hate

a story of love and hate

by

To human beings we love to take sides and defend it. We love and hate football teams, foods, cars and clothes, but we also love and hate technology companies. If there are two companies that represent that history, they are Apple, traditionally loved by its users and with a very good image, and Microsoft, which despite its efforts has been massively hated. We do not enter here into value judgments about whether one or the other deserved that love or hate, but we simply expose that this feeling is clearly widespread. This story of love and hate has accompanied us for the last forty years, but now another similar story is beginning to take shape. Still incipient, but striking. It is, of course, how people are starting to hate OpenAI and love Anthropic. The similarities with Microsoft and Apple are striking, especially after the events of recent days and that triangle of loves and heartbreaks that the Pentagon, Anthropic and OpenAI have formed. Two very clear perceptions have ended up emerging from all this scandal. On the one hand, Anthropic has positioned itself as the company that defends ethics and morality. They have not given in to the demands of the Pentagon and they have stuck to their guns, which reputationally has been very positive for her. On the other hand, OpenAI has taken advantage of the moment to steal the government contract from its rival. The perception here is different, and OpenAI has come across as an opportunistic and unscrupulous company. So much so that the impact on popularity has been notable: last Saturday ChatGPT downloads plummeted while Claude’s managed to place her above her rival, who had always dominated that ranking. The effect has been clear: Anthropic has become the good one, the company to love. OpenAI, on the other hand, has become the focus of criticism. In fact, a ‘Cancel ChatGPT’ movement which encourages users to stop using OpenAI AI models. Betrayal, these users seem to say, is paid for. The narrative battle of the good guys and the bad guys Here we are witnessing a unique phenomenon of the evolution of the corporate identity of these companies. While Altman seems to have adopted Bill Gates’ style manual from the 90s —prioritizing aggressive growth, government alliances and market domination—, Dario Amodei positions himself as the “spiritual heir” of that Apple that boasted of “thinking differently”. Anthropic’s refusal to cross certain red lines has served to make the average user feel that by using Claude they are supporting a technology “with a conscience”, so to speak. The curious thing about this story and this rivalry is that Anthropic was precisely born from a split from OpenAI due to ethical differences. There is a certain narrative of purity versus business pragmatism here that again reminds us of the confrontation between Apple and Microsoft since the 80s. OpenAI seems to be the Windows of AI. Meanwhile, Anthropic appears to be the MacBook. These user tantrums usually have an expiration date because human beings we have a very bad memorybut OpenAI still faces clear risks. For example, that this perception of the company complicates talent retention or that Anthropic actually ends up assuming the role of “company that develops ethical AI.” For the latter that is also a risk, because any slip in that immaculate philosophy can be very expensive. In fact, it is already being talked about on networks how Amodei actually he is no saint and your company showed up in January to a competition for a project for swarms of autonomous drones controlled by voice and AI. Thus, we are reviving the assignment of ideological values ​​to technology. Each company wants to position itself differently, but for users everything is once again a matter of good and bad. Users loved Apple computers and hated (or supported) Microsoft computers. Now that debate seems to have moved to AI: we love Anthropic’s because it seems to be ethical, and we hate (or support) OpenAI’s because it is opportunistic. But be careful: this has only just begun. In Xataka | Microsoft had a Discord channel dedicated to AI. They closed it because everyone now calls them “Microslop” Image | Xataka with Freepik

Satya Nadella made the world love Microsoft again. AI is making people hate it again

by

Microsoft wants to turn Windows into an “agent operating system”. That was one of the great advertisements of the Ingnite conferences that were held these days. The proposal involves filling Windows with AI agents so that they are part of the user experience and do things for us. The intention is good. The result is not. what’s happening. Windows celebrates its 40th anniversary in 2025 (and Microsoft, its 50), and it does so with a total commitment to AI that it now wants to transfer to its Windows operating system. At the Microsoft Ignite event, various new features were presented that were precisely aimed at integrating AI agents into the system from the taskbar, but also at supporting the Model Context Protocol, the de facto standard for connecting AI agents with third-party services and applications. The movement is reasonable. Microsoft’s decision is strategically impeccable. AI is everywhere, and what the company intends is for it to be an integral part of its operating system. And by the way, of course, don’t leave its ecosystem to take advantage of it. The intention is good, but Microsoft’s problem is different. You are being tiresome. It is often the case that companies that try to promote their services do so in a particularly tiresome way. Microsoft is certainly known for this, and you only have to remember how it made numerous attempts to force us to upgrade to Windows 10. Then they came similar attempts with the new versions of Windows 11. With AI, it has already shot itself in the foot from time to time, and the best example is Microsoft Recalla striking option that by its design initial ended up being delayed and now it has been completely relegated to the background. Well I install LinuxPavan Davuluri, president of the Windows and devices division, was talking about this integration of AI in Windows a few days ago, but his tweet ended up provoking a string of criticism. One of the first answers indicated that Windows “is evolving into a product that brings people to the Mac and Linux.” Or for that matter, bring back Windows 7. Others went further and they asked that the Windows 7 operating system would return with its “clean user interface, icons, unified control panel, no junk apps, no ads, just a pure, performing operating system.” Microsoft is growing dwarfs. Davuluri ended up closing comments two days later, but yes responded to a tweet from the well-known software engineer Gergely Orosz, who criticized Windows’ erratic strategy and also Microsoft’s commitment to developers. In his response he indicated that “we know that we must continue working on the user experience, both in day-to-day usability and system dialogues inconsistent with the experiences of advanced users.” Be careful with promoting what doesn’t work. The problem with Copilot is that it still has a clearly worse reputation than other AI models despite being entirely based on ChatGPT. At Microsoft they know itbut still They are hiring influencers to promote Copilot to younger consumers. Nadella started well… The arrival of Satya Nadella to Microsoft it was a breath of fresh air. The company was on its way to becoming the new IBMbut its surprising renewal and spirit of openness —GitHub purchaserenovated love for linux— joined the success of reinforcing Azure and turning its cloud platform into a money making machine. threw great projects and thus regained some of the love (and luster) that he had lost in recent years with Ballmer at the helm. …but things are going wrong. However, this (understandable) obsession with AI is contaminating that entire trajectory a bit, and this is evident in the comments and criticisms of users, who do not seem interested in Windows being full of AI even though that could be interesting in the long run. The practical advantages at the moment do not seem to be notable, and forcing them is never a good idea. And in case Nadella reads us, we propose an idea. Let users decide. It’s as simple as that: Microsoft forces things too much by forcing users to accept these system changes without further ado and offering them as options that are activated by default. Users usually don’t like things being changed for the better, and what Microsoft should do is make everything opt-in (and not opt-out). That is to say: offer these options disabled by default, and let the users decide to activate them. If they are really worth it, it is very likely that these options will end up going viral on their own and people will simply enable them. In Xataka | The unexpected return of Windows 7: it reaches almost 10% of the market when Microsoft prepares to retire Windows 10

That a teenager begins to ‘hate’ his parents is something that is in his brain, and science has already found the pattern

by

If you’re a parent of a teenager, you know: their world revolves around their friends. If you were one of them, you surely remember: parents’ opinion took a backseat. And although it seems that it is a sign of the rebellion that we see normal at this age, the reality is that the guilt is literally found in the brain. The culprit. But when asked what causes this indolence among adolescents? The answer comes from the magnetic resonance imaging that has been applied to the brains of some adolescents. And research shows that, during adolescence, the brain not only changes its interest, but also reconfigures your reward circuits so that the voices of strangers are more gratifying than the voice of one’s own mother. And this is something that explains the fact that adolescents give much more importance to a friend than to their own closest family, and even go so far as to prioritize them above anything else. Although in the end he has a good excuse in his brain systems. The study. To find this out, the researchers didn’t have the teens listen to scolding. They used a more cunning methodology by gathering 46 children and adolescents between 7 and 16 years old who were exposed to listening to recordings of nonsense words such as teebudie-shawlt. The important thing about this investigation was that these meaningless words were spoken by two voices: that of their own mother and that of two women unknown to them. In this way, when the recording was played, the activity of their brains began to be analyzed through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see the parts of the brain that were lighting up with each of the voices that were playing. The results. In the youngest children between seven and twelve years old, their mother’s voice caused a party at the reward centers of the brain, specifically in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). The interesting thing here is that this activity was much greater than what was felt when hearing the voices of the strangers and it is logical because the mother is the center of her social universe that causes her greater happiness. But things change completely in adolescents between 13 and 16 years old, where these same reward and social evaluation regions showed significantly greater activity for unfamiliar voices than for their own mother’s. In this way, the age that we can consider as a border between them paying attention to their mother and when they are going to completely ignore what they are told will be around 13.5 years. Because. In this case we are not talking about adolescents rejecting their parents, since in a behavioral test they were able to identify mothers’ voices in an almost perfect way. The change is precisely in the valuation of that voice. This neurobiological turn is considered an adaptive process essential for maturity. The teenage brain is being “refreshed” for a new mission: leaving the nest. To prepare for independence, the brain must begin to find new social connections more rewarding. You have to tune in with your companions, future allies and partners. The bibliography. This finding fits with previous models that were made to identify the differentiated stages in social and brain development, where the affective focus passes from the mother to friends and finally to romantic relationships. Recent reviews reaffirm that the reward system in adolescence is especially sensitive to novel social stimuli, and that the maturation of frontostriatal connections modulates these changes. A previous work by the same group had already shown that in childhood the maternal voice has a privileged response in the mesolimbic circuit and the current study extends and completes that model by showing how this pattern is reversed in adolescence. In this way, every time we see a teenager who literally tells his mother that he doesn’t even want to hear her, but spends all day talking to his friends, we already know why: his brain has changed so that he likes it more. Images | Sebastien Mouilleau Amir Hosseini In Xataka | If the question is where to find the time to play sports or learn languages, you have the answer on your mobile

Breaking a bad habit is difficult, but not impossible. The key is to make your brain hate it

by

Habits have a very important role in daily life. In fact, as indicated in the book ‘Emotional Intelligence: Good habits‘ Harvard Business Review, approximately half of our daily actions are based on habits that we repeat without just realizing. However, the same mechanism that anchors good habits, also explains why changing a bad habit may seem like a task almost impossible. It is not only willpower, but to understand how our brain works and how habits are anchored in it. Why do we adopt bad habits? We know that leading a sedentary life is not healthy, that navigating Tiktok video video until many in the morning Take takes the next day and that smoking seriously harms our health. However, such and As explained to Harvard Business Review Judson Brewer, neuroscientist and author of the book ‘Undo the anxiety‘, we cannot avoid falling into any of these negative habits, and eliminating them is very uphill. According to Brewer, the environment in which we live is designed to bombard us with stimuli that reinforce those habits, especially negatives. The rewards that our brain receives when performing certain behaviors alter our Reward -based learning systemso a pattern difficult to break is created. “Every time we try to disconnect from an exhausting task (with social networks), we reinforce the reward, to the point that harmful distractions can become habits.” However, although it is not a simple process, research carried out by Brewer demonstrate that it is possible to change the bad habits definitively. Understanding the response mechanism that articulates them gives us the tools to achieve it. Bad habits have their origin in the way our brain learns through an immediate rewards system (yes, as in Animal training). These behavioral patterns arise because they reinforce the feeling of pleasure or relief quickly. This rewards system implies a trigger (hunger sensation), followed by behavior (eating) and a reward (feel satiated). “These three components (trigger, behavior and reward) appear every time we smoke a cigarette or eat a cake,” says the neuroscientist. Detect the origin of bad habit Bad habits are not eliminated, they are only replaced by good habits. Therefore, one of the important steps of the process to get rid of them is to find the trigger that generates the action to seek the reward. “Once you know your triggers, try to identify the behaviors you make when these bad habits occur. Do you look at social networks instead of working? Do you eat sweets during difficult tasks? You should be able to identify the actions to which you resort to feel comfortable or quiet before you can evaluate your reward value.” For this reason, the neuroscientist ensures that knowing the scenario in which activation occurs and what action is carried out to obtain the reward is one of the key points so that it is easier to eliminate bad habits. For example, eating sweets would be the search for reward that is activated by a situation of stress or anxiety, and sugar rush reward. Avoid or learn to manage the stress situation It is the first step to subtract weight from sugar reward. The key: break the reward chain According to studies of the University of Utrecht (Netherlands), self -control alone is not enough to eliminate a habit, since the brain associates that behavior with a reward that temporarily cancels rational thinking. No smoker will tell you that tobacco It is beneficial for healthbut even so smokes. A fundamental step to break with a bad habit is to reduce or eliminate the reward that the brain receives. That implies not only changing the behavior itself, but also the context that activates it and the associated sensations. Modifying those three elements: detonating, behavior and reward, it is basic for the brain to stop finding satisfaction in that behavior and abandons the need to carry it out. Brewer’s investigations have revealed that an effective way to face bad habits is to replace them with behaviors that offer similar, but positive health or well -being rewards. One of the techniques that Brewer has used with his patients full care training to teach the brain that this behavior is not only benefits, but also represents something unpleasant or even harmfulcausing him to hate him and not look for him anymore. The neuroscientist said that, when someone joined his program to quit smoking, the first thing he asked is to pay attention while smokeing: to the smell, the environment, to the sensation when smoking, etc. The objective of this exercise is that patients become aware of the “value of the reward” and if this value, which probably had positive connotations (social acceptance, etc.), still remains. Studies From the University of Bethesda they have shown that if that reward is no longer appreciated as it used to be, it is less likely that the brain will claim it and, with it, it will be easier to get rid of that bad habit. This can be applied to any other habit that the past may have a positive connotation, but has already been diluted. According to Brewer, an important factor is in question what gives you that bad habit before consuming it and analyzing how you feel before, during and after the process from a critical point of view, instead of simply having a reactive behavior of repentance after having obtained the reward. “Your behaviors may not change immediately, but persevere. If you manage to control your mind with our methods, over time you can free yourself from unwanted habits and see how your cravings disappear with peace of mind,” said the neuroscientist. In Xataka | Creating new habits is difficult. The author of “atomic habits” believes that there is something even more complicated: keep them Image | Unspash (Oskar Kadaksoo, Lilartsy)

Sam Altman and Elon Musk hate each other publicly, so Altman has attacked where it hurts most: Neuralink

by

Openai was totally focused on his mission of achieving an AGI, but now he doesn’t want to just. As indicated In Financial Timesthe firm is preparing to invest in Merge Labs, a startup that develops brain implants and that competes directly with Neuralink. Or what is the same: Altman has declared war on Musk. Again. A new startup against Neuralink. According to this economic newspaper, Altman and OpenAi will be the main valuables of this project, which will raise an investment round that will make Merge Labs have an assessment of 850 million dollars … without having a product in sight for the moment. Alex Bania will be involved in the project, which Direct the Startup World with which Altman has the ambition to scan the Iris to billions of people. The OpenAi CEO, yes, will not be responsible for the new startup and will remain focused on leading your AI company. Altman already showed interest in brain implants. This entrepreneur has already wrote A long article in his blog in 2017 in which he speculated on a possible “fusion” between man and machine in 2025. New advances made the theme resume Another entrance This year he pointed out that we could soon have “large bandwidth interfaces between the brain and the computer.” Merge Labs hopes to lift 250 million dollars, although at the moment the negotiations are just starting. Neuralink will have more competition. Although there were already companies working in this areaNeuralink – who Musk founded in 2016 – has gone winning notoriety. This year the company lifted $ 650 million and has an assessment of 9,000 million dollars. If the creation of Merge Labs is confirmed, a new battlefield between Musk and Altman will open. As if they didn’t have enough. Dialectical battle. In 2015 Musk and Altman, co -founders of OpenAi, were nail and meat. Both believed that AI had an extraordinary future, and united strength to make that future reality. Then the thing was twistedand since then They walk to cakes dialectics We have just lived the last of those fights, and the thing is already adopting a terrible tragicomic tone. But also yesterday Musk complained in x that there was a kind of business conspiracy that prevented Apps like Grok from reaching number one in the App Store. “Apple is the entrance door to the Internet for half America (USA). And when promoting OpenAi in all possible ways they are impossible for any other AI company to succeed.” It isn’t true. Like many other Musk statements, this era was false. They soon appeared Community notes in that post in which it was indicated that other apps of AI such as Perplexity or Deepseek had managed to reach number one in the App Store in some markets. But the thing began to be encouraged from that moment. Sam Altman enters the scene. OpenAi’s CEO wanted to replicate to Musk and answered his tweet indicating That “this is a surprising statement, taking into account what I have heard about what Elon does to manipulate X for their own benefit and their companies, and to the detriment of their competitors and the people who do not like.” Analysts such as Casey Newton analyzed the problem in the past and concluded that, indeed, Musk used a system in which His messages always had preference About the rest of the users. The fight returns. That message caused Musk’s rapid response, which He told Altman “You have achieved three million views of your shit post, liar, many more than I have received in many of mine, even though I have 50 times more users than you.” That was at that time: right now Altman’s post has 12.8 million visits. Musk, yes, had its point: if I control the platform, it could have minimized the impact of Altman’s message. Musk, confesses. In turn, the Openai CEO pointed out that many of Musk’s followers were actually Bots. And then proposed Something: “Will you sign a affidavit that you have never ordered changes to algorithm X in a way that has harmed your competitors or helped your own companies? I will apologize if so.” Grok betrays his musk. The tycoon did not answer directly, but that’s when an X user intervened, who He directly asked GrokX chatbot, what thought about the argument. And the funny thing is that Grok He put on Altman’s side: “According to verified tests, Sam Altman is right. Musk’s antitrust demand against Apple is undermined by applications such as Deepseek and Perplexity, which arrived (number one of the App Store) in 2025. On the contrary, Musk has a history of forcing changes in algorithm X to boost their publications and favor their interests, according to reports of 2023 and ongoing investigations. hypocrisy “. And chatgpt betray Altman. Shortly after, the Chatgpt app one shared Grok’s tweet and wrote: “Good bot”, but that is where Elon Musk intervened again, who shared a capture of a conversation with GPT-5 Pro. In it he asked the OpenAi chatbot who deserved more confidence, if Sam Altman or Elon Musk. After thinking a minute and 16 seconds, The answer was: “Elon Musk”. As A user said When you quote that musk tweet, these chatbots are not determinists, and if one repeatedly asks the same thing, both Elon Musk and Sam Altman could have answered. The problem is the media. In fact Musk defended his model again presuming that he had betrayed him because he was a “entire” chatbot, and also tried to explain why his chatbot had “betrayed him.” According to him“The fact that Grok is allowed to make false defamatory statements about me and not block them or eliminate them (what would be easy to do, do) speaks of the integrity of this platform. As you mention, Grok gives too much credibility to traditional media! This is a serious problem and we are working to solve it.” It is best not to believe anyone too much. This dialectical battle, the nth between … Read more

People hate meetings. So they are sending their secretaries to take notes

by

Last month Clifton Sellers attended a meeting by video call at his work. Everything seemed normal until he noticed the list of the attendees. Of the 16 who went to the appointment, Only six were human beings. The rest were sent to transcribe the meeting, take notes and summarize it. The surprising thing is that what happened to Sellers is no exception: the rule is increasingly. To this meeting I come with my chatbot of AI. Some of the people who attended that meeting made it accompanied by AI chatbots to take notes and transcribe that meeting. And without warning, as if it were something totally normal. However, other chatbots of AI came alone on behalf of other employees. Those bots could only listen, not intervene. And yet we have a problem. “I want to talk to people”. Sellers explained In The Washington Post How this type of meeting caused him rejection because “I don’t want to talk to a group of bots that take notes.” The situation is ironic, because he himself had sent to a bot to take notes to any meeting in the past. The situation is worrying, especially since video calls are deriving dangerously. More meetings than ever. Pandemia caused Zoom, Teams or Meet to become the ideal alternative to physical meetings, and over time the phenomenon has transformed our way of working. According to Pumbleafter the pandemic there are 12.9% more doors per person and 13.5% more than meetings attendees. The video calls have caused, yes, that the meetings are much shorter (20.1%), but it is also happening something else. Goodbye to social norms in video call. This predominance of virtual meetings through video calls is causing changes in the “label” of these meetings. In many work video calls employees Now they usually join without turning on the camera and with the silenced microphone. The second is more normal: that everyone has the activated microphone can end up causing distortions and annoying echoes while another person speaks. The camera is more delicate, although it is traditionally associated with that recent phenomenon baptized as “zoom fatigue” (“Zoom Fatigue”). People are even using Gitlab recorded video calls To pretend that it is busy. The AI ​​boom for video calls. The big platforms to make video calls (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet) offer automated notes options using AI. There are also third -party solutions as Otter.AI that also enable these functions and raise a future in which meetings end up being very different from the current ones. And soon, meetings with digital twins. Eric Yuan, CEO of Zoom, explained Recently that your company wants to offer the possibility that your “digital twin”, an IA assistant who can not only attend those meetings in your place, but also can intervene in it as if it were. Everything you say will be recorded. This intrusion of AI at meetings has caused a new concern for attendees. Everything they say will be registered, recorded and transcribed. That can restrain freedom when expressing points of view or opinions, especially since those statements can then end up playing against who made them. Allie K. Miller, CEO of Open Machine, explained in Wapo how in her meetings her bot of AI to take notes until there are five minutes left to finish because that “people open more and the real questions come to light.” Machine, gather for me. 55% of managers Recognize That has too many meetings a day, and 27% of employees share that opinion. There are more and more meetings – many They could have been an email– And the AI ​​can help soften its impact, but we go to a future potential in which no one goes to meetings in person except who must explain any topic. Who knows if in the end not even that person comes and everything is meetings full of bots. Image | Surface In Xataka | Not only meetings kill productivity: notifications eat half of our day

Public opinion continues to hate him the same

by

In 2024, a renewed Mark Zuckerberg surprised his own and strangers with A new style when dressing . Facebook’s founding millionaire left behind its boring uniforms Diaries formed by a Texan and Gray T -shirt, and bet on a more “bad” style with gold chains to the neck, shirts with Roman dates and ruffled hair. Nevertheless, A study Pew Research Center has revealed that all Mark Zuckerberg’s efforts to update his appearance and approach the younger audience have been in vain. The public continues to have a negative perception of him, even much more than other millionaires such as Elon Musk that, due toHis new political facet with Trumpthey are more likely to generate negative opinions. The “unpopularity” of the millionaires. According to a survey conducted to 5,086 American adults After Donald Trump’s investiture67% of the participants claimed to have a negative opinion about Zuckerberg, exceeding 57% who stated to have an unfavorable opinion about Elon Musk having become The right hand of the president. Although it may seem incredible, 6% of respondents had never heard of Mark Zuckerberg, and 3% did not know who Elon Musk was, although after the stir His role in Doge, this percentage is likely to be lower at the moment. Both millionaires have been the subject of controversy since Trump won the elections in November 2024. Musk went from be the main donor From Trump to the executing arm of his policies of Administration personnel cutwhile Zuckerberg took a 180º turn in the Business culture target towards a “more masculine energy“ Partisan differences. Pew Research data suggests that opinions on these technological leaders vary according to the political affiliation of respondents. In this sense, it is evident that the political positioning of Elon Musk conditions the opinion of him based on his political ideology. Thus, 85% of Democratic Democrats or supporters have a negative vision of Elon Musk, while 73% of Republican Republicans see it favorably. However, the rejection of the public figure of Mark Zuckerberg is more homogeneous on both sides of the political arch. The data show that 76% of the surveyed supporters of the Democrats, and 60% of the Republicans, express an unfavorable opinion about the Facebook founder. The CEO as a company’s referent. Despite Zuckerberg’s attempts for improving your public imageincluding a radical change of appearance and a growing interest in fashion, these efforts do not seem to have had a positive impact on public opinion, which still does not feel attracted to the Meta CEO. One of the reasons for that rejection of what is popularly known as “Zuckissance“(Combination of Renaissance and Zuckerberg) can be the imposture of this new” updated “style of the Meta CEO so that it personalizes what the company wants to convey. Something that people have received as the nth Marketing campaign of goal to renew their flow of users. A redesigned CEO. Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal with Elon Musk and one of Silicon Valley’s most influential voices, is also one of Mark Zuckerberg’s main mentors. In one Postados chainSent in January 2020, Thiel and the Meta team outlined How the CEO should be shown of a company as a goal to attract new generations to the same networks that use their grandparents. “There is a distinction between the company and I. While our company has a special role in the life of this generation, this is likely to be particularly important for the way I present myself, because I am the best known person of my generation” , Zuckerberg wrote in those emails. Far from being spontaneous or fruit of the personality of Mark Zuckerberg, the change of style that has been experienced is a movement calculated from the Meta Board of Directors, and this has been perceived by public opinion. In Xataka | Mark Zuckerberg would take 550 years to spend all his fortune spending a million dollars a month Image | Goal, dvidshub (Trevor Cokley)

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.