Where we are heading?
Since everything is constantly being changed, what do you guys see as the next big thing?
Like mechanical/chemica/electrical/software/civil?
Trending Content
| +96 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 1d | |
| +46 | Interviews Are So Fake | 28 | 8h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 11h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 1d | |
| +26 | Non-Competes Banned | 26 | 1h | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 3h | ||
| +19 | ADHD ! | 4 | 9h | |
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
Not sure how big it will be, but 3D games are going to be coming out soon and if I'm not mistaken Activision will be leading the charge.
I see AI is beginning the new big thing with Google and self driving cars
I really enjoyed this TED talk on Deep Learning http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonderful_and_terrifying_imp…
With deep learning technology, developers can create software solutions for industries in which they have zero experience. The video does a better job of explaining the concept.
I see deep learning as the new "3d printer" for software
Loss of sufficient topsoil to feed us all.
GM foods?
I'm not a tech guy so I couldn't guess if it's going to be a new google/iPhone/dinglewidget but I like infrastructure and telecom plays here and in the developing world. Figure out and use NGO financing to build telecom networks, clean water and sewage, toll roads, power generation and distribution, etc. abroad and even here. Internationally it's not for the faint of heart but there's a killing to be made if you can be the first mover in Burma or Subsahran Africa for these services. They don't have them and in telecom they're going to skip ever having landlines for example. Takes big balls to operate in those countries however.
Even GM foods need to extract nutrients from the soil. As we keep exposing topsoil and then losing it to erosion, getting nutrients into GM foods will become more difficult because the nutrients come from the soil. Also, insecticide resistant GM crops mean more insecticides, which can kill the worms and bugs in the soil who are necessary to turn old plant life into new soil.
This is my hobby horse this week as I'm reading this interesting book: http://www.amazon.com/Dirt-Civilizations-David-R-Montgomery/dp/05202729…
It's also my way of one-upping global warming people - "we'll run out of dirt long before my waterfront properties are in danger".
On the other hand, soylent green.
This. The rise of Africa is inevitable and we will see a production shift from Asian countries which were typically inexpensive to manufacture and export goods to Africa.
I'm with Blackhawk. I think autonomous vehicles will be the next BIG thing.
I was thinking about this the other day and I realized that there isn't much difference between today and, say, 2009, but there's a lot different between today and, say, 1982 since computers and the internet revolutionized (destroyed?) the world as we knew it. We don't get society-altering things every day. I think the Apple iPhone in 2007(?) and the subsequent smart phone revolution was the last big society altering technology.
The next big thing will be autonomous cars. And the U.S., with its vast interstate and intrastate highway system, will benefit disproportionately from it.
How far into the future? I agree that autonomous vehicles will be a hit, but how long it will take will depend on the different countries. Getting stuff like that legalized and into the public will probably take many years, just from a safety standpoint. Then you also have various other interests that will lobby hard against it, for obvious reasons.
I've been following the Oculus Rift since it's inception, and it's one of the coolest things I've seen when it comes to gadgets. Everyone I've talked with have felt the same(even the first low-res version), and those things have tons of potential for all kinds of uses, not just gaming or entertainment. So that would be my first bet right now, the whole VR thing.
Hell, hopefully it can replace my static PC monitor one day. Just the health benefits from that alone would make me buy it.
I feel like fully autonomous cars will never be a hit if insurance companies and the government can't make money off of them.
I think 3D printing is going to be huge in the new few decades. The technology is advancing pretty quickly and it's becoming more affordable. Plus the applications of it are nearly endless.
Insurance companies will make more money, in my view. Fully implemented autonomous traffic will probably lead to insurance companies lowering insurance premiums, say, 25-75%, but claims costs will eventually go down something like 90% (or more) if/when fully implemented. Governments will just change their taxation model.
Autonomous vehicles would be cool and it'll eventually happen, but I'd imagine the regulatory hurdles will take a very long time to overcome. I'll admit ignorance to how it would be approved but won't they have to be approved on a federal level and state by state? Getting 50 individual states to accept it could take an extremely long time, and while that may work in larger western states where you rarely drive outside of your home state (if you live in LA how often do you drive to another state?), in places like the northeast where it's typical to cross state lines on a daily basis (live in MD and work in DC/VA, or live in CT or NJ and work in NY state, etc)
Then drivers would have to start accepting that a computer's going to be driving your car and not the driver, which may work for new drivers, but I'd think consumer acceptance when you've been driving for decades will be slow to accept it.
It would be cool though.
I don't agree with the thinking that current vested interests can prevent new technologies and trends becoming huge.
A few examples:
Maybe not the next "big" thing, but I really think Valve's Steam Machine is going to be the death blow for console gaming, and they'll go the way of the VCR & DVD. As much as I love console gaming, PC gaming is vastly superior and the only reason I even bother having a PS4 is so I can play with my friends who don't want to put in the time building a gaming PC. Steam Machine will bridge that gap, and basically be an optimized iTunes for PC games on your HDTV.
I would also love to see EA 6 ft. under because they are the single biggest company hurting the gaming industry right now.
Agree completely, but you have to note that most "gamers" are not that sophisticated either in their tastes or their thrift, which is really the main reason console gaming still exists. Also very curious to see how Steam Machine does on the market.
Also agree re: EA. Total garbage, but their success only reinforces my claim about the lack of sophistication of the vast majority of gamers.
Most gamers are now starting to become at least aware enough to know that the PS4 > Xbox One in terms of raw power and capability. But yeah, console gaming does exist because users literally only have to plug the machine in, pop in a game and they're good to go. That's what Steam Machine will provide for them, and you will also be able to upgrade the components. I used to be one of those guys who didn't mess with PCs because I thought it would be too complicated, but when I finally sat down and built my own I was both amazed at how easy it was AND how much I learned about computers in the process.
EA's business strategy is this - they wait for an independent developer to hit it BIG with a game or series, and then they acquire said developer so they can claim the publishing rights. They give the development teams unrealistic deadlines and checkpoints, have them dumb down whatever was unique about said series so it fits the lowest common denominator, and then rush the product for a release on a high volume sales period such as the holidays, or hyped summer date. Once the game is released they will either shut down the developer they bought or fire enough of the team so they have just barely enough to finish another game.
EA is also one of the biggest micro-transaction whores around. I'll use Battlefield 4 as an example. Typical retail price for a game is $59.99, but over the life span of a game (1 year) they will release additional content for added price. I might be off by a couple dollars, but the last time I did the math on BF4, if you want access to all the content EA promises when they reveal the game, over the course of a year you will pay around $249.99, not $59.99.
EA has zero incentive to start being more consumer-friendly because they know if someone wants to buy a game they will do so anyway, even if they are unhappy about the price or the practice. Companies like EA and ATVI also have a monopoly on YouTube game commentators who "advertise" their games, and these commentators also have zero incentive to point out the flaws in the business, even though its hurts common gamers, because they both want A) to keep receiving compensation from YouTube for their videos and B) the perks EA and ATVI provide them for saying positive things about their games.
Sorry for the rant, but the entire gaming industry makes me vomit.
If companies refocused to putting out quality games instead of rushing deadlines to meet holiday sales, I don't really think they would notice any meaningful difference in total copies sold. If its a quality game, people will buy it.
I'm betting drunk driving will still be illegal in self driving cars, which sort of destroys their entire purpose. But more importantly, how are cops going to give tickets if everyone suddenly becomes a perfect driver? The government is going to fight this for decades to come.
The only benefit of self-driving cars is avoiding drunk driving tickets? Seriously? That's all you can come up with?
Off the top of my head, here are numerous benefits:
1) Improved fuel efficiency 2) Limited or no driving during stop-and-go traffic 3) Possibly eliminating stop-and-go traffic all-together 4) 90% of 10 million annual auto accidents are human error related and cost about $300 billion in economic costs. Theoretically, you'd eliminate 90% of traffic accidents and probably about 90% of traffic fatalities (30-35,000 fatalities per year) and about 90% of the associated economic costs. 5) Autonomous parking of cars (e.g. you're dropped off at the front of your office building and the car parks itself) a. Associated with this is the improvement of urban parking 6) Reduced auto insurance premiums 7) Eliminates road rage incidents 8) Reduces stress related to traffic (this is actually pretty substantial in my neck of the woods) 9) Eliminates drunk driving accidents and the deaths, incarceration, destroyed lives and economic costs associated with drunk driving accidents 10) Allow for mobility for the elderly and blind 11) Allow for mobility for people who cannot drive at night (my mother being an example)
And I'm sure the list continues.
I'm not sure how automated cars will gel with the USA people's loved of 'freedom', though. You could cite a few of those factors for banning guns, but that hasn't made much impact on gun ownership.
Automated cars may also stir up traditional tin foil hat concerns about government intrusion and control, one world government, the Trilateral Commission, Bavarian Illuminati, fluoride in water, introduction of the metric system etc.
I was kidding brah. At least about my first statement. I stand behind my second statement. The government is going to take their sweet time with this and getting the proper regulations/laws in place is going to make tech enthusiasts and logical people cringe.
I think medical advances will continue to surprise us
Or something like that.
Nanotech should push forward medical advances in ways we can't even imagine. Kurzweil's "The Singularity Is Near" is a pretty interesting take on it.
And @dickfuld, if you can make an Irishman's dick 15 inches it's not simply the next big thing or a medical advancement, it's a fucking miracle.
I was reading the other day that the vast majority of progress in fighting cancer has come from awareness that smoking is the leading cause of cancer, which has drastically decreased tobacco usage in the U.S. I'm not super impressed with the advancement in medical technology overall. I think it will continue its slow and steady improvement, but I don't think if a person jumped forward to 2025 that they'd find drastic or society-altering advances.
For example, found out recently (ahem) that laser hair removal has advanced nicely in the last decade, but that basically means fewer people suffer from scarring or discoloration. For most people, however, laser hair removal is more or less the same. Same thing with laser eye surgery. It's gotten a little better and costs have gone down, but it's not night-and-day. Kind of the same thing for treatment of Alzheimer's. Treatment is better and there is more understanding today than a decade ago but there have been a lot of promising propositions that have not come to fruition despite the hype.
So I'm not in the category that the next big thing is medical technology. And if it is, it will come out of left field. Medical tech will continue its slow and steady progress.
I agree to a degree but I think a lot of advancement has occurred in areas of medicine where PR, effort, and money have been concentrated. I was in SF a few years ago on the 30th anniversary of the identification of AIDS and the Chronicle had a ton of coverage on it. One of their big themes was that we're seeing more HIV+ people living with it as a chronic disease and they're now having to figure out what to do as retirees because they didn't save and thought they'd only live a few more years, 20+ years ago. Now they're 65. It's the same with some forms of cancer. One of my cousins died 35 years ago from a form of leukemia that today is >95% cured. By all means we haven't cured AIDs or cancer, but we've made some pretty large advances. The same could be said of breast cancer but that's probably more because of early detection. We've largely failed on other forms of cancer with much greater rates of fatality such as liver, pancreatic and ovarian though. But they're working on those. And pretty hard. I'm involved with a pancreatic cancer fund and lobby and they're making big advances in a cancer that typically claims victims within months.
But looking back a little further, we've made massive advances in medicine over the last 70 years and we're now refining on not only getting rid of things like measles, polio and tetanus, but now we're making strides in things like cancer and AIDS.
Note: I'm not a scientist nor would I pretend to be.
In this day and age of a new iPhone/Samsung every year and where Moore's Law may be being too conservative, I think we have to realize that medical advances aren't going to occur as quickly. That may be because regulation can kill advances and having to go through FDA stages is too costly and too long of a process, but I'm sometimes happy for FDA regs to kill things like thalidomide. The manipulation of the most complex machine/organism we've studied, human, isn't going to happen too quickly. I do have the feeling though that we're at a point where we'll more fully utilize the mapping of the human genome, stem cell research and other biogen advances that we should make a leap forward soon. The 20th and 19th century were the age of physics, these are now the age of biochem advancements. Or more frighteningly AI.
Or infrastructure and telecom. That's what I'd bet on.
But like I said, I'm not a scientist and maybe I'm just hoping for tricorders with which Bones or Crusher will diagnose me and replace my liver with a can of Purina. I've also reserved a seat on the Enterprise...
I think you're making my point. If the question is, "What's the next big thing?" then I think the answer is that it's not going to be a medical advancement or medical technology. Medical advancement has occurred in a slow and steady fashion over the last century. I doubt there's anything on the horizon in medicine that could fundamentally impact society the way the iPhone has, or the internet, or refrigerators, or, heck, power steering.
EDIT: re-reading the OP's post, it seems he's asking about the next big industry, so in that case the medical industry is certainly plausible given the demographics.
main problem with advances in medical technology in general is the university-grant complex and how it generally doesn't encourage great risk-taking in experimentation and rather encourages smaller experiments with smaller ambitions.... makes one long for the days when scientists would be actually be patronized by institutions or wealthy elites and supported to do what they wished to satisfy their intellectual curiosity... you look at most of the truly great scientific discoveries and you'll find genius scientists to be sure...but you'll also find an incredible amount of support and leeway given them by their benefactors. Such a system unfortunately no longer exists today.
Skin tight lycra body suits in the workplace, like 1960s sci fi tv promised us.
I really really really hope the country gets less obese before this happens, there would be some gnarly FUPAs
I have a theory that we have hit "peak obesity" in the US. My theory says the US will slowly become more fit and other countries who have and continue to rapidly adopt our unhealthy foods and culture will become much worse than us. I don't have data in front of me, but I'm reasonably sure the US is not the most obese country currently and I expect a major fall in that category over the next 10-20 years.
I feel that the amount of information Americans possess about nutrition is very high especially skewed toward anyone under say 50. Average people know what carbs/fats/proteins are now and I don't know that was the case 25 years ago. The problems with poor demographics being obese will persist but I even think that will decline to some extent.
1 year (2015) not much groundbreaking, but we will finally learn what mobile has been made for: 1) on-demand apps (Uber, Airbnb, Instacart, etc.), 2) messenger apps as the core platform for communication and social discovery (WeChat, Line, Whatsapp, and Facebook Messenger becoming the Facebook/Twitter of mobile). And 3) true smartphones will finally filter down to the rest of the world, with companies like Xiaomi.
In finance, the biggest change will be the increasing legitimacy of online capital markets. Traditional banking functions like consumer credit, commercial lending, and private equity raises will occur on P2P marketplaces (LendingClub, AngelList, etc.).
2-4 years 1) VR takes off in a big way. Gaming on the consumer side, high-skill training, simulation and assistance on the enterprise side (think training pilots and surgeons, or virtual doctor visits) 2) Wearables, but connected with the Internet of Things. The most important "smart hardware" won't be worn by us, but by the everyday physical objects that we will be able to interact with in the digital, data-rich dimension. 3) Bitcoin, or more specifically the Blockchain technology behind the faddish currency - the digital "public ledger" that allows us to scale trust-in-transaction between untrustworthy, even anonymous, parties. This has never before been possible, and is as important a financial innovation as double-entry bookkeeping or the stock exchange, if not more so. A little surprised that WSO doesn't talk about it.
5-7 years 1) drones 2) 3D printing 3) Autonomous cars All of these could maybe be in the 2-4 year timeframe, but people forget that they will have to be implemented very incrementally, even if the tech is mostly here already (unlike VR, IoT, and Bitcoin). Mainstream adoption is probably a ways down the line.
I care less about self driving cars and more with the cultural shift in the US. Less kids, less belief in full year Santa, movement away from the suburbs. Once you have more people in urban areas you need cars less, period.
I think there will be nice breakthroughs in custom medicines. We will walk on Mars in 20-30 years. VR will be huge for a lot of reasons (medicine, education, etc).
My worry is that society is splitting. You have smart people marrying, having smart kids, living in the city and enjoying culture, organic food, etc. Meanwhile we are automating everything from farming to manufacturing. Basically two societies. For beyond income inequality.
Thanks for that video. I had the sunday scaries last night and now I'm going to have a repeat tonight.
We need to move away from a car based society, period. A self driving car is basically a single person train. You still waste time in the car, have to deal with fuel and maintenance. Reorganization is what is happening and must happen. Concentration of jobs, culture, medicine and education. Suburbanization is such an environmental travesty.
I would argue that mass transit is actually what's backwards and will be in the future, especially in the U.S. The U.S. has the most comprehensive highway system in the world. No other nation is better suited over the next 25-50 years to benefit from autonomous vehicles. At some point in the future public roads will be autonomous-only, at which point cars will be totally re-designed for comfort, communication, and very high speed, and people will be liberated from living in urban areas while still working in the city since they'll be able to go 80 MPH for most of the way between cities.
Mass transit is a 20th century concept that has little cultural acceptance and little technological relevancy in 21st century America.
Interesting case study from NYU about how autonomous transportation will reprogram cities: http://reprogrammingmobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Re-Programm…
I would think that rain makes image processing difficult for the "self-driving" cars' machine learning protocols, similarly to why CAPTCHAs are blurred and obfuscated. Snow is also a challenge for the same reason, I would guess. It probably makes it difficult for their algorithms to use the regular fair-weather markers (such as road lines, asphalt lines, etc.) to "choose" path/speed/etc.
In fact, handling the slicker environment is probably trivial from an engineering standpoint. Consider the successes of advanced AWD systems, "anticipatory" braking and the like.
(Totally guessing here, just using a compsci perspective.)
The interstate system helped and cause suburbanization. This made sense when cities sucked and you had factories building stuff. No you have people commuting large portions of their life because they live outside of concentrated areas.
Interstate is great for intermodal and travel. Most people are using highways or truways to commute to work.
Suburbs are where you go to die. No culture, no good food, wasting time driving everywhere. Isolated from different people and views. People are moving back to the city because of career flexibility, ease of travel, no commute, etc. Only thing that sucks is the schools, buy people are having less children and waiting longer.
Self driving cars are simply forcing technology to perpetuate the old model. I suppose it will allow people to live in the suburbs and increase their commute to the ever dwindling amount of jobs in the middle of nowhere. You're still paying for the car, the maintenance, etc and still locking yourself in a car. If you are a knowledge worker I guess you can work while the car drivers, but if you're one of these people you can work from home or live near an urban center.
I think it will happen, but the real solution is to simply not have to drive 30-40 miles for work.
People choose to live in the suburbs because they like it, especially in the U.S. People want square footage and a sense of privacy, as well as low crime, good schools, and a nice place to raise kids. You're arguing preference, but the American people have spoken--they like suburbs and large houses. And the autonomous vehicle, coupled with teleworking, will further entrench that culture. Hence, mass transit is a backward notion of old world Europe. Add in America's issue with high debt-low taxes and the enormous cost of mass transit infrastructure will cause these projects to die in the face of superior technology.
troll harder haha
+1
They've been marketed it. Hey, whatever. I agree self driving cars are coming, but reality is living far from work is a dying concept. City populations are growing and this is where meds, eds, and the other jobs are located.
Commuting sucks whether you drive or not.
Mass transit a backward concept? Wow. Sure, that's why amtrak and regional rail ridership are up.
What's backwards is believing in the faux "American dream" that's been marketed and created for the American drones to believe. Now they can living in their 4 wheel coffins as they commute an hour to their job and Crapplebees on the weekends.
Lol +1 , I'm picturing the last scene in Goodfellas when Henry Hill is standing outside of his middle-of-nowhere house getting the newspaper haha.
When I say suburbs I mean out there. No regional rail access. Have to drive to an office Park. There will always be residential outside of the direct city, but people commuting 30-40 minutes one way to a job is dinosaur thinking.
Agreed 100%. My outlook on Africa being the next SE Asia is dependent on what you alluded to: continued improvement and smart liberalization. Liberalization in itself is not always beneficial as some industries in developing countries need to be protected to ensure they can compete on the world market. Even complete trade liberalization may not be enough to make FDI in Africa lucrative because investors still must take into consideration the uncertainty of the reform(s). Such uncertainty actually acts as a tax on investment and when coupled with entry/exit barriers it makes investment elsewhere (i.e. SE Asia) more enticing. Thus, you need a solid leadership which up until recently was only the situation in a few African countries.
Now, Africans are becoming less and less tolerant of the widespread corruption which has plagued their countries for centuries. This increased demand for accountability and transparency is due to an increase in overall income and education. With that being said, I do not think it is the place of organizations such as the WTO, WB, and UN to drive reform. They have proven neither capable or responsible in doing so. Just look at the untold billions in aid over the past few decades which has only yielded a marginal impact. This leaves the reform to Africans. Once Africans have true ownership of their reform they are more likely to both enforce and abide by them. This of course only comes when they elect honest, representative leadership whom have the knowledge on how to implement said reform.
Where international organizations could help Africa improve are for example reforming intellectual property rights to provide incentive to MNC (Pharma, manufacturing, etc...) to develop solutions for Africa. Governments in themselves are not capable of doing this. Once more jobs come into these countries everything becomes easier to manage.
I could go more into this but for the sake of my lunch break I believe that Africa has been making great strides and is showing signs of optimism which we haven't seen before. Yet, there still is a ways to go.
Wow, Africa as next Asia? That would be pretty cool, but it just seems really unlikely.
The main thing Africa has on offer that SE Asia doesn't are abundant commodities and rare Earth minerals. China has been tenaciously buying up those comms and minerals for quite a while. It's a smart way for China to maintain its economic growth story with the kicker of bolstering its geopolitical resume. Africa maintains its global role as a raw materials export nation.
What exactly do you see as a catalyst to change the status quo?
Glad you brought up China's role. From what I've read it seems China is a double edged sword. While the FDI they bring certainly helps in regards to development it often comes at a cost. A majority of the infrastructure projects are carried out by Chinese companies with Chinese labor. This means the local population doesn't learn nor gains revenue from what could have been local business. Building off this, the revenue generated from export of resources to China doesn't really pass through the economy (China also ships/pumps it) and instead ends up in the hands of the governing regime (to delegate as they see fit = problematic). This goes back to my earlier post about misgovernment and bad policies creating missed opportunities. China apparently doesn't have to play by the rest of the World's rules and regularly conducts business with negative regimes like in the case of Sudan (read Darfur) where they are happy to purchase below world priced petroleum knowing full well the money is being used to wage genocide.
While countries have long been dependent on exporting resources to fuel the economy there has been an increased emphasis to diversify. Nigeria, one of if not Africa's largest oil exporter, has within the past couple of years began to wean itself off oil dependency and has nearly balanced its budget - an amazing feat. To change the status quo African countries need to enact better policies, stick by them, and then negotiate for better terms. Diversifying their economies will also put them in better positions to bargain as they wont be so dependent on one or two exports.
I think Africa will improve, but how is it going to be the next Asia? We are automating in China now because their wages are too much. The days of low skilled human labor are ending. I'd say we are about 10-20 years away from humanoid automation. Africa has a lot of issues to overcome before we would switch to them over Asia and by the time that happens we would have brought manufacturing back to the US and have it fully automated.
Asia was lucky to catch the tail end of the low skilled manufacturing tail. I don't see it hopping to the next country anymore.
@"TNA" Totally see where you are coming from and this could very well be a majority of the case. However, not everyone will have the capital or capability to take advantage of automation. Also, not everything can be automated nor will it be economically feasible to do so. Therefore, cheap human labor will always be relevant - at least for the next century. Agriculture in Africa is also set to take off as farmers are currently far from reaching their yield potential. The limiting factor to them besides inadequate weather, seeds, equipment, etc.. are the subsidies the U.S. and Europe provide their farmers. It will be interesting to see how the ag situation plays out but I feel like it could only improve at this point. While we've really only looked at Africa from a production standpoint on this thread lets also not forget the potential of the consumer base the continent also holds.
@"Dingdong08" @"DCDepository" @"da chief" Curious as why you guys think toll road is the big thing in Africa as opposed to railway lines. I suppose toll roads have more scale to them than rail, but would love to hear more reasons.
Omnis magni sunt et dolorem quam ut deserunt ab. Similique et porro sapiente iusto enim cupiditate et. Autem est quo impedit laboriosam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Consequatur nihil aliquam laborum aliquam pariatur ut aut eligendi. Enim est corporis consequuntur minus ratione ad. Minima aperiam facilis ut similique rerum. Aut accusantium dolores fugit ab. Eos rerum aut quaerat eum nisi quaerat consequatur aliquid. Ipsa dicta debitis eaque repellat sed. Et qui nam inventore est ut reprehenderit est. Nobis neque voluptate non repellat.
Sapiente et tempora rerum ullam qui doloremque et consequuntur. Ab quae distinctio nesciunt consequuntur. Quis sit modi ipsam est.
Quas facere in officiis ipsam. Non ut accusamus id mollitia fugiat nihil iusto.
Qui asperiores quae rerum repellendus possimus nemo. Autem ullam ut harum dolorum assumenda aut saepe. Sit reprehenderit repellat harum ut praesentium non.