Harveysburg, Ohio, has a hidden treasure: The state’s first-ever school for free Black children. The Harveysburg Community Historical Society doesn’t want it hidden anymore
- LA Times
Houseplant, the cannabis and lifestyle brand from Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, is dramatically expanding into dispensaries around California this month.
- USA TODAY
The snake involved was an African bush viper. There is no known antivenom for their bites.
People who got blood clots after a Johnson & Johnson vaccine got them within two weeks of their COVID-19 shot
Of the 6.8 million people who've received a Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, six people subsequently developed CVST blood clots.
- Business Insider
"If anything can be faked, including videos, then everything can be denied," deepfake expert Nina Shick told Insider.
- The Daily Beast
Christopher Furlong - WPA Pool/Getty ImagesPrince Philip was often said to have vowed never to be in the same room as Sarah Ferguson, the ex-wife of his son Andrew, after photographs appeared in a newspaper in 1992 of Sarah topless and having her toes sucked by a lover in the South of France.Gyles Brandreth, Philip’s official biographer whose book The Final Portrait will be published later this month, has confirmed that long-standing rumor today in the second lengthy excerpt from his book.Even as a Corpse, Prince Philip Has to Take Second Place to the QueenPhilip, he said, declared “enough was enough” after the pictures appeared. He told Brandreth Fergie was “simply beyond the pale,” and resolved not to have anything more to do with her.At the time when the pictures were first published, Sarah was staying at the queen’s Scottish country estate of Balmoral. Philip put his resolution into immediate action, as Ferguson herself recalled to Brandreth, saying: “It was ridiculous. As soon as I came in through one door, he’d be falling over the corgis to get out of the other. It was very funny. Except, of course, it wasn’t.”Although the queen continued to receive Fergie even after her separation and subsequent divorce from Prince Andrew, Philip made it clear that he had no desire to ever see her again.Sarah plaintively told Brandreth: “Of course I want to see him. I am the mother of his granddaughters, after all.”Brandreth said when he raised this with Prince Philip, he just shrugged and said: “But the children come and stay,” adding, “I am not vindictive, but I don’t see the point.”He described Andrew and Sarah’s post-divorce arrangements which have seen them continue to share a home as “truly bizarre,” adding, “I don’t pretend to understand it.”Brandreth writes that Fergie and Philip held diametrically opposed views on “bottling up your feelings” which she believed was positively harmful.Brandreth writes that when her daughters were children she would tell them to stand in the middle of the extensive grounds of their home, Sunninghill Park, and scream.Brandreth wrote that Sarah then demonstrated, catching him by surprise as she let out a blood-curdling scream.He writes: “The prospect of encountering his former daughter-in-law screaming in the middle of Sunninghill Park could have been one of the reasons the Duke of Edinburgh decided to give her a wide berth after her separation from Prince Andrew. He regarded reticence as a virtue and self-control as a quality to be admired.”Philip did not sit down for the 2011 six-parter on the Oprah Winfrey Network Finding Sarah, in which Fergie wept on screen with a TV psychiatrist. He told Brandreth he was in favour of “self-awareness” but against “the endless introspection that seems to be so prevalent these days.” As reported on Monday, he regarded Harry and Meghan’s decision to do a similar interview as “madness.”Fergie, Brandreth reports, tried to repair relations with Philip but was constantly rebuffed.For Philip’s 80th birthday, she sent him “a handsome dinner service.” But even here, fate conspired against her, Brandreth writes: “It was supposed to have 12 settings, but it arrived with 13: the ‘sample’ had been included with the set. With Sarah, somehow, something always goes wrong.”Philip’s allegedly vow to never be in the same room as Fergie was broken only when they both attended the wedding of Prince Harry at Windsor Castle in May 2018.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
- The Daily Beast
ALEXEY NIKOLSKYAll-out cyberwarfare, nation-wide forced blackouts, and the targeted disruption of internet services—for one of the Kremlin’s top propagandists, all of those tactics are fair game in what she describes as a fated war-to-come against the U.S.“War [with the U.S.] is inevitable,” declared Margarita Simonyan, editor in chief of the state-funded Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik, who believes the conflict will break out when, not if, Vladimir Putin moves to seize more territory from Ukraine.As Russia’s military buildup on Ukraine’s doorstep mounts, Kremlin loyalists have been urging for even more overt aggression and bloodshed in the campaign to annex Ukraine’s Donbas region. The only thing standing in the way, they say, is U.S. support for their beleaguered neighbor.NATO issued a statement on Wednesday demanding an end to Russia’s troop movements on the border with the disputed territory of Donbas in eastern Ukraine. It is the largest buildup of Russian troops since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The U.S. underlined the statement this week by deploying two warships to the Black Sea.On Tuesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov threatened retaliation. “We warn the United States that it will be better for them to stay far away from Crimea and our Black Sea coast. It will be for their own good,” he said.The escalation was foreshadowed on state television’s Sunday Evening With Vladimir Soloviev over the weekend. Simonyan explained that it was time for Russia to gear up for a showdown against the U.S., and prophesized a kind of war driven by hacking, the forced disruption of internet access, the shutting down of power supplies, and an all-out offensive on U.S. infrastructure.“I do not believe that this will be a large-scale hot war, like World War II, and I do not believe that there will be a long Cold War. It will be a war of the third type: the cyberwar,” said Simonyan.She warned that—in this theoretical battle—the U.S. would plot to cut off the electricity of entire Russian cities. In turn, she speculated, Moscow would be able to force a blackout in Florida or New York’s Harlem at the flip of a switch.“In conventional war, we could defeat Ukraine in two days,” Simonyan said, “but it will be another kind of war. We’ll do it, and then [the U.S.] will respond by turning off power to [the Russian city] Voronezh,” she said.The top RT editor asserted that “[Russia] needs to be ready for this war, which is unavoidable, and of course it will start in Ukraine,” arguing that the Kremlin is “invincible where conventional war is concerned, but forget about conventional war... it will be a war of infrastructures, and here we have many vulnerabilities.”Her solution consists of Stalin-type measures to eliminate “vulnerabilities” in the run-up to another escalation, emphasizing the need for a hack-proof, government-controlled internet. “We still don’t have a sovereign internet, but God willing, we will,” she said.She wholeheartedly endorsed a suggestion from Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the ultranationalist leader of Russia’s Liberal Democratic Party, who argued that all of Russia’s opposition must be eliminated by May 1, 2021. With imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny on a hunger strike—and suffering from severe health ailments after being denied appropriate medical treatment—the Kremlin seems to be firmly set on that course.Simonyan argued that once Russia minimizes its vulnerabilities and renders Putin’s opposition powerless—which she argued could happen in a matter of months—the Kremlin will finally be ready to annex Ukraine’s eastern region.“I’ve been agitating and even demanding that we take Donbas. We need to patch up our vulnerabilities as fast as we can, and then we can do whatever we want,” she boldly proclaimed. The host, Vladimir Soloviev, wholeheartedly agreed: “We only lose if we do nothing.” He argued that by absorbing parts of Ukraine—or the entire country—Russia would be able to remove the zone of American influence further away from its borders.As one of the Kremlin’s most valued propagandists, Margarita Simonyan is notoriously close to the Russian president and has received multiple awards directly from Putin. After accepting one such award in 2019, Simonyan thanked Putin “for the most important reward in life… this honor to serve one’s Motherland.”Her “service” has involved RT and Sputnik-driven disinformation operations aimed at influencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which she often boasts about by pointing to the inclusion of her name in various U.S. intelligence reports.Russia’s recent cyberspace activities seem to serve as good practice for the “inevitable war” foreshadowed by Simonyan.Last year, six Russian intelligence officers were criminally charged by the U.S. for using the world’s most destructive malware to force blackouts in Ukraine and damage the critical infrastructure of multiple countries, which caused nearly $1 billion in losses. On Monday, hackers operating from Russia targeted France’s homeschooling platform.The Kremlin is prepared to intensify its offensive against the West, but fears of the retaliation that would follow. The idea of a bulletproof “sovereign internet”—completely under government control within Russian borders—is already on the books, with Moscow having introduced the idea as a preventative measure against retaliatory hacking attempts from other nations.Simonyan argued that Russia will surely be able to exploit the U.S.’s “catastrophic” educational standards, and referred to American military analysts and specialists as incompetent and stupid. She heartily laughed about news that more than 200,000 U.S. service members experienced hearing loss due to defective earplugs.“We can never come to any agreements with [Americans],” Simonyan said, arguing that instead, Russia can just as easily defeat the U.S. in a cyberspace war.She added, mockingly: “We don’t even need the nukes.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
- Business Insider
Veterans of color say video of police pepper-spraying a Black Army officer shows that not even a military uniform is protection from police violence
"Once you put on the uniform, it doesn't erase the fact that you are a Black person in America," a former Army combat medic told Insider.
- FOX News Videos
FOX News senior political analyst discusses the president's spending goals on 'Special Report'
- Raleigh News and Observer
The freshman center announced where he’s going on Instagram.
- Business Insider
Blood clots have been reported in a small minority of people after receiving COVID-19 vaccines by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.
- Business Insider
"The president abused the loyalty and the trust that voters placed in him by perpetuating this noise," Boehner said of Trump's false election claims.
- The Telegraph
As Prince Harry boarded a plane from Los Angeles to London, we can only imagine the inner turmoil he must have felt as he prepared for the long and lonely journey home. His adored grandfather had died at a time of unprecedented familial discord, with the Royal Family still reeling from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s corrosive, finger-pointing Oprah Winfrey interview. Prince Philip’s death may have prompted an outpouring of national gratitude and affection, but the question now is whether it can cement the deep fissures within the House of Windsor itself. How will Harry be welcomed by Princes William and Charles, after accusing his family of racism? Not to mention following reports, via Gayle King, a US news anchor and friend of Meghan, that private telephone calls between the California-based prince and his father and brother had been “unproductive” - disclosures said to have gone down badly at the Palace. That Harry had not seen his grandfather for more than a year, after he whisked his wife and son, Archie, to the other side of the world to escape being “trapped” by the monarchy, can only add to the Duke of Sussex’s inevitable feelings of wretchedness and grief. His sense of isolation will likely have been compounded by the fact that Meghan, heavily pregnant with their second child, hasn’t been able to accompany him. The echoes of history here are uncanny as, nearly 70 years ago, a similar scenario played out. Another once-beloved member of the Royal Family had to leave his American wife behind in the United States to make the solitary journey home for a royal funeral, where he had to face his frosty relations, saddened that he had quit monarchical life. In 1952, when King George VI died, his brother Edward, the Duke of Windsor - exiled to France after the abdication - was staying in New York with his wife, Wallis Simpson.
- Miami Herald
Dr Seuss books have made headlines lately, but not for this reason.
Hailey Bieber shared her experience with 'invasive and disrespectful' paparazzi in a video with Dixie D'Amelio
Hailey Bieber appeared on Dixie D'Amelio's YouTube talk show where they spoke about some of their most invasive paparazzi experiences.
- Business Insider
Smartmatic says Fox News shouldn't have journalism protections in defamation lawsuit over election conspiracy theories
Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit goes after Fox News over conspiracy theories that it rigged the 2020 election against Donald Trump.
- The Independent
‘Unlike anything we’ve seen in modern history’: Attacks against journalists soar during Black Lives Matter protests
Arrests of US journalists halfway through 2020 outnumber number of jailed reporters in China in 2019
- The Daily Beast
Joe Raedle/GettyWill the American war in Afghanistan ever end?The sad truth of the matter is this 20-year conflict, which has cost the United States over $1 trillion and 2,400 lives, to say nothing of the havoc and suffering it has wreaked on the people of Afghanistan, is no longer of interest to most Americans. Nonetheless, getting out is a pressing objective of American foreign policy today. Joe Biden’s two predecessors promised to do it but were unable to do so.Biden, surely, will not fail. He faces too many serious national security challenges to waste much more time and resources on a war that has been widely recognized as an unwinnable war by military experts and much of the Washington foreign policy establishment for close to a decade. Besides, he has personally been an advocate for withdrawing American forces from the war for many, many years.But as the president has already hinted several times, he will not be withdrawing America’s garrison of 3,500 troops by the May 1 deadline specified by the February 2020 agreement between the Trump administration and the Taliban. He has sound reasons for leaving U.S. forces in place for a year or so, and perhaps a bit longer.Prominent among them is that the Trump agreement was a strategic blunder of the first order, promising as it did to remove the main obstacle in the way of a dramatic Taliban military victory in exchange for vague promises to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from operating in territory it controls, halting attacks on American and NATO forces, and agreeing to enter into peace negotiations with the government of President Ashraf Ghani. In a typically self-aggrandizing move, Trump gave away the store in the hopes that he would go down in history as the man who pulled the United States out of its longest war.A second reason concerns the most likely short term result of a rapid U.S. withdrawal. It would set off a major panic in Kabul, and leave the door wide open for the Taliban to abandon altogether its stalled talks with the current government, which the Biden administration is vigorously attempting to re-energize with a new plan of its own, and attempt to win on the battlefield what it cannot at the negotiating table with the government and with other regional powers: unfettered dominion over the entire the country.Biden About to Make Huge, Last-Second Gamble on AfghanistanGiven the parlous state of the Kabul government and its beleaguered forces’ dependence on American air power to fend off insurgent attacks, such a victory is essentially a foregone conclusion. According to Carter Malkasian, an American military historian who served for several years as a State Department adviser to the government in Kabul and has written extensively about the war there, “there is no doubt that [ a U.S.] withdrawal would spell the end of the Afghan government that the United States has supported for nineteen years.”One would be hard pressed to find a reputable military analyst to disagree.Last fall, the Taliban launched a major offensive against government forces around two key cities, Kunduz in the north, and Kandahar, the economic hub of southern Afghanistan, and the spiritual home of the Taliban. The insurgents are now on the verge of overwhelming the defenders in the cities proper. The Taliban and their allies have also driven off beleaguered government forces from their outposts in the rural areas of the country, and cut major roads leading to the capital, Kabul. Today, they control more real estate in the country than any other time since before the October 2001 American invasion. As Antonio Giustozzi, a leading Taliban expert, told The New York Times recently, “Clearly things have gone in the wrong direction. Things have worsened under [Afghan president Ashraf] Ghani. The trend is in the Taliban’s favor.”Meanwhile, the government in Kabul remains drenched in corruption, dysfunction, and in-fighting. It is largely unresponsive to the needs of its people, and widely seen among Afghanis as hopelessly ineffective. Even with billions of dollars in American military and economic support, it cannot provide Afghans with the most basic asset required of any government: security.Biden faces an unenviable problem, for which there is no truly good solution: how and when to extricate the U.S. military once and for all from a war that was widely recognized as unwinnable as long as a decade ago but is now on the precipice of being definitively lost on the battlefield.Pundits and scholars have been comparing the war in Afghanistan to Vietnam for well over a decade, but the comparison has never seemed more grimly apt than today, or more useful in illuminating the moral and political conundrums the Biden administration confronts as it tries to bring an end to American military involvement in Afghanistan with as little damage to American dignity and prestige as possible.Both Vietnam and Afghanistan have always been “graveyards of empires,” says the renowned diplomatic historian George Herring. Both peoples have been “fiercely resistant to the will of even the most powerful outsider.” And both wars were offshoots of larger global conflicts. Vietnam was a part of the Cold War, while the conflict in Afghanistan has been a part of the Global War on Terror.Both conflicts were counterinsurgency wars, in which the United States committed itself to establishing an independent, pro-democratic government as a bulwark against the repellant ideology of the insurgents.The adversaries the United States aimed to defeat in Vietnam and Afghanistan were much better organized and more effective in battle than the forces of America’s local allies. The communists in Vietnam pursued a protracted war policy, in which they suffered hundreds of tactical defeats on the battlefield as they waited for the people of the United States to grow weary of the fighting and the dying, and for the relationship between Saigon and the Washington to grow more and more acrimonious and dysfunctional.The strategy worked brilliantly.The Taliban and its allies have pursued a similar strategy of waiting the United States out, secure in the knowledge that once American forces are out of the country, it will be able to overwhelm a weak and fractious administration in Kabul, with or without the encumbrance of peace talks.In neither war did American policymakers possess even a basic understanding of the society and political culture they were trying to transform. As a result, senior political and military decision-makers in each conflict made a series of strategic blunders, and then compounded their mistakes by lying to the American people, Congress, and to some extent, themselves about the extent of progress being made on the ground.The “peace agreement” of January 1973 forged by Nixon and Kissinger led to the withdrawal of all remaining American combat forces from Vietnam within a couple of months and established a ceasefire between the Vietnamese combatants. Nixon proclaimed the agreement brought “peace with honor” to the United States. This was largely rhetoric, designed to obscure rather than illuminate what was really going on. The Vietnam peace agreement, it is widely agreed, brought neither peace nor honor. It was little more than a well-choreographed piece of diplomatic fiction to ensure a “decent interval” of time between the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and the fall of South Vietnam—a result that Nixon, Kissinger, and most seasoned observers took as a given by 1972, on the exceptionally sound theory that if South Vietnam couldn’t win with 500,000 American troops, it had no chance whatsoever to survive without them.Within hours of the 1973 ceasefire, heavy combat erupted between communist and South Vietnamese forces, and continued at greater and lesser levels of intensity until South Vietnam was conquered in a dramatic spring 1975 offensive by 20-plus divisions of the North Vietnamese army.Thus, the peace agreement ending the American war in Vietnam turned out to be the jump off point for the final phase of the communists’ 30-year struggle to unify all of Vietnam under their rule.Biden finds himself in the unenviable position of Nixon in 1972, in eerily similar strategic circumstances. Thanks to the grim situation that obtains on the ground in Afghanistan, and to America’s need to put the Afghanistan War behind it and get on with other pressing projects, he has little choice but to try to create a similar interval between the withdrawal of American combat troops and the collapse of the corrupt and dysfunctional regime the United States created way back in the early 2000s.No one knows the course of the (currently stalled) Afghanistan peace talks will take, but anyone who thinks there is much of a chance that they will lead to a lasting peace with real power sharing between the adversaries hasn’t been reading much about the war in Afghanistan, or the core belief system of the Taliban. In fact, from the perspective of either the Taliban or the government, the recently leaked Biden peace plan does not look very promising, even as a starting point.The eight-page, double-spaced document contains several provisions that are sure nonstarters for one party or the other, and sidesteps many issues of contention entirely. Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan president, steadfastly refuses to have his administration replaced by a completely new team of interim government officials—which is the foundational concept of the plan—and the Taliban are hardly going to swallow the call for retaining basic principles and institutions of democratic government, since their medieval vision of Afghan society holds democracy to be both foreign and against the will of God. This is not so much a criticism of the Biden plan as it is a statement about the worldviews and histories of the adversaries in Afghanistan.And so Joe Biden appears to have no other viable choice than to try to create, through diplomacy, a respectable interval between an American withdrawal and the current government’s demise, under the guise of pursuing a peace process that the vast majority of experts on both the war and the region believe to have less than a whisper of a chance of succeeding in any meaningful sense.Withdrawing from a lost war is never fun, but someone has to do it. Stephen Walt, a leading U.S. foreign policy scholar at Harvard, puts it well in a recent essay in Foreign Policy: “We can palaver about peace terms and residual forces... as long as we want, but the cold, hard reality is that the United States has lost the war in Afghanistan. All we are debating—whether in talks with the Taliban or in op-ed pages back home—is the size and shape of the fig leaf designed to conceal a major strategic failure in which thousands of lives have been lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
BRUSSELS/MOSCOW (Reuters) -The United States called on Russia to halt a military build-up on Ukraine's border on Tuesday as Moscow, in words recalling the Cold War, said its "adversary" should keep U.S. warships well away from annexed Crimea. Moscow seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and fighting has escalated in recent weeks in eastern Ukraine, where government forces have battled Russian-backed separatists in a seven-year conflict that Kyiv says has killed 14,000 people.
Hideki Matsuyama took home $2.1 million after becoming the first Japanese player to win the Masters, and that is just the beginning.
- The Daily Beast
Duncan McGlynn/Getty ImagesThe shamelessness of Britain’s Prince Andrew really does take some beating.He has suggested that a photograph of him with his arm around a teenage sex trafficking victim was faked because he has “chubby fingers.” He said that same woman’s description of him pouring with sweat at a nightclub must be a lie because he cannot sweat (he can). He ascribed his week-long 2010 visit to Jeffrey Epstein to his extreme sense of honor. Don’t even mention his love of pizza.Prince Andrew Says Prince Philip’s Death Has Left ‘Huge Void’ in Queen’s LifeIncredibly, Andrew now appears to be using his father’s death to crawl out from under the rock of royal exile to which his brother Charles, who has long struggled with him, banished him after the disastrous November 2019 Newsnight interview in which those, and many other questionable claims, including the cynical lie that he would co-operate with law enforcement inquiries into Epstein’s crimes, were made.Coming out of church on Sunday morning, just 48 hours after the death of his father, whose greatest disdain was reserved for royals embarrassing the family, Andrew made a beeline for the camera and started giving what appeared to be an off-the-cuff interview to a news camera about how the entire royal family was “all feeling a great sense of loss.”Andrew has clearly missed his media appearances. On and on he went. How grateful he was for the tributes paid to his father. How “calm” his father was as a man. He was also careful to suggest his father’s death had helped connect him to the proletariat, saying it “brought it home to me not just our loss but actually the loss that everybody else has felt, for so many people who have died and lost loved ones during the pandemic.”It was shockingly unshocking to see Andrew, not a drop of perspiration on him despite having gained a few extra pounds, bad British teeth and all, standing there in his black suit, acting like nothing had happened, freelancing away for the cameras.Maybe we had all just imagined the past year and a half, especially the bit where Prince Charles, now more than ever the acting head of the royal family, had stripped him of all his royal patronages, kicked him out of his office in Buckingham Palace, and removed his obscene $300,000 a year grant from the British taxpayer.It was, at first, all rather inoffensive waffle that was emanating from Andrew’s mouth. It might not have even made the evening news. But if there is one thing that is guaranteed to galvanize the British public, it is insight into that most mysterious of things: how the queen is actually feeling, up close and in private.Asked about the effect of Philip’s death on Her Majesty, Andrew, stunningly, decided to go there: “She described it as having left a huge void in her life,” he said, adding that she had described her husband’s passing as a “miracle.”His words were plastered over news websites and TV stations within moments.Given that Andrew was filmed outside the private Royal Chapel of All Saints in Windsor Castle, which he had attended along with other members of the royal family including his younger brother, Prince Edward (who spoke more traditionally to reporters outside the chapel saying that his father’s death was a “dreadful shock”) there was at first an assumption that Andrew had been given permission to speak to the media. Had Charles had a change of heart? It seemed incredible, but was Andrew back on his way inside the charmed circle, entitled to free food and air miles once again?On Monday, however, leaks began trickling out suggesting that that assumption was far from an accurate characterization.Dan Wooton, the journalist who broke the news that Harry and Meghan were leaving the U.K., reported in the Daily Mail that sources had told him: “Prince Andrew might hope that this sad situation changes things, but Prince Charles is adamant there is no way back while allegations hang over him. He spoke on camera in a private capacity because this is a family event. No one can stop him doing that.”Neither the palace nor an advisory firm retained by Prince Andrew responded to inquiries from The Daily Beast.Andrew’s fantasy of a comeback has been oft-reported over the past two years. And he is still at it, with a source described as “close to Prince Andrew” telling Wooton, “He still harbors thoughts that he can make a comeback. He genuinely thinks that’s possible.”If Andrew needs any further reminder that he is no longer welcome in public life or in British sitting rooms, and that his father’s death changes nothing, he may want to consider this statistic: Almost 400 people have already written to the BBC to complain about Andrew featuring on the corporation’s coverage.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.