:18 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2026 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2026 01:13 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Haven't really looked into this guy but from what I can remember, in the primary he beat the lady who hated holidays, which seems like a pretty unique way to shoot yourself in the foot. I actually agree that the Democratic party at large is once again missing a chance to capitalize on a genuine popular movement, with the usual suspects being the notable exceptions. + Show Spoiler +The stupid thing is that it's not like they (Bernie and AOC) are completely aggressively anti-AI, no where near as vitriolic as the reddit brigade accusing anyone even casually using local versions of "burning down the planet and stealing intellectual property", but that doesn't stop the Neo-liberal crowd from painting them as Luddites who just want America to lose to China.
I think that in an alternative universe where Kamala won there would be an actual AI tzar who is not a shill for the industry who would sit down with a team of very smart people, invited the big players to the table and figured out a reasonable way of doing this, because there is very little indication that if all of this infrastructure gets built it will be used, since the demand is simply not there, and then you end up with megaprojects that don't get finished benefiting no one like the Foxcon factory.
That plus the very likely financial meltdown when the bubble bursts. You know what's more popular than data centers to have built locally (and somewhat related to this nonsense about catapults)? Nuclear power plants. Americans are so against the construction of artificial intelligence data centers in their local areas that they'd rather see a nuclear power plant built nearby, according to new polling data released by Gallup.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/05/13/people-would-rather-have-nuclear-power-plants-in-their-area-than-ai-data-centers/They also aren't useless (other than as the nightmare fuel fascist FLOCK/Palantir dystopia data hubs) if the AI bubble pops. Huge calculation centers aren't useless even if the AI bubble pops. Nobody could afford the cost of running them continuously though. Even before AI super computers were built. AI centers are incorrectly configured but has a lot of compute you could adapt. Centralize current slow distributed solutions: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/Run the military calculations for the next war. Better Climate/Weather models ...
The "fascist FLOCK/Palantir dystopia hubs" was part of the "next war" that would inevitably need to be fought following the collapse of the AI bubble and the ensuing social chaos of austerity to bail out billionaires (really just their egos because they'd basically never actually be broke).
But yeah, whatever survives that could use them for science I suppose.
|
How could the guy have been less subtle about this bullshit?
|
This year there's been a significant drop in drug prices, which Trump is bragging about... except it's all thanks to Biden and Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which Republicans notoriously hated and voted against:
The White House flooded social media on Saturday with an image of Donald Trump showing off the recent Washington Post headline “Prescription drug prices record sharpest drop in more than 60 years”, but failed to mention that experts cited in the article actually attributed the price drop to Joe Biden, not Trump. ...
What the president did not say is that the text of the article, published by the Post on Thursday, reported that while the Trump White House “took credit for” the biggest year-over-year drop in drug prices in more than 60 years in July, independent experts “said a Biden-era policy that requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some popular prescription drugs is more likely to be driving down costs”.
“The Inflation Reduction Act was a signature accomplishment of former president Joe Biden, a sprawling measure enacted in 2022 that aimed to lower prescription drug prices by requiring Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly, to begin negotiating the prices it pays drugmakers for an array of popular and costly prescription drugs,” the Post’s report noted. “The first price reductions took effect at the beginning of this year.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/15/trump-washington-post-drug-prices
|
There were a staggering number of Congressional Republicans on social media that tried to take credit for the Inflation Reduction Act after voting against it.
Really makes you wonder why'd they do such a thing if they genuinely believed Biden was a communist & Democrats never actually help working people.
|
“If Oman gets in the way we will bomb the shit out of them” president of peace.
Thank god FIFA was on the ball to give this man a peace prize, Nobel open your freakin eyes.
Imagine you voted for Trump because you didn’t want your resources spent abroad, fiscal responsibility , lowered prices and still think you made the right call 😂😂
|
United States44398 Posts
Oman is one of America’s oldest allies and also the regional partner most critical to helping Trump achieve whatever his goals are.
|
We're also downsizing joint military exercises with South Korea as a personal favor to Trump's bestie Kim Jong-un.
|
He must really be losing his shit if he's openly threatening to BOMB a country because "they are getting in the way", I mean, this kind of crazy rhetoric has only been reserved for countries he already bombed, not even his mortal enemies Denmark and Canada get these kind of threats.
In the meantime, his best buddy is putting Mamdani on his election posters next to Erdogan, Khameni and Qassem:
|
On August 18 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Oman is one of America’s oldest allies and also the regional partner most critical to helping Trump achieve whatever his goals are.
Trump hates his allies the most.
I don’t think the US will have a true ally that trusts them for a generation at least. Because Biden got the quick snap back with everyone thinking, no way they pick someone this awful and stupid again. But they picked that exact guy, and now not matter who you get next, the next guy will likely be another mush brain who won’t stick to any commitments even his own.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Trump is an imperialist who thinks like a mercantalist, not a capitalist. If he could've had his way a year ago, he and the Witkoff faction would ditched NATO and teamed up with Putin his continentalist land empire.
|
Putin running the country as a grifting billionaire being above the law and able to proscute everbody for making fun if him is exactly what Trump admires.
That's why he is friends with Kim Yong Un. the only Fat guy in a food desert, because he rich.
|
On August 18 2026 06:16 Falling wrote:
Trump is an imperialist who thinks like a mercantalist, not a capitalist. If he could've had his way a year ago, he and the Witkoff faction would ditched NATO and teamed up with Putin his continentalist land empire.
I’d be surprised if Trump could define any of those words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://ip.index.hr/remote/bucket.index.hr/b/index/4edf9515-7ed9-415a-b248-d0888cf85f11.png)
