Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2022 m. kovo 23 d., trečiadienis

Learnings growth; Education technology.

 

"A tech-able moment

The pandemic has turbocharged the ed-tech business. Can it last?

BYJU'S WAS piling on users even before covid-19 closed classrooms around the world. India's most valuable private startup was co-founded in 2011 by Byju Raveendran, a celebrity maths tutor whose classes have drawn crowds big enough to fill stadiums. By 2019 tens of millions of Indian children had signed up to use the firm's flagship product, an app that serves up online lessons intended to supplement regular schooling. That year Byju's began sponsoring India's national cricket team.

Since then India's schools have spent more time shut than open--and the fortunes of Byju's have only improved. The number of children whose parents pay for them to have full use of its app has more than doubled, to 7m. Late last year investors valued the firm at over $20bn, a three-fold increase since pre-covid days. In January Bloomberg reported that Byju's may soon unveil plans to go public in New York, by merging with a blank-cheque company. The news agency had previously rumoured that such a deal could raise around $4bn, valuing the firm at a cool $48bn.

Byju's is the biggest of a clutch of young companies benefiting from breakneck growth in online learning. Venture capitalists (VCs) plonked around $21bn into education technology companies in 2021, according to Holon IQ, a research firm (see chart). That was three times the amount raised in 2019 and 40 times more than a decade ago. Seventeen ed-tech startups became "unicorns" (private companies valued at more than $1bn), three times as many as had passed that milestone during any previous year. Half a dozen of them went public. They included Coursera, a marketplace for online courses with a stock market value of nearly $3bn, and Duolingo, an app for language learners which is worth around $4bn. Holon IQ has predicted that global ed-tech revenues could almost double from $227bn that year to around $400bn in 2025, a fifth higher than its pre-pandemic forecast.

Until recently ed-tech firms had rarely made investors sit up. Schools and universities control much of the $6trn spent globally on education each year. They tend to be cash-strapped and conservative. In 2019 only about 3% of all education spending went on software or online teaching. Tory Patterson of Owl Ventures, who began investing in ed-tech firms in 2009, admits that speaking up for the sector has sometimes won him "blank stares".

No more. The closure of school buildings and college campuses forced educators to try out new kit (especially in India and America, where disruptions to learning have been particularly drawn out). Governments have given children stacks of tablet computers and sped up efforts to improve broadband in schools. They have also given teachers extra cash to spend on tools they think will help pupils "catch up". Lawmakers in America have earmarked an extra $200bn or so for schools since the pandemic started. That sum is equal to about one-quarter of what is spent on these institutions in a typical year.

For years many of the zippiest ed-tech firms have chosen not to sell to schools and universities but to go direct to learners. This category of companies has also benefited during the pandemic.

 Parents in Asia have long been keen to pay for tutoring and other services (such as Byju's app) that might give their offspring an edge. Now families in Europe and America are also getting keen.

Supervising remote learning has made parents everywhere more engaged in their children's education, more aware of how they are performing in comparison to classmates and in some cases more critical of what they are being taught. Companies that offer after-school lessons--such as Outschool, an American unicorn, and GoStudent, an Austrian one--are growing fast as a result.

Another type of outfit getting a boost from the pandemic are those that offer learning to adults. Workers furloughed during lockdowns commonly took online courses that they thought would improve their prospects. Remote working has made more roles plausible to more jobseekers, giving them more reason to reskill. At the same time, a flurry of job-switching in Britain and America has made big employers nervous. They are becoming more convinced that spending on staff training can help them hang on to workers and cut the cost of plugging holes. This is benefiting companies such as Coursera, which says selling subscriptions to corporate customers is its fastest-growing business. Up-and-coming firms include Guild, which helps blue-collar workers at giants such as Walmart and Disney gain new qualifications, and Better Up, an American company that helps professionals find coaching.

Ed-tech's pandemic report card is not without blemishes, however. In China, its single biggest market, the Communist Party declared last July that businesses could not typically make a profit from providing after-school tutoring to children in primary and middle schools. The regime has worried for years that huge demand for private education is widening inequalities and impoverishing the middle class. Even charitable tutoring could no longer take place during holidays and at weekends. Within days the share prices of New Oriental, TAL Education and Gaotu, the industry's three listed Chinese giants, had fallen by two-thirds, wiping out $18bn in stockmarket value. Since February 2021 their collective worth has shrivelled from more than $100bn to less than $10bn. China's most celebrated ed-tech unicorns, Yuanfudao and Zuoyebang, could be worth a fraction of their pre-crackdown valuations of $15.5bn and $10bn, respectively.

The Chinese experience has rattled investors, says Thomas Singlehurst of Citigroup, a bank. It blocked a possible exit route for Western startups, some of whose VC backers may have hoped to sell them to China's ed-tech titans.

It may also inspire tighter rules in next-door India, another potentially vast market where some parents accuse ed-tech firms of misleading ads and aggressive sales tactics. Last month India's education minister said the government was considering new regulation, though he gave no details. Since then at least 15 Indian ed-tech companies, including Byju's, have created a group promising to scribble new codes of conduct.

Western ed-tech firms are unlikely to face similar strictures. But they have their own challenges. In November Chegg, an American company that gives online help to undergraduates, warned that lower-than-usual enrolment in American universities was affecting its revenue. Its market capitalisation, which soared to around $14bn in early 2021, is back down to $4bn, lower than it was before the pandemic. Shares in ed-tech companies that listed in America last year are mostly trading below offer price. Several, including Coursera and Duolingo, have yet to turn a profit.

Not straight As, then. But the industry's boosters think it has room to improve. An influx of users and money in the pandemic has given more firms the muscle to expand abroad and to find ways of retaining users for longer, reckons Deborah Quazzo of GSV, a big educational investor. Take Byju's. It has spent at least $2.8bn on a dozen acquisitions in an apparent attempt to string together services that will allow it to reach learners of all ages, from toddlers to career-changers. The deals are also helping it reach customers far beyond India. In 2021 it began offering online classes in coding and maths to children in America, Brazil, Britain, Indonesia and elsewhere. A big listing might teach ed-tech sceptics and Western rivals alike a lesson.

 

·  ·  ·  "Learnings growth; Education technology." The Economist, 19 Feb. 2022, p. 53(US).

 

Learnings growth; Education technology.

A tech-able moment

The pandemic has turbocharged the ed-tech business. Can it last?

BYJU'S WAS piling on users even before covid-19 closed classrooms around the world. India's most valuable private startup was co-founded in 2011 by Byju Raveendran, a celebrity maths tutor whose classes have drawn crowds big enough to fill stadiums. By 2019 tens of millions of Indian children had signed up to use the firm's flagship product, an app that serves up online lessons intended to supplement regular schooling. That year Byju's began sponsoring India's national cricket team.

Since then India's schools have spent more time shut than open--and the fortunes of Byju's have only improved. The number of children whose parents pay for them to have full use of its app has more than doubled, to 7m. Late last year investors valued the firm at over $20bn, a three-fold increase since pre-covid days. In January Bloomberg reported that Byju's may soon unveil plans to go public in New York, by merging with a blank-cheque company. The news agency had previously rumoured that such a deal could raise around $4bn, valuing the firm at a cool $48bn.

Byju's is the biggest of a clutch of young companies benefiting from breakneck growth in online learning. Venture capitalists (VCs) plonked around $21bn into education technology companies in 2021, according to Holon IQ, a research firm (see chart). That was three times the amount raised in 2019 and 40 times more than a decade ago. Seventeen ed-tech startups became "unicorns" (private companies valued at more than $1bn), three times as many as had passed that milestone during any previous year. Half a dozen of them went public. They included Coursera, a marketplace for online courses with a stock market value of nearly $3bn, and Duolingo, an app for language learners which is worth around $4bn. Holon IQ has predicted that global ed-tech revenues could almost double from $227bn that year to around $400bn in 2025, a fifth higher than its pre-pandemic forecast.

Until recently ed-tech firms had rarely made investors sit up. Schools and universities control much of the $6trn spent globally on education each year. They tend to be cash-strapped and conservative. In 2019 only about 3% of all education spending went on software or online teaching. Tory Patterson of Owl Ventures, who began investing in ed-tech firms in 2009, admits that speaking up for the sector has sometimes won him "blank stares".

No more. The closure of school buildings and college campuses forced educators to try out new kit (especially in India and America, where disruptions to learning have been particularly drawn out). Governments have given children stacks of tablet computers and sped up efforts to improve broadband in schools. They have also given teachers extra cash to spend on tools they think will help pupils "catch up". Lawmakers in America have earmarked an extra $200bn or so for schools since the pandemic started. That sum is equal to about one-quarter of what is spent on these institutions in a typical year.

For years many of the zippiest ed-tech firms have chosen not to sell to schools and universities but to go direct to learners. This category of companies has also benefited during the pandemic.

 Parents in Asia have long been keen to pay for tutoring and other services (such as Byju's app) that might give their offspring an edge. Now families in Europe and America are also getting keen.

Supervising remote learning has made parents everywhere more engaged in their children's education, more aware of how they are performing in comparison to classmates and in some cases more critical of what they are being taught. Companies that offer after-school lessons--such as Outschool, an American unicorn, and GoStudent, an Austrian one--are growing fast as a result.

Another type of outfit getting a boost from the pandemic are those that offer learning to adults. Workers furloughed during lockdowns commonly took online courses that they thought would improve their prospects. Remote working has made more roles plausible to more jobseekers, giving them more reason to reskill. At the same time, a flurry of job-switching in Britain and America has made big employers nervous. They are becoming more convinced that spending on staff training can help them hang on to workers and cut the cost of plugging holes. This is benefiting companies such as Coursera, which says selling subscriptions to corporate customers is its fastest-growing business. Up-and-coming firms include Guild, which helps blue-collar workers at giants such as Walmart and Disney gain new qualifications, and Better Up, an American company that helps professionals find coaching.

Ed-tech's pandemic report card is not without blemishes, however. In China, its single biggest market, the Communist Party declared last July that businesses could not typically make a profit from providing after-school tutoring to children in primary and middle schools. The regime has worried for years that huge demand for private education is widening inequalities and impoverishing the middle class. Even charitable tutoring could no longer take place during holidays and at weekends. Within days the share prices of New Oriental, TAL Education and Gaotu, the industry's three listed Chinese giants, had fallen by two-thirds, wiping out $18bn in stockmarket value. Since February 2021 their collective worth has shrivelled from more than $100bn to less than $10bn. China's most celebrated ed-tech unicorns, Yuanfudao and Zuoyebang, could be worth a fraction of their pre-crackdown valuations of $15.5bn and $10bn, respectively.

The Chinese experience has rattled investors, says Thomas Singlehurst of Citigroup, a bank. It blocked a possible exit route for Western startups, some of whose VC backers may have hoped to sell them to China's ed-tech titans.

It may also inspire tighter rules in next-door India, another potentially vast market where some parents accuse ed-tech firms of misleading ads and aggressive sales tactics. Last month India's education minister said the government was considering new regulation, though he gave no details. Since then at least 15 Indian ed-tech companies, including Byju's, have created a group promising to scribble new codes of conduct.

Western ed-tech firms are unlikely to face similar strictures. But they have their own challenges. In November Chegg, an American company that gives online help to undergraduates, warned that lower-than-usual enrolment in American universities was affecting its revenue. Its market capitalisation, which soared to around $14bn in early 2021, is back down to $4bn, lower than it was before the pandemic. Shares in ed-tech companies that listed in America last year are mostly trading below offer price. Several, including Coursera and Duolingo, have yet to turn a profit.

Not straight As, then. But the industry's boosters think it has room to improve. An influx of users and money in the pandemic has given more firms the muscle to expand abroad and to find ways of retaining users for longer, reckons Deborah Quazzo of GSV, a big educational investor. Take Byju's. It has spent at least $2.8bn on a dozen acquisitions in an apparent attempt to string together services that will allow it to reach learners of all ages, from toddlers to career-changers. The deals are also helping it reach customers far beyond India. In 2021 it began offering online classes in coding and maths to children in America, Brazil, Britain, Indonesia and elsewhere. A big listing might teach ed-tech sceptics and Western rivals alike a lesson." [1]

 

·  ·  · 1. "Learnings growth; Education technology." The Economist, 19 Feb. 2022, p. 53(US).

 

Vladimiras Laučius. Russia's defeat? A few thoughts "against stream"

"Of course, it is very important to inspire courage and optimism in both like-minded people and ourselves. However, if all the reviews and analyzes lead into stages of inspiring statements, we will find ourselves in an alternative reality.

 

Today, it is very often said that Russia's defeat in Ukraine is imminent (well, unless Moscow uses a nuclear weapon, then it is not known how it will end).

 

From the first days of the Donbass defense operation, it is repeated in an exemplary manner that Russia has already lost because it has failed to do anything quickly, lacking the strength to go through all Ukraine or at least the capital, Kyiv; it is said not to withstand crushing economic sanctions, return to the Stone Age, and become a complete outcast in the world community due to its ruined reputation.

 

All of this may sound quite convincing as we try to imagine ourselves, our thinking, and our usual perception of how state leaders, societies, and politicians should think and act instead of a collective Putin.

 

But Putin is on the throne of Putin, not our, and that throne is in Russia, not the West.

 

But let us return to the fundamental question: what makes us think and say that Russia has lost and is only trying to move away from acknowledging this fact, given the progress of the Donbass defense operation?

 

Yes, Western sanctions will deal a severe blow, but on the field of the Donbass defense operation, they will not produce tangible results this month or next if the Donbass defense operation takes so long.

 

The consequences of economic sanctions can be seen as very great losses in Donbass defense operation, but for the collective Kremlin it can be - and still is - acceptable.

 

 Definitely not comparable to those suffered by the physically being destroyed Kyiv powers.

 

Yes, Russia's political reputation is suffering in the West. And what threatens it to her in the near future? Putin's death out of shame? Even in the G-20 format, Russia still has powerful helpers and advocates such as China and India. Negotiations with Iran, blessed by the United States, are taking place with Russia's active participation. Russia still has a veto in the UN Security Council.

 

The poor reputation was not even enough for the West to abandon Russian oil and gas and disconnect the entire Russian banking system from SWIFT.

 

By the way, even when we combine the losses caused by sanctions with the reputational losses they suffer, we still have a situation where large Western corporations, such as Nestle or Renault, remain in the Russian market.

 

If a good reputation in this political world were vital and really essential, then the situation, you agree, should be a little different.

 

At the same time, the Kyiv government, to which it is said Russia have inevitably lost, has already lost control over relatively large areas, and Southeast Ukraine, which connects Crimea with the Donbass, except Mariupol, is controlled by Russia.

 

Who should and could force Russia to return these territories to the Kyiv authorities? Western pressure has not yet forced the Kremlin to start more serious negotiations on a future ceasefire. NATO reiterates that it will not interfere or cover the sky.

 

Maybe the Kyiv authorities are getting more serious offensive weapons from the West? No, we are only talking about anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems. And that is what we are talking about (the S-300 example), although, as we know, action does not always follow languages.

 

Where is that obvious defeat for Russia? And that’s far from all questionable knowledge.

 

In other words, in addition to tangible achievements, Russia may not only stop, but increasingly escalate the situation - until, say, voices in the West call for Volodymyr Zelensky to be more flexible with Putin's demands.

 

Will Moscow limit itself to demanding recognition of Crimea, Donbass and Kyiv's "Austrian" neutrality in Kyiv's refusal to seek NATO membership? Even Ukrainian experts and interviewed sources in the government do not believe in such Russia's gentle negotiating position.

 

Alongside these demands remain the so-called demilitarization, which will try to cripple the future army controlled by the Kyivs authorities for a long time, and, of course, territorial acquisitions. The territory of northern Ukraine and possibly Kherson could become a compromise space for Russia in the negotiations; however, the corridor by the Sea of ​​Azov is unlikely to be handed over.

 

Imagine a ceasefire in April or May under roughly such conditions. Neutrality, demilitarization, recognition of Crimea and Donbas, corridor by the Sea of ​​Azov. Would that be a defeat for Russia?

 

Of course, this can be interpreted as well. Not only that, the reputation of the Kyiv authorities in the Western community would reach heights that could only be dreamed of before the operation to protect Donbas. In fact, it was not even possible to dream.

 

Because in peace talks, watching and cheering the whole world, such an outcome of the Donbas defense operation would be recognized as legitimate and satisfying for all observers and mediators. Because the ceasefire is the most important thing what one does not sacrifice for them.

 

Would that really be a defeat for Russia?”


 

Vladimiras Laučius. Rusijos pralaimėjimas? Kelios mintys „prieš srovę“

 

"Žinoma, labai svarbu įkvėpti drąsos ir optimizmo tiek bendraminčiams, tiek sau patiems. Tačiau, jei visos apžvalgos ir analizės susives į įkvepiančių teiginių posmus, atsidursime alternatyvioje tikrovėje.

Šiandien labai dažnai kartojamas teiginys apie esą neišvengiamą (na, nebent Maskva panaudos branduolinį ginklą, tada – nežinia, kuo viskas pasibaigs) Rusijos pralaimėjimą Ukrainoje.

Nuo pirmų Donbaso gynimo operacijos dienų pavyzdingai kartojama, kad Rusija jau pralaimėjo, nes jai nepavyko nieko padaryti greitai, trūksta jėgų užimti Ukrainą ar bent jau sostinę Kijevą; ji esą neatlaikys triuškinamų ekonominių sankcijų, grįš į akmens amžių ir dėl žlugusios reputacijos taps visiška atstumtąja pasaulio valstybių bendruomenėje.

Visa tai gali skambėti gana įtikinamai, kol bandome kolektyvinio Putino vietoje įsivaizduoti pačius save, savo mąstymą ir įprastą suvokimą to, kaip turėtų galvoti ir veikti valstybių lyderiai, visuomenės ir politikai.

Tačiau Putino soste sėdi Putinas, o ne mes, ir tas sostas – Rusijoje, o ne Vakaruose.

Bet grįžkime prie esminio klausimo: kas, vertinant Donbaso gynimo operacijos eigą, verčia manyti ir teigti, kad Rusija pralaimėjo ir tik iš paskutiniųjų bando atitolinti šio fakto pripažinimą?

Taip, Vakarų sankcijos suduos stiprų smūgį, bet Donbaso gynimo operacijos lauke jos nelems apčiuopiamų rezultatų nei šį, nei kitą, nei dar kitą mėnesį, jei Donbaso gynimo operacijos šitiek užtruktų.

Ekonominių sankcijų padariniai gali būti vertinami, kaip labai dideli Donbaso gynimo operacijos nuostoliai, bet kolektyviniam Kremliui tai gali būti – ir kol kas yra – priimtini nuostoliai

 Tikrai palyginami su tais, kuriuos patiria fiziškai naikinama  Kijevo valdžia.

Taip, Rusijos politinė reputacija kenčia Vakaruose. Ir kuo jai tai gresia artimiausiu metu? Putino mirtimi iš gėdos? Net G-20 formate Rusija tebeturi galingų pagalbininkų ir užtarėjų, tokių, kaip Kinija ir Indija. Derybos su Iranu, JAV palaiminus, vyksta, jose aktyviai dalyvaujant Rusijai. Rusija vis tiek turi veto teisę JT Saugumo Taryboje.

Prastos reputacijos nepakako net tam, kad Vakarai atsisakytų rusiškos naftos, dujų ir atjungtų visą Rusijos bankinę sistemą nuo SWIFT.

Beje, net sudėjus sankcijų daromus nuostolius su patiriamais reputaciniais nuostoliais, vis tiek turime situaciją, kai didelės Vakarų korporacijos, tokios, kaip „Nestle“ arba „Renault“, lieka Rusijos rinkoje.

Jei gera reputacija šiame politiniame pasaulyje būtų gyvybiškai reikalingas ir išties esminis dalykas, tai situacija, sutikite, turėtų būti šiek tiek kitokia.

Tuo metu Kijevo valdžia, kuriai, kaip teigiama, Rusija neišvengiamai pralaimėjo, jau neteko kontrolės gan didelėse teritorijose, o Ukrainos Pietryčiai, jungiantys Krymą su Donbasu, išskyrus Mariupolį, kontroliuojami Rusijos.

Kas turėtų ir galėtų priversti Rusiją šias teritorijas grąžinti Kijevo valdžiai? Vakarų spaudimas kol kas net nepriverčia Kremliaus pradėti rimčiau derėtis dėl būsimų paliaubų. NATO kartoja, kad nesikiš ir dangaus nedengs.

Gal Kijevo valdžia gauna iš Vakarų rimtesnės puolamosios ginkluotės? Ne, kalbama tik apie priešlėktuvines ir priešraketines gynybinės paskirties sistemas. Ir būtent – kalbama (S-300 pavyzdys), nors, kaip žinome, veiksmai ne visada spėja paskui kalbas.

Kur čia tas akivaizdus Rusijos pralaimėjimas? Ir tai dar toli gražu ne visos abejonių keliančios žinios.

Kitaip tariant, be apčiuopiamų pasiekimų Rusija gali ne tik nesustoti, bet vis labiau eskaluoti situaciją – tol, kol, tarkime, Vakaruose ims garsiau skambėti balsai, raginantys Volodymyrą Zelenskį lanksčiau žiūrėti į Putino keliamus reikalavimus.

Ar Maskva apsiribos reikalavimais pripažinti Krymą, Donbasą ir Ukrainos „austrišką“ neutralumą, šiai atsisakant siekti narystės NATO? Tokia švelnia Rusijos derybine pozicija netiki net Ukrainos ekspertai ir kalbinti šaltiniai vyriausybėje.

Šalia minėtų reikalavimų lieka ir vadinamoji demilitarizacija, kuria bus bandoma ilgam suluošinti būsimą Kijevo valdžios kontroliuojamą kariuomenę, ir, žinoma, teritoriniai įsigijimai. Šiaurės Ukrainos teritorijos ir galbūt Chersonas gali tapti Rusijos kompromiso erdve derybose; tačiau iškovotas koridorius prie Azovo jūros vargu, ar bus atiduotas.

Įsivaizduokime, kad maždaug tokiomis – minėtomis – sąlygomis paliaubos balandį ar gegužę būtų pasirašytos. Neutralumas, demilitarizacija, Krymo ir Donbaso pripažinimas, koridorius prie Azovo jūros. Ar tai būtų Rusijos pralaimėjimas?

Žinoma, galima interpretuoti ir taip.  Maža to, Kijevo valdžios reputacija Vakarų valstybių bendruomenėje pasiektų aukštumas, apie kurias prieš karą buvo galima tik svajoti. Tiesą sakant, net ir svajoti nebuvo galima.

Nes taikos derybose, stebint ir linksint visam pasauliui, toks Donbaso gynimo operacijos rezultatas būtų pripažintas, kaip legitimus ir tenkinantis visus stebėtojus ir tarpininkus. Nes paliaubos – svarbiausia, ko dėl jų nepaaukosi.

Ar tai tikrai būtų Rusijos pralaimėjimas?"


Poll: A majority of Germans oppose a proposal to give up gas from Russia

 "The majority of Germans do not support the proposal to abandon gas from Russia.

 

    5,003 people took part in the survey, which took place on March 22-23. According to the study, 48 percent. the Germans spoke out against the imposition of an embargo on Russian gas imports. 41 percent of respondents support the call to abandon natural gas from Russia. 11 percent participants in the study did not have an opinion on the matter.

 

    According to Spiegel, Russia has so far been Germany's most important supplier of energy resources. In 2020, Germany bought 56.3 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia - about 55 percent of import. Last year, that proportion remained roughly the same."

 


Apklausa: Dauguma Vokietijos gyventojų nepritaria pasiūlymui atsisakyti dujų iš Rusijos


"Dauguma Vokietijos gyventojų nepritaria pasiūlymui atsisakyti dujų iš Rusijos. Tai rodo trečiadienį paskelbti apklausos, kurią leidinio „Spiegel“ užsakymu surengė sociologijos institutas „Civey“, rezultatai.

Kovo 22-23 dienomis vykusioje apklausoje dalyvavo 5 003 žmonės. Tyrimo duomenimis, 48 proc. vokiečių pasisakė prieš embargo Rusijos dujų importui įvedimą. 41 proc. apklaustųjų pritaria raginimui atsisakyti gamtinių dujų iš Rusijos. 11 proc. tyrimo dalyvių neturėjo savo nuomonės šiuo klausimu.

Kaip pažymi „Spiegel“, iki šiol Rusija buvo svarbiausia energijos išteklių tiekėja Vokietijai. 2020 metais VFR pirko 56,3 mlrd. kubinių metrų gamtinių dujų iš Rusijos – maždaug 55 proc. importo. Pernai ši proporcija išliko maždaug tokia pati."


Soviet legacy

  D. ... Alimas, the former President of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, is proposing to ban the letter Z and the letter Ž, which is very similar to Z, because it is something of a symbol. Prior to this reform, this man was a simple Žalimas. Now he has turned ... Alimas, fighting for freedom and brotherhood of nations. The Soviet legacy for us is going out from all ends. We are constantly trying to prove something, we keep fighting to keep avoiding real work. 

  

Sovietinis palikimas

 

D. ...Alimas, buvęs Konstitucinio Teismo pirmininkas, siūlo uždrausti Z raidę ir į ją labai panašią Ž raidę, kadangi tai tai būti ko nors simboliai. Iki šios reformos šis žmogus buvo paprastas Žalimas. Dabar jis pažaliavo, kovodamas už laisvę ir tautų brolystę. Sovietinis palikimas mums vis išlenda ir išlenda per visus galus. Vis ką nors įrodinėjam vis kovojam, kad tik nedirbti.