# I really think there should be SR(State Records)



## Lotsofsloths (Apr 27, 2008)

I'm really starting to think that the WCA should start state/territory records.
As WR's and NR are getting more and more imposible to break, it just seemed like a good idea.
Any opinions?


----------



## shelley (Apr 27, 2008)

Are there state records for any other sport? It would only make sense for the US and maybe Canada anyway. What would this accomplish? World and national records aren't supposed to be easy to break.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 27, 2008)

Wrong direction. World records and personal records are natural and enough. Everything in between is arbitrary and artificial and ought to go.


----------



## Karthik (Apr 27, 2008)

You can't start having new catagories just because the existing records are difficult to break.
More over divisions based on state and up to some extent nationalities, not just in the context of cubing seem very irrelevent to me.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Apr 27, 2008)

well, how about this:
What if they ranked the averages(on the PB section on your WCA page) in your state/territory/province, then your world.
It gives a much better sense of competition.


----------



## joey (Apr 27, 2008)

It would be a ridiculous task to undertake.


----------



## watermelon (Apr 27, 2008)

I agree with Stefan. Just look at the African records for example, there are only a few people who have citizenship in African countries, yet they get to claim the honor of a continental record.

Also, as Shelley said, what about all of the countries that aren't divided into states/provinces? This would only make a difference in a few countries.


----------



## Doudou (Apr 27, 2008)

And we could also rank people with their First Name. 
For example, I would have both WRs in the category : 3x3 speedsolve with a First Name beginning with a E.


----------



## Dene (Apr 27, 2008)

Yea sorry Daniel, this is a bad idea. The idea of a record is that it is tough to beat. And as mentioned above, it would only be of use for America and Canada (and Australia, lol).


----------



## ExoCorsair (Apr 27, 2008)

You can have state records if you establish an American Cubing Association or something similar.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Apr 27, 2008)

Well, Maybe not official, but I think every state should have its own open every year, which only citizens of that state can participate in. But this would also have to include WCA delegates, and I highly doubt there is a WCA delegate from each state xD


----------



## Dene (Apr 27, 2008)

You seem to want to focus all cubing towards America, but you have to realise that other countries do it too. Also, hosting a competition is up to whoever wants to host it. If you're prepared to do a competition for every state every year (you'll get one every week!) then go ahead.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 27, 2008)

If you really want this you can just set up a page for your self and keep a list of the records. At speedcubing.dk (danish language site) we have a nordic and a scandinavian list of records. This is just for fun because we are very competetive. Denmark is of course the best country in scandinavia, only not at speedcubing I'm afraid


----------



## shelley (Apr 27, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Well, Maybe not official, but I think every state should have its own open every year, which only citizens of that state can participate in. But this would also have to include WCA delegates, and I highly doubt there is a WCA delegate from each state xD



I don't think delegates is the problem, as I doubt the WCA would want to concern itself with a bunch of state records from just one country anyway. Remember, the W in WCA stands for World. Besides, how do you know there would be sufficient interest to hold a competition in every state if it's limited to state residents? How many cubers (serious enough to want to go to a competition) do you expect there to be in Wyoming (just to name one sparsely populated state)?


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Apr 27, 2008)

Very true, I guess I hadn't FULLY thought all of this through xD


----------



## coopersacatfilms (Apr 27, 2008)

well it would make sense to have state records so you can see sho you are better than close by however I think it might be narrowing it down a little too much but I am for the state records you should e-mail them or something.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 27, 2008)

OK, what about people who are in college? What would their "resident" state be? Also, if the best person in the world lives in your state, you still won't have a record.

As for competition in every state, it would be nice if there was a central place where people could list their interest in a competition or if they want to organize and are hoping for a delegate.


----------



## Cerberus (Apr 27, 2008)

yeah great and for fairness do the same for other lands too, so I am hopefully #1 in Hamburg ^^
But for real, it's nonsense, you could make it unofficially and it would be fine for you but why should the WORLD Cubing Association (as shelley said before) care so much more for the usa than for other lands?


----------



## mrbiggs (Apr 28, 2008)

Another problem is that most states would probably have either very bad records, if there are few cubers from that state, or really hard-to-beat records, if there are a lot.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 28, 2008)

Well... I can see the records for Wyoming (there's like one cuber from there that I know of) vs California being rather different indeed. California is just that awesome 

The only argument I can see for separating the US into different provinces is size / number of competitors. The US is much bigger and has many more competitors than a lot of other countries; as of today 934 US citizens have competed, as opposed to a sum of 933 in the next FIVE countries. The US also has a significantly larger population and area than most (all?) European countries and has over 10 times as many competitors as the vast majority of countries out there. It's not that I agree with the idea that there should be state records, but it wouldn't necessarily be easy to get them than some of the existing country records.

Incidentally, if we do eventually end up considering state records, it would be useful to also divide similarly huge countries (China? Russia?) into provinces of some type, just so that the records are more proportional.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 28, 2008)

I guess if you were to divide the US, which I don't agree with, it would need to be by region, not state. You can have the West Coast and Middle/North East as two groups, and find some way to divide the rest of the country. From my experience, we generally get the same mid/north eastern group at the competitions over here, so it would work to make that it's own regional group.


----------



## Dene (Apr 28, 2008)

qqwref said:


> ...as of today 934 US citizens have competed, as opposed to a sum of 933 in the next FIVE countries.



How many of them were serious record contenders though? I don't believe many Americans hold any World Records even, so this statistic has no significance.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 28, 2008)

I suppose 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 BLD don't count?

The USA might not hold that many speed world records at the moment, but American competitors have set them very often in the past. I don't think it matters though: how many world records a country has is a completely useless statistic for evaluating how good cubers from that country are as a whole, because one person (Erik, Matyas) can set very many world records if he/she is good enough. Does that mean cubers in general from the Netherlands/Hungary/wherever are better than from other countries? No, not at all.

My point was that the US has many more competitors than any other country. Whether they be experienced or not doesn't really matter: the point I was making was that the number of people you have to compete against when you want to set a national record in the US is very high. Sure, setting a record is only as hard as whoever has the record before you, but if a country has five times as many people doing an event then someone who would have a very good chance to be first in another country might only be ranked 3rd or 4th. Also, setting a regional record varies in impressiveness by the number of people you're contending against. So it is not at all a useless statistic: if every region has about the same number of cubers, all of the regional records become approximately equal in importance; but if they are not then there will always be records which are harder to get, and more impressive, than others regardless of the particular cubers competing for them.


----------



## Dene (Apr 28, 2008)

I disagree. If there was a region with 100 million cubers, the fastest of which could only speedsolve in 1 minute, then there is nothing impressive about that (except for the fact that some region existed with 100 million people, all of which were cubers).


----------



## Karthik (Apr 28, 2008)

Dene said:


> I disagree. If there was a region with 100 million cubers, the fastest of which could only speedsolve in 1 minute, then there is nothing impressive about that (except for the fact that some region existed with 100 million people, all of which were cubers).


Dene, you missed the point.The probability of such a situation is very low.
If there are a higher number of cubers, then the probability of having good cubers among them is also higher.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 28, 2008)

karthikputhraya said:


> If there are a higher number of cubers, then the probability of having good cubers among them is also higher.


 
Wrong!

That is not how statistics work in real life. In real life a cluster of a few good cubers would exist no matter how high the number of cubers would be. This is because good cubers in your direct area are a high motivation to become even better. Who do you think would be faster
a) Erik/Joel/Ron after training together for a year
b) 200 schoolkids that all play with the cube during lunch hour?

(another factor in real life is training facilities. If you have just a couple of really good people you get media attention, money, better training facilities, more really good people)

The best example of this in the US seems to be Caltech. Not a very big population, but many really good cubers because they motivate each other.


----------



## Jai (Apr 28, 2008)

Jai said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > better training facilities
> ...


----------



## andrewvo1324 (Apr 28, 2008)

Imagine that lol, that be crazy. After school you pay money to goto this "FACILITY" sounds like were doing something bad lol..Should be called progam or something.

Mabey a Cubing sumer camp lol.




Jai said:


> Jai said:
> 
> 
> > AvGalen said:
> ...


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 28, 2008)

When I think about training facilities I would like:

* Really good light
* Different types of cubes (type A/B/C/25th/DIY-org/etc, Rubiks/EastSheen)
* Different types of lube
* A0 sheets with algs on the wall
* PC's with Acube / Cube Explorer
* Other (better) cubes to practise/race with
* (fake) Audience (to train against competition nerves)
* "tools" to make the heart beat faster (maybe more about this tonight)

benchpresses are only useful if you buy a new Rubiks 5x5x5 (older type)


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 28, 2008)

If you want your very own non-personal record, go get better at cubing to obtain one.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 28, 2008)

Ok, well I've skipped the last couple of posts, but in response to Dene's argument against qqwref:

First of all, you can't look at a hypothetical when the actual has been represented. If you look at the US, we have people in the top 5 of almost every event. For 5x5 we have 3 in the top 6, in BLD we have the top 2, 2 in OH, even 1 tied for 3rd in FMC! The US has a lot of people who are successful, so having a NR means that you are top 5 in the world, and if not top 5, automatically top 10. I don't know if that's due to the fact that we have so many people or not, but qq's argument is based off of this. The US just happens to have people, in every event, who are good. 


me $.02


PS.... sorry if it seems like I'm bragging about the US, I'm just using facts to back up my argument.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 28, 2008)

You are correct about the quality of US cubers Dan, but now make that same list for Hungarian, Dutch and French. All these countries have far less inhabitants compared to the US, yet there are awfully good cubers there and don't think it's just Mátyás, Erik and Edouard (Joël/Ron/Rama, Milan, Thibaut/Jean/Clément are just a couple of other names). Getting a national record in any of these countries is really tough (I still have FMC though )


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 28, 2008)

No, I agree that other countries have similar things, with a few cubers dominating in a bunch of events. I made the point somewhere else that except for matyas in frederick, the top 15 5x5ers come from 4 countries. Another one of our problems is that we seem to have "specialists." Either way, I don't think SR are even worth talking about


----------



## Karthik (Apr 28, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> The best example of this in the US seems to be Caltech. Not a very big population, but many really good cubers because they motivate each other.


But isn't that too small a sample space?
I feel that a country(not a very sparesly populated one) is a much more reasonable and evenly distributed sample space.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 28, 2008)

No, that sample space is exactly my point. Really good people often come in clusters that share something. Caltech is a good example of this because it shows that in a small confined community many good cubers exist (wild guess, don't pin me down on the exact numbers: 10 good cubers on a community of < 1000 students), while a much larger community (The state for example) probably doesn't have 10 more equally good cubers.

In case of the Dutch top-cubers (Ron/Joel/Erik/Rama) the community is not defined by a college, but by teacher/student relations starting with Ron (WCA co-founder). Ron taught Joel, Joel taught Erik, and Rama is Ton's "son" (Ron and Ton are really good friends). The teacher/student relation doesn't really exist anymore


----------



## Karthik (Apr 28, 2008)

Ha ha.Ok, now it does make some sense.


----------



## immortalcube (Apr 28, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> You can have state records if you establish an American Cubing Association or something similar.



That's what I was about to say...
If it's the *World* Cube Association, only world records, but an American Cube Association is a different matter entirely. There appears to be no such institution now, so feel free to trademark that name (ACA) before someone else does 

*Edit:* sorry, only saw the first page  , haven't been on a computer for *three days*, and I'm going into withdrawal, I think...


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 28, 2008)

This ridiculous. There aren't that many cubers for us to do that. Yeah, that would mean I have the record for quite a few provinces and states where I had lived. I'm pretty sure this way some people can get records for just learning how to cube at all. It already feels kinda cheap to have NR in pyraminx. (no one ever participated before.)


----------



## hdskull (Apr 29, 2008)

WCA now already marks your personal records in ORANGE isn't that not enough? haha.


----------



## Dene (Apr 29, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> First of all, you can't look at a hypothetical when the actual has been represented.



I'm just going to have to straight up disagree with this. Being trained in Philosophy I have learnt that if an argument can't stand up to any hypothetical situation (as unreasonable as that situation may be) then the argument needs to be re-evaluated. This, of course, makes things extremely difficult. Welcome to Philosophy!

Just my $43 quintillion.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2008)

Dene said:


> I'm just going to have to straight up disagree with this. Being trained in Philosophy I have learnt that if an argument can't stand up to any hypothetical situation (as unreasonable as that situation may be) then the argument needs to be re-evaluated. This, of course, makes things extremely difficult. Welcome to Philosophy!



I can't agree with you there. That only applies to generalized statements that are supposed to apply to all theoretical situations. For example if you say "all cats are white" and I show you a black cat, or imagine one without creating some kind of logical contradiction, you're proven wrong. But if you say "all cats in my house are white" and I imagine bringing a black cat into your house... well, no, you're not disproven at all. See this is not a problem in science or theoretical philosophy but in sociology. Only allowing arguments that take into account all theoretically possible scenarios would be foolish because the more improbable ones will not actually happen in real life or may even be contradictory (in which case you wouldn't have to consider it). For example your idea of some country with 10^8 cubers but nobody under a minute - I'd say this is effectively impossible since enough people are competitive that they would want to put in the effort to break the national record, and getting under a minute is not at all difficult. Of course perhaps you could choose some kind of set of people like "elderly people with finger/hand arthritis" or "blind people" or "people who refuse to touch a Rubik's cube with anything but their feet" but that is simply not how countries are made sociologically, even if it might be theoretically or mathematically possible to create a country designation for one of these groups.


By the way, I think the cubing community is still really a very small sample space. From Arnaud's argument we can clearly see there are groups of cubers who live close enough or are good enough friends to motivate each other to get faster. We saw this too with Matyas, Milan, and Mate all getting sub-2 master magic solves together. But a lot of these very fast people got in early and perhaps taught their friends early on too, and so I'd say most of these communities started when the community was smaller still. The thing is that there are not too many of these "minicommunities" of very fast friends in the world, so it's unbalanced because of small sample size. This means that when the top ranks are dominated by a particular country it's often because of these people encouraging each other. I think in a few more years we will see more of these minicommunities spring up, and maybe when there are a few hundred groups of fast people we may see the larger countries having more of them.

The US already has at least two separate communities, in fact. There are the east coast cubers and the west coast cubers, and, although they are entirely friendly and people from one group go to the other group's competitions every now and again, many competitions in the US are dominated by the group they are closer to, and people often feel more loyal to their coast than to the country as a whole. Isn't the situation of two neighboring European countries something like this?


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Apr 30, 2008)

Now that I have read these last 4 pages, I think we should possibly consider the following things:

Different Regional Records, not state records:
For the US this could possibly mean East Coast Records, West Coast, and the filling in between(Lol).

This way it is not only subjected to the US and other countries can also be divided into "regions".


----------



## TimMc (Apr 30, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> You can have state records if you establish an American Cubing Association or something similar.



Heh, you could have more subsidiary organisations for other countries under the parent WCA 

Australian Cubing Association FTW 

Tim.


----------



## Me (Apr 30, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> karthikputhraya said:
> 
> 
> > If there are a higher number of cubers, then the probability of having good cubers among them is also higher.
> ...



I think what he may be referring to is how larger high schools and colleges in the United States are in higher, more competitive divisions. If you have a pool of 500 people versus a pool of 2000 people there's most likely going to be a better athlete / cuber in the pool of 2000 simply because there are more people.


----------



## Crzyazn (Apr 30, 2008)

Talent distribution just doesn't seem fair when Tyson Mao, Leyan Lo, Shotaro Mackisumi etc. live in the same region (sorry, no offense to the excessively talented east coast cubers)


----------



## Dene (Apr 30, 2008)

qqwref said:


> That only applies to generalized statements that are supposed to apply to all theoretical situations.



I don't see why so? I could say "this cup is made of plastic." You could argue that it isn't really plastic, I only think it is because the Great Evil Deceiver makes me believe so. So then, you would use reasons to give the best proof possible for your belief that the cup is plastic, thus using the JTB account of knowledge.
I think we can agree that the statement "this cup is made of plastic" is a very specific situation. But using the argument "because I think it is" can't stand up to a hypothetical situation such as there being a Great Evil Deceiver.
From what I can see there is no requirement for a statement to be "generally applicable" as a necessity of it to be evaluated hypothetically.



qqwref said:


> See this is not a problem in science or theoretical philosophy but in sociology. Only allowing arguments that take into account all theoretically possible scenarios would be foolish because the more improbable ones will not actually happen in real life or may even be contradictory (in which case you wouldn't have to consider it).



All theoretical accounts aren't foolish, they are more knowledge, even if only theoretical. Without theory some great Philosophers would lose all the power from their arguments (for example, the amazing Descartes as indirectly referred to above).


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 30, 2008)

Crzyazn said:


> Talent distribution just doesn't seem fair when Tyson Mao, Leyan Lo, Shotaro Mackisumi etc. live in the same region (sorry, no offense to the excessively talented east coast cubers)



Actually, Tyson Mao is an east coast cuber

Rethinking it, I don't see the point of a regional record. If you compete a few times, you should know quite a few people in your region already, and you will know if you are the best in the area at a particular event


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Actually, Tyson Mao is an east coast cuber



And that's an example that illustrates why state/regional records are pretty meaningless. People move within the US pretty frequently. Tyson just moved last week and all of a sudden he's an east coast cuber, even though until then he had lived in California all his life. Leyan's originally from New Jersey. I could label myself a California cuber, or I could label myself a Texas cuber and instantly have a regional BLD record. And with many cubers being around the age where they either are in or will be going to college within a few years, a lot of state representations are kind of arbitrary.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > That only applies to generalized statements that are supposed to apply to all theoretical situations.
> ...



I don't see how this is relevant. It seems like you're bringing philosophical terms into play just to try to confuse me and to overcomplicate an argument that does not need to be that complicated. I do realize this is entirely standard practice in philosophy, but it's not the way to win an argument in real life. In a similar vein, I'm a math major, and I could easily bring probability and group theory into the debate, but I know it's pointless because it would not make my argument any better, just harder to understand on your end. Also, I don't think your last sentence (the conclusion?) follows from what you said before it.

My main problem with what you have said is that your hypothetical situation completely neglects the basic assumptions in statements. In philosophy you might want to prove everything down to the basic thought-quanta, and evaluate statements word for word, but in other fields there are a lot of assumptions that govern what hypothetical statements are worthy of consideration and what are not. For example if I say that the logical statement "p and q" implies the statement "p" you could still imagine some kind of hypothetical situation where logic works differently and this is not true, but my statement is still correct because propositional logic assumes its own axioms. The statement I made about larger countries tending to have more fast people might not be true in your hypothetical situation of a country made of a hundred million noobs, but that is not a valid hypothesis because it doesn't fit many easily-observable real-world observations, such as the fact that many people are competitive and the knowledge that solving a Rubik's Cube in under a minute does not take great amounts of skill even on a relatively stiff cube.



Dene said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > See this is not a problem in science or theoretical philosophy but in sociology. Only allowing arguments that take into account all theoretically possible scenarios would be foolish because the more improbable ones will not actually happen in real life or may even be contradictory (in which case you wouldn't have to consider it).
> ...



More knowledge doesn't help if it doesn't provide additional information, and it is especially useless if it dilutes the actual information. If you have a very easy algebra problem, say finding the root of the polynomial x-4, you will not be helped by considering all possible values for x to see which ones work, and you are going to be especially hindered if you go beyond the problem's assumption, that x is a complex scalar, and try to see if vectors, physical objects, or deities satisfy the polynomial. Philosophy is unlike other fields in that it has very few axioms, if any, but it's still important to realize that it is not the only field out there.



Now let's move away from the philosophy discussion, because it's pointless. (Dene, if you disagree, I will be glad to talk theoretical mathematics with you...) Ethan and Shelley raise the interesting point of which country Tyson belongs to. But that brings to mind Lucas Garron and Shotaro Makisumi. They have both competed extensively in the western US, but their WCA countries are not the US. Neither competitor goes to competitions in their country very often, but when they want to set a regional record they set it for their country, not the country they actually cube in. So if there was a more finely divided set of regional records there would be many people who compete in one region, but for another. Presumably in Tyson's case he'd be able to choose either the region he spent his first few cubing years in, or the region he currently lives in.

More interesting, I believe people have successfully changed their country in the past. Fridrich used to be in the Czech Republic but now counts as a USA cuber and is competing for an entirely different set of regional records. I don't know what the exact ruling would be, but if she had been much faster it might have been possible for her to simultaneously hold the 3x3 national record in two countries (the alternative being that moving to the USA would revoke her old Czech Republic NR). So maybe regional records will end up like that: if you move to another region and have citizenship there, you can choose to start competing for that region, or you could stay with the old.

Sure, regional records cause some new problems, and I'm not necessarily saying we should have more regions. But these problems have already had chances to arrive with the national record scheme, and maybe if we think about that more closely we can answer some of the problems we have with small-region records.


----------



## Dene (Apr 30, 2008)

Well i guess if I avoid the philosophical debate then there is nothing left to say. I think I already stated my opinion (perhaps first page?) that state records don't really make any sense. Even if there are more cubers in America, I see no reason for there to be any special attention based there.

Btw, I love mathematics. I'm not an expert, and have chosen to leave it for now (apart from statistics for psychology.... booooring), but I would be glad to talk theoretical maths with you. I'm sure I could learn a lot!


----------



## dChan (Apr 30, 2008)

We have national records, continental records, and world records? Isn't that enough? It is great to say that I am one of the top 100 one-handed cubers in the U.S. but it really doesn't change the fact that in the world I am number 185. I would prefer a great world ranking any day to a great state or national ranking. I mean, what is the point really? Is it just so you can say that you are the number 1 cuber in Alaska(out of 3)? Or the number 1 cuber on the West Coast?

Of course, I live in California so even if we did have State or West/East/Middle region records it would not affect me much because people like Leyan, Dan, Chris, Lucas, Shelley, Shotaro etc. live here so I might be a bit biased. Maybe if I saw that I had a chance at being number 1 in North Dakota I would be more than happy to have SR or region records.


----------



## rxdeath (May 1, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Wrong direction. World records and personal records are natural and enough. Everything in between is arbitrary and artificial and ought to go.



man...everytime you speak, it's like sense comes out. i wish you could share your secret with others. 


Dene its amazing how i can agree with you about the overall point, but still disagree with so much you said, every topic doesn't need to turn to a philosophical debate. while i appreciate descartes' evil genius argument, it hardly applies to this situation in practical terms, why does a topic on state records turn into a raking over the coals of 'i am, i exist'. i think you've been listening to the great evil deceiver too much yourself.


----------



## Dene (May 1, 2008)

rxdeath said:


> Dene its amazing how i can agree with you about the overall point, but still disagree with so much you said, every topic doesn't need to turn to a philosophical debate. while i appreciate descartes' evil genius argument, it hardly applies to this situation in practical terms, why does a topic on state records turn into a raking over the coals of 'i am, i exist'. i think you've been listening to the great evil deceiver too much yourself.



I believe it was Mr. Cohen that first brought Philosophy into the debate.


----------



## masterofthebass (May 2, 2008)

Dene, umm... I never talk about philosophy. I always use fact based arguments, as I find those the most persuasive.


----------



## Jack (May 2, 2008)

I don't think this would work very well in Canada, because I'm pretty sure every NR was done by an Ontario cuber.


----------



## Dene (May 2, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> Ok, well I've skipped the last couple of posts, but in response to Dene's argument against qqwref:
> 
> First of all, you can't look at a hypothetical when the actual has been represented.



As far as I'm concerned, that was the introduction to philosophy in this discussion. Maybe I read into it too much.


----------



## brunson (May 2, 2008)

I think we should have records by first letter of last name. So everyone with A names can compete for a record, etc.

Seriously, though, state records wouldn't buy me much until Dan Knights and PJK move somewhere else.


----------

