From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2023-12-17 16:13, Wally J wrote:

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

Why do iKooks repeatedly call people an "it"?

Not people - just loser trolls like you. And it works. Look how
triggered you are. Precious!

Hi Jolly Roger,
I study you just like Dunning & Kruger studied that rather peculiar
lemon-juice covered bank robber.

You interest me.
Hence, I read _everything_ that you write on these newsgroups, JR.

Having gone to the best schools in this country and subsequently having
worked in high-tech startups in the Silicon Valley, I've never met in the
flesh people like these strange iKooks are - only here - on Apple ngs.

These strange people only exist on the child-like Apple newsgroups for the >> most part, as almost nobody on the adult operating system newsgroups would >> send users on a futile wild-goose chase just because they asked a question >> of an Apple product that Apple doesn't want that product to be able to do. >>
There are _many_ (many!) examples of this interaction; here's just one:
*Why are iKooks sadistically sending innocent users on wild-goose chases?* >> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/ynh0PE9lK_I/>

What normal person does that?
None, right?

So there's something rather strangely different about these Apple posters. >> {JollyRoger,YourName,Haemactylus,nospam,AlanBrowne,AlanBaker,Snit, et al.} >>
They've lied for years about Apple support (or they were ignorant of
everything that they claimed - you can choose which one but not both).
*Proof the iKooks have lied for years - or - more to the point - have
been IGNORANT for years*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/ZE8GboBUO3c/>

They constantly lie to cover up what Apple does, to claim it didn't happen. >> *Why do the low IQ iKooks like nospam always lie to cover up Apple's faults?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/AiMYbSmplkw/>

What normal person does that?
None, right?

Only a small set of posters to the Apple newsgroups does that.
Why?

You REALLY need to get laid, Arlen.

Seriously... ...get out of your basement and meet a girl...

...or a guy if that's your thing.

He could be furry or otherkin. Or into gadgetry.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote

Why do iKooks repeatedly call people an "it"?

*What kind of rather strange ?adult? repeatedly does such a thing?*

Is it what religious fanatics do?

Why?

Because those nuts consider themselves an it. So they think everybody
else is to. Very strange specimens indeed.

Well, I'm not sure, as what I'm sure about is all these strange people are far to the left of the first quartile delineation in Dunning-Kruger graphs.

The most weaponized concept in psychology abused by a basement dwelling
Morlock who uses tools but doesn’t understand them. Ironic really. Maslow’s law of the instrument in the flesh where Arlen lashes out with what turns
out to be a wet noodle (D-K effect not what it’s cracked up to be):

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=numeracy

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180/full

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/

Hence, they have no adult response to facts that they simply don't like.

A. When they're confronted with a fact they don't like...
B. They just want that fact to go away.

However, the fact doesn't go away.
a. Facts are the most dangerous enemy of an imaginary belief system.
b. Which is why these people are desperate to make all facts disappear.

The only way they can make facts disappear... is to make the messenger disappear, which is why in the past nospam asked for me to be killed.

Likewise, their fear of facts is why Jolly Roger said he would be happy if
I died - because then he wouldn't have to deal with facts about Apple.

The problem for them is that whether or not I exist, the facts will.
They don't understand that simple concept.

So they try to make me go away.
By calling me a "loser" (Jolly Roger), "gay" (Alan Baker) & "it" Alan
Browne (as if that child-like insult is their only response to facts).

This question really should be something akin to "Why do are these people
so deathly afraid of facts that they resort to kindergarten style insults
to make the bearer of facts go away?".

*What kind of rather oddly clearly rather strange person does that?*

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote

They didn´t study that bank robber. That incident was used as an anecdote. >> From their Methods: “Participants were 65 Cornell University undergraduates
from a variety of courses in psychology who earned extra credit for their
participation” which translates to WEIRD kids.

No surprise you can´t distinguish an illustrative anecdote from actual
research, which has been challenged as being nothing more than a
statistical exercise in seeing shapes in clouds.

You´re not “studying” anything. You are again masturbating in public (as
seen below):

I know exactly what they studied, Hemidactylus.

Then why did you assume they actually studied McArthur Wheeler?

Here's a question for you which shows that you don't.

What's to the left of the first quartile line on English proficiency?

GIGO.

What's to the right of the last D-K test result quartile, Hemidactylus?

More GIGO.

I’m not playing your silly gotcha game with poorly put questions, Morlock.
If the D-K effect evaporates into artifact there’s nothing but shapes in clouds. The graphs mean nothing. That you are still clinging to D-K shows
you haven’t gotten the memo.


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote

I posted multiple links showing the whole concept of D-K itself is flawed
and instead of acknowledging that you march out some trivial graphs and
still cling to the concept. This shows you are an uncritical ideologue. No >> surprise there. Itขs like me saying phrenology is flawed and pointing to >> some expert debunkings and you asking me to examine a bump on your head
because head bumps are fundamental to understanding your idee fixe of
iKooks.

You don't even _understand_ the D-K papers, Hemidactylus.
And you claim they're flawed?

What kind of strange person does that?
You iKooks do.

But normal people don't do that.
Again. You need to read the seminal D-K papers, Hemidactylus.

I have. And where do you think I got the quote: “Participants were 65
Cornell University undergraduates from a variety of courses in psychology
who earned extra credit for their participation” and realized the lemon
juice guy was used merely as an illustrative anecdote. McArthur Wheeler wasn’t a part of the study as you claimed since he wasn’t one of the Cornell undergrads. I called you on this ignorant comment “Dunning & Kruger studied that rather peculiar lemon-juice covered bank robber” and you
lashed out at me.

I also read this, which you as a propagandist will continue to ignore: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/persistent-irony-dunning-kruger-effect

[quote]“The persistent popularity of the DKE meme may say more about our psychological foibles than the DKE itself does. Excessive self-confidence
is more noticeable (and objectionable) than excessive modesty, so it may
appear to require a special explanation. Our pattern-seeking minds find it easier to embrace a causal explanation with a satisfying human story
(‘stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid’) than an impersonal statistical force (regression-to-the mean). The causal story is then
protected by a confirmation bias, whereby we count supporting examples in
its favour, whilst explaining away the counter-examples. If we see an
expert wracked by self-doubt, we may attribute this to a different
phenomenon (‘imposter syndrome’), failing to notice that this contradicts the idea that competence begets self-knowledge.

There is a self-satisfied air of superiority when the DKE is ‘weaponised’ as a way to dismiss the views of others, or to impugn their intelligence. Calling someone out as a victim of the DKE seems watertight, because any denials can be taken to confirm the lack of awareness that the insult
implies. But the irony is that to namecheck the DKE in this way shows a
lack of awareness of the evidence, so any air of superiority is only an illusion.”[end quote]

Let that sink in Arlen. You are a poster boy for namechecking and
weaponizing the DKE. You only illustrate your own ignorance of which you
are ironically very unaware. Why did you not now the DKE had been found
wanting by so many independent researchers? Because you are an empty propagandist.

HINT: Every single person with any skill is on those Dunning-Kruger graphs.

Note that if you don't even know _that_, then you know nothing about D-K. Which is my point.

You iKooks are so incredibly stupid that you "think" you know everything.
And yet... you know absolutely nothing.

a. Jolly Roger knows nothing about how Apple updates releases.
(but that doesn't stop him from claiming Apple fully updates all)
b. Alan Browne knows nothing about the walled garden.
(but that doesn't stop him from claiming it simply doesn't exist)
c. Alan Baker knows nothing about just about everything.
(but that doesn't stop him from calling absolutely all facts a lie)
etc.

What's no longer shocking about you iKooks, Hemidactylus, is that you are
so very confident that you think you know something - and yet - you know absolutely nothing.

It's so easy to prove you iKooks know absolutely nothing, Hemidactylus.

Look at this example where Alan Baker claimed header lines can't be changed
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>

Who is _that_ stupid?
Nobody right?

But you iKooks are.
Alan Baker knows nothing about headers, yet he still confidently claims
(over and over again) that they can't be spoofed. Who is that stupid?

You are the same as Alan Baker, Hemidactylus.

You know nothing about D-K - and that's clearly shown many times over.
And yet, you feel so very confident to claim it's flawed?

What kind of strange person does that, Hemidactylus?

Examples:

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=numeracy

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=numeracy

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180/full

https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2020-gignac.pdf

And yet you shoot the messenger.





--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote

Again. You need to read the seminal D-K papers, Hemidactylus.

I have.

With all due respect, you have not.
That is clear from everything you claimed about it.

You don't know the first thing about what the seminal D-K papers said.

Just as...
a. nospam constantly fabricates imaginary functionality
b. But when asked to point out the app he claims exists...
c. He never can do something as simple as *name just one*

All you iKooks are the same, Hemidaqctylus.
As it's obvious you _never_ read the seminal Dunning-Kruger papers.

You iKooks are perfect examples of those to the left of the first quartile.

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities
in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest
that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who
are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only
do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate
choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive
ability to realize it. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."

If you accept, Hemidactylus, that I have higher degrees, you have to understand how frustrating it is to try to converse with you iKooks.

From Cracker Jack U? You surely know how to pile high and deeper, I’ll give you that.

There's absolutely nothing even slightly complex you iKooks can comprehend. Nothing.

That's frustrating, because EVERYTHING you say, is always dead wrong.
Which, let's face is - is the epitome of the iKook's belief system.

And where do you think I got the quote: "Participants were 65
Cornell University undergraduates from a variety of courses in psychology
who earned extra credit for their participation" and realized the lemon
juice guy was used merely as an illustrative anecdote.

You are an idiot, Hemidactylus. An utter unfathomably ignorant idiot.
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/>

Read the abstract, you idiot.
*Do you see "grammar" in that abstract, you idiot.*

My point isn't to call you an idiot, Hemidactylus; it's to show the world that EVERYTHING the iKooks say is out of their own sheer & utter ignorance.

You "think" you can dig up a quote and then that quote you think you understood well enough to dispute what I said, based on the facts.

This conversation is PERFECT for showing EXACTLY what the iKooks are.

McArthur Wheeler
wasn't a part of the study as you claimed since he wasn't one of the
Cornell undergrads. I called you on this ignorant comment "Dunning & Kruger >> studied that rather peculiar lemon-juice covered bank robber" and you
lashed out at me.

The seminal papers by Dunning & Kruger were about cognitive bias in
assessing one's own skills, Hemidactylus. You iKooks are in the low end.

So you will not admit your silly error about whether they actually studied
the lemon juice guy as you asserted. You are covering for your juvenile embarrassment.

The problem is you iKooks are hampered by
a. No education whatsoever
b. No ability to comprehend anything
c. No desire to understand anything either

All you iKooks ever do is guess.

a. Alan Browne guessed there's no walled garden
(because _he_ was ignorant that it exists)
b. JollY Roger guessed Apple fully patches older releases
(because _he_ was ignorant that they don't)
c. Alan Baker guessed how to race vehicles
(because _he_ is ignorant of the first things in racing)
etc.

All you iKooks always just guess because you do not own the mental capacity to comprehend something as simple as the Dunning Kruger seminal papers.

Unlike you I don’t interpret these papers as Holy Gospel. I am skeptical
and in Popperian fashion think sacred cows need to stand up to rigid
treatment. So I have gone much further than you in my intellectual
development and seen the emperor may not have clothes. The DK effect
appears as an artifact. We are pattern seeking creatures. No doubt you are gullible enough to see a face on Mars.

I also read this, which you as a propagandist will continue to ignore:
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/persistent-irony-dunning-kruger-effect

Look Hemidactylus. I have higher degrees. You do not. Mine are in tough subjects. You could barely pass high school algebra.

Basket weaving is tough. Especially underwater. Congrats on that.

I understand that science isn't always black and white, Hemidactylus.
You do not.

Hell, you don't even understand your own cite above for God's sake.
That's why it's no longer shocking how incredibly wrong you iKooks are.

Nor is it shocking that you're entire argument starts with Donald Trump.
Mine don't.

Here are mine:
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/>
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992690/>

Do you even read your cites? This one says:
“Our explanation of the DK effect is based on the fact that the data are bounded. This feature of the data has not received much attention, with the exception of Burson et al. (2006), who concluded that the boundary
restriction “is an important concern that should be addressed in future research;” and Krajc and Ortmann (2008), who noted that students in the bottom quartile can only make optimistic errors placing themselves into a higher quartile, while students in the top quartile can only make
pessimistic errors placing themselves in a lower quartile.

The remark by Krajc and Ortmann provides the essence of our story. Consider
a brilliant student who typically scores 95 or 99 points out of 100.
Because of the bound at 100, there is not much room to predict higher than
her ability but there is plenty of room to predict lower, so she would typically predict 85 or 90, thus underestimating her score. The same
happens at the bottom end of the scale, where there is a bound of 0 and a student would typically overestimate. This simple observation is the basis
of our model.”

And: “In this article, we have attempted to provide an explanation of the
DK effect which does not require any psychological explanation. By
specifying a simple statistical model which explicitly takes the (random) boundary constraints into account, we achieve a near-perfect fit, thus demonstrating that the DK effect is a statistical artifact. In other words: there is an effect, but it does not reflect human nature.”

The abstract says: “An explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect is provided which does not require any psychological explanation, because it is derived
as a statistical artifact. This is achieved by specifying a simple
statistical model which explicitly takes the (random) boundary constraints
into account. The model fits the data almost perfectly.”

Again: “does not require any psychological explanation”

If you weren’t so intellectually dishonest you would stop for more than a brief moment and reflect on this. You can’t because your arrogance prevents it.

<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01101-z>
etc.

None of my cites start with Donald Trump.
Yours do.

Let that sink in.

You are an ignorant iKook, Hemidactylus, which is why it's so frustrating dealing with people like you who can't comprehend even their own cites.

Your own cite says this, you iKook:
"For all four studies in the paper, and for many studies since,
the same general pattern emerged. Poor performers overestimated
themselves much more than did those who were truly competent.
This is the signature pattern of the DKE."

There is the apparent pattern, but there is also its explanation. I doubt
you have the intellectual capacity to distinguish the two. The debunkers of
DKE go with artefact over psychological explanation. That interpretation
pulls the rug from under you and turns your favored weapon into a wet
noodle. You are unskilled and unaware because your polemics cloud your judgement.

Let _that_ sink in, given iKooks are to the left of the 1st quartile mark.
a. Alan Baker is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
b. Alan Browne is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
c. Lewis is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
d. Jolly Roger is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
e. Chris is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
f. Snit is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
g. Rod Speed is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
etc.

I know this because you iKooks can't fathom the simplest of things.
a. No iKook has an IQ that even approaches normal
b. As a direct result, no iKook owns something as common as a degree
c. Nor does any iKooks know the first thing about what he speaks of

You're all unfathomably ignorant of EVERYTHING you speak of, Hemidactylus. Even when you try to lie and claim you've read the seminal D-K papers.

You are a poster boy for namechecking and
weaponizing the DKE. You only illustrate your own ignorance of which you
are ironically very unaware. Why did you not now the DKE had been found
wanting by so many independent researchers? Because you are an empty
propagandist.

You believe that and yet you don't even know what D-K effects are.
Do you realize I said EVERYONE fits on the D-K graphs, Hemidactylus?

You. Me. My mother. Your favorite college professor.
Hell, even a race-car driver fits on the D-K scale, you iKook.

What you do NOT realize is EVERYTHING you think is completely wrong.
Because you don't own a mental capacity to understand the simplest things.

It's the basic hallmark of all you low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks.

HINT: Every single person with any skill is on those Dunning-Kruger graphs.

That. That is what you do not understand.

What kind of strange person does that, Hemidactylus?

Examples:

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=numeracy
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=numeracy
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180/full
https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2020-gignac.pdf
And yet you shoot the messenger.

You are an idiot. Or more precisely, you're a classic iKook.
a. You know nothing
b. Yet you don't realize that
c. So you guess
d. And when caught guessing, you lie

What you need to do _before_ you go about 'dissing the seminal D-K results
is you have to first _understand_ them. After that, you're welcome to come back and discuss why you disagree with the results, Hemidactylus.

All you're doing above is desperately googling for a cite (any cite, it doesn't matter to you) that says something about D-K and that's it.

It's what you iKooks do.

The fact is:
a. You have absolutely no idea what the D-K papers actually say.
b. Worse, you lied that you read them
c. Or, if you ever did, as with Alan Browne who says there's
no walled garden, you didn't understand a thing about them.

This conversation is classic for what it's like to deal with you iKooks.
Like Alan Baker claiming to teach racing, he's a liar because _everything_
he says shows he doesn't know the simplest thing about what he claims.

I doubt you know a thing about immunology. You have not demonstrated that.
You know how to bullshit yourself though.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2023-12-19 16:36, Wally J wrote:

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

Nice spread!

While I don't claim to be a racer, I know what a catenary is.
Does Alan Baker?

As a matter of fact, I DO know what a catenary is.

Bearing in mind the IQ 40 Alan Baker thinks he's a genius and yet, he
repeatedly insisted nobody could change the newsreader header line...
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>

Please ask the iKook Alan Baker if he knows how a catenary affects racing.

LOL!

This should be good.

The offspring of Sylvester and Tweety Bird?

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

There isn't anyone intelligent in racing circuits who doesn't know the significance of the catenary in terms of teaching basic racing skills.

I’m not a racer, but I would guess it has something to do with calculating how to enter and exit a curve. As a motorcycle rider there are some very
fine points of curve management one must learn to handle their bike safely.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

[snip]

My point about you iKooks is you're all Dunning-Kruger 1st quartile, JR.

Dunning-Kruger is the most abused non-thing ever. You are a charlatan.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

[snip]

Heh heh heh... You're actually too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
Even though your entire life, people have been calling you stupid, JR.

[snip]

What's interesting is these iKooks are all to the far left of the Dunning-Kruger first quartile such that they can't even fathom why they're iKooks.

You’re abusing people with a dubious psychological construct that has been shown statistically flawed. It’s like the only weapon in your arsenal and
it is a dud.


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2023-12-21 18:20, badgolferman wrote:

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

There isn't anyone intelligent in racing circuits who doesn't know the
significance of the catenary in terms of teaching basic racing skills.

I’m not a racer, but I would guess it has something to do with calculating >> how to enter and exit a curve. As a motorcycle rider there are some very
fine points of curve management one must learn to handle their bike safely. >>

I am a racer... ...for the last 11 years.

And before I was a racer, I took a 3-day race driving school with Skip Barber (look them up) followed by 2 2-day advance courses.

And now I myself am a certified senior race driving instructor.

And I can back up everything I say.

In all that time, no one has ever referred to the line that a car takes through a corner as being a catenary.

But Arlen is too cowardly to engage.

I’m not a racer but from watching superbikes in the 90s like legendary
Miguel Duhamel racing for Smokin’ Joe Camel I know what a chicane is. And I doubt Arlen can tell us about chicanes as he is most definitely engaged ironically in some chicanery right here as one could expect given his…ummm…track record.

What a bona fide kook AND poseur.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

as I believe you have a Gold Wing),

Just a minor discrepancy…

It’s actually a Honda Goldwing, not Gold Wing. I know you will find both written versions on the internet and even at the website, but the logo,
manual, and electronic screen all print it as Goldwing. The same holds true
for the Honda Silverwing.

My mother who is from Germany, gets upset when people refer to the BMW as a Beemer or Bimmer and considers that disrespectful. I tried to tell her Americans shorten words because we’re lazy. Remember International House Of Pancakes (IHOP) and Dairy Queen (DQ) ? I’m sure you can think of many other companies that have given in to slang expressions.


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

as I believe you have a Gold Wing),

Just a minor discrepancy…

It’s actually a Honda Goldwing, not Gold Wing. I know you will find both written versions on the internet and even at the website, but the logo, manual, and electronic screen all print it as Goldwing. The same holds true for the Honda Silverwing.

My mother who is from Germany, gets upset when people refer to the BMW as a Beemer or Bimmer and considers that disrespectful. I tried to tell her Americans shorten words because we’re lazy. Remember International House Of Pancakes (IHOP) and Dairy Queen (DQ) ? I’m sure you can think of many other companies that have given in to slang expressions.

I don’t know how it’s spelled but I have heard a certain crotch rocket referred to as “gixxer”. Hayabusa is a monstrosity derived from that infamous lineage.

I was astounded to learn the Tesla Plaid can blow the fairings off these
things 0-60. So an ebike is a scarier thought.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114