Slashdot Mirror

Using LinkedIn and Facebook may be perceived these says as a practical necessity for many people, of course. There is such a thing as social networking effects. But using them is still overall a bad thing for society -- even ignoring the personal mental health effects: https://www.medicaldaily.com/s...

Essentially, profiling (or ratting on) your colleagues and friends/family and defining all your relationships to them to a central authority on an ongoing basis is in some sense immoral in a democracy when other decentralized alternatives exist (e.g. email, IRC, personal websites,and more). It is immoral because it pushes too much power (as information) into a few centers instead of keeping that power decentralized across society. It does not matter if those centers are industrial or governmental.

Giving up such information voluntarily to big central authorities is the kind of thing that anyone who went to public school in the 1960s or 1970s would have been taught reflected the values of Soviet Russia and its pervasive intelligence apparatus (e.g. listening in on all phone calls) -- not the values of a democratic USA.

As Mark Zuckerberg himself said, it is just dumb:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

Of course, given such a high level of informational immorality over the past decade (trading privacy for convenience), the world indeed may have changed. It is possible there is no going back -- even as various people, myself included, have worked towards more decentralized communication alternatives.

Instead, we may have to consider, say, David Brin's "Transparent Society" as a different option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Of course, there is likely a healthy balance of meshwork and hierarchy needed, so not all one or the other:
http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/me...
"Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."

No easy answers... But a big potential problem...

See also for the past:
https://ibmandtheholocaust.com...
"IBM and the Holocaust is the stunning story of IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany -- beginning in 1933 in the first weeks that Hitler came to power and continuing throughout World War II. As the Third Reich embarked upon its plan of conquest and genocide, IBM and its subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies, step-by-step, from the identification and cataloging programs of the 1930s to the selections of the 1940s."

And for the present and near future, China's Social Credit system:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
"Chinaâ(TM)s social credit system, a big-data system for monitoring and shaping business and citizensâ(TM) behaviour, is reaching beyond Chinaâ(TM)s borders to impact foreign companies, according to new research. The system, which has been compared to an Orwellian tool of mass surveillance, is an ambitious work in progress: a series of big data and AI-enabled processes that effectively grant subjects a social credit score based on their socia

In India, an engineer has been adding plastic to reduce bitumen as an asphalt component; mostly to reduce waste in landfills.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Which sounded great to me until I read the poster's comment below, with their idea of microplastics in the food chain.

A wide ranging tale by the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, the journalist who broke the story of both the My Lai massacre and the US torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib..

Some reviews:

Reporter by Seymour Hersh review – memoir of a giant of journalism

Amazon

Google

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. "Bould, Dylan M., et al., References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature, 2014, British Medical Journal, 6 March 2014, 348 DOI, online from BMJ" "New Age judge blasts Apple | The Register" "Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief | The Register" Most colleges and universities (Especially in some high schools and private schools) have a policy that prohibits students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or anything equivalent. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment. Although when an error is recognized, it is usually fixed. However, because Wikipedia cannot monitor thousands of edits made everyday, some of those edits could contain vandalism or could be simply wrong and left unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. https://www.theguardian.com/ed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

the issue of mass political censorship, population-wide surveillance, and social control, is not JUST due to Google, or Facebook, or the others. It's systemic, from the loss of control over the core mechanisms of personal computing which has been happening drip by drop since the 1980's or early 90's.

How was that control lost? People just... gave it away. One drip at a time. Without a care in the world because they got to think just a little bit less.

There was a war over personal computing and it has been lost by the good guys. Now people around the world are starting to pay for it.

Good job, Facebook and Google customers. Nicely done "cloud computing" supporters. Slow clap.

Human slavery is still alive and well today. At present, around the world, some estimate there are nearly 46 million people living in slavery.

So it seems to me that getting rid of the term "slavery" does not actually help the problem; it simply sweeps the problem under the rug, so those of us prone to "fainting couches" no longer have to look at the problem or think about the problem.

Does this deliberate ignorance make us better as a people?

Further, when the day does come when human slavery no longer exists, when it is a faint memory and the only places its talked about are in history books and in computer science classes--does this make computer scientists insensitive people? Or does this give us the ability to finally redefine the terms from one of the horrors of human slavery and into a technical term? Meaning does this make computer scientists bad people? Or are they reclaiming two words for a higher purpose?

I think this whole process of throwing otherwise useful terms down the memory hole distasteful, because it inadvertently sweeps serious, real, and pressing problems under the rug. I would rather reframe the problem of human slavery than ignore it.

An oversimplification. Higher CO2 concentration alone has no benefit to crop yields beyond a certain point, which happens to be a point we've passed in the last few years:

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

And the higher temperature that comes with that excess CO2 is bad for crop yields.

[sarcasm mode on]

Yep we see lots of examples of working single payer solutions.

[sarcasm mode off]

Our solution is broken, but many 1st world systems are broken. Just giving everyone access to healthcare doesn't necessarily improve healthcare. We have many more issues beyond just that. We need to come up with effective policies for handling wait times, delays for essential testing and services, the inevitable loss of incoming medical professionals when incomes stagnate or fall, and the lack of innovation in medicine that artificially deflating costs will cause (ever wonder why many of these countries sickest people seek help in the US)?

...because losing protection on your human rights is so much better.

Of course it hot-diggety-did, goshdarnit.

What other possible explanation is there for the overwhelming "no" in the Brexit vote after his 'back of the queue" threat?

You really should stop using WikiPedia as a resource for material. Even WikiPedia states as much because a article can be edited by anyone at anything with an Internet connection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Most colleges and universities (Especially in some high schools and private schools) have a policy that prohibits students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or anything equivalent. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment. Although when an error is recognized, it is usually fixed. However, because Wikipedia cannot monitor thousands of edits made everyday, some of those edits could contain vandalism or could be simply wrong and left unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years." https://www.theguardian.com/ed...

Arguably, economics is a bullshit discipline. Supply-and-demand theory might have explanatory value for small-scale commodities that are purchased on a daily basis and widely available for many suppliers (fruit, gas, etc.). It breaks down for larger, longer-scale purchases (health care, hiring, education).

There are plenty of business owners who would rather retire and shut down their company out of spite, rather than give workers relatively higher wages. Example.

No one wears helmets on those because doing so is stupid.

Whereas in other parts of the world (lots of countries in Europe), you'll see lots of people wearing helmets.

Mostly because there are numbers showing that it helps reducing some injuries and reduce risks of death (sorry the only english language source I found. But this seems corroborated by our swiss nationnal accident statistics, too - this one is done by the national accident insurance fund, they have a strong financial interest into promoting anything that might reduce injuries).

You don't wear a helmet driving your car do you?

I don't wear a helmet driving my car, mostly because a have a whole car around me which is available to shield me from injury or cushion me before impact.
This includes simple things like the car's own body, or more advanced accessories like airbags, safebelts with pre-tensionning, etc.
There's ton of numbers supporting this, and the main reason why most of these accessories have became mandatory over time.

And that is if a collision actually happens to begin with. (Features like FCAS might cause the car to autonomously hit the brakes and perform an emergency stop if it sense a risk of collision. This kind of feature is common in lots of high-range vehicle (e.g.: Volvo) and with some manufacturer (e.g.: VW) is a standard feature which is installed on even the shittiest cars (e.g.:VW Up!) )

Meanwhile if anything wrong happens while you're biking, your head will be hitting the hard-ground mostly at whatever speed you were biking at during this moment (which can be anywhere between 15km/h and 45km/h depending on the presence and type of electric motorization)
This type of impact is of sufficiently high energy to be potentially lethal and surely leading to injury. Helmet have shown to be helping in reducing these risks.

You're more likely to get a TBI doing that than bicycling.

Nope. Incidence of accident seem more or less in the same ball park according to national accident statics (e.g.: in Switzerland).

RIght, because that region has never thought about desalination until you mentioned it. Oh wait: https://www.theguardian.com/gl...

Towing icebergs from the south pole to the middle east is still bullshit of course.

Also the massive decline in unions at the behest of billionaires running astroturf PR campaigns against them.

It's not them. It's the job, the bullshit job. David Graeber has expanded the essay into a book and it is well worth reading. Perhaps at your bullshit job.

Some context on the local tussle: 'Google go home': the Berlin neighbourhood fighting off a tech giant [May 2018, The Guardian].

Looks aren't everything, and seldom provide a stable mainstay for a relationship... but that is an ugly woman in the green.

In the popular history of postwar urban development, blame for the decline of the streetcars and interurbans is often placed at the feet of National City Lines, the company owned by General Motors, Firestone, and others in the auto industry that bought out many local streetcar companies to convert their operations to rubber-tired, GM-made buses. But the main issue was not the technology change—it was the decline in transit service, which happened everywhere, whether or not NCL bought the local company.

A few other good articles:

This accusation [GM killed the streetcar], however, ignores fundamental problems that the streetcar system in Los Angeles had been facing for years. The dirty secret about the streetcar lines: they were wildly unprofitable and were quickly losing riders. In Transport of Delight, Jonathan Richmond points out that the Pacific Electric line managed to turn a profit in only two years between 1923 and the end of World War II. Meanwhile, between 1945 and 1951, the number of riders carried each year fell by nearly 80 million.

Cheaper to operate and requiring less maintenance, buses began phasing out the streetcars very early. In 1926, 15 percent of the total miles traveled by Pacific Electric riders was along bus routes; that number would more than double by 1939.

By the time that National City Lines entered the picture, the dismantling of the streetcar system was well underway. As The Guardian puts it, "one can confidently accuse General Motors and their National City Lines of nothing worse than scheming to profit from a trend already in motion."

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Yes, she did.

Just curious...

In-humanness of the response aside, the risk is quite low, ships are replaceable, and crews are typically from poor countries where life is cheap. These aren't your western well paid sailors who are mourned and whose companies get sued into oblivion for providing unsafe work locations.

This is a common trope, but it's simply not true. The number of cargo ships lost at sea about equals the number of lives lost aboard those ships. That is, on average about 1 person dies for each ship that sinks.

The vast majority of people aboard a cargo ship which sinks are rescued. Life rafts are required by all shipping regulators. And satellite locator beacons have become so cheap that I suggest you get one if you do things like boating or hiking.. Their cost (a few hundred dollars, though a commercial model will run a few thousand) is much less than the liability and bad publicity of someone dying because your ship sank. When someone dies, it's usually because they were unable to reach the life raft in time (injured or blocked in due to the accident which sank the ship).

In fact, the fatality rate works out to (100 deaths) * (100,000) / (1.25 million) = 8 per 100,000. That makes it safer than a variety of jobs as mundane as taxi driver or landscaper. The fatality rate is right around the average for all jobs if you account for those people being aboard the ship 24/7, while people are at the other occupationss on average for less than 6 hours a day.

Since when is it the government's job to pick winners and losers in the market?

Our now PM is the same minister that brought a lump of coal into the House of Representatives:
https://www.theguardian.com/au...

They continue to support coal based power even though not a single energy company is interested in building - or even maintaining - these obsolete power plants.

Education is not the same as consumer goods.
You don't seem like the kind of person who would be interested in reading or learning but here is an opinion piece that explains the difference... Others might be interested.
The Guardian view on education: some things money should not buy

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

Of course, in China they often times don't end up in jail but just disappear. No one knows - officially - what happens. There are at least 125,000 not officially jailed, but being re-educated. In prisons that are forced labor camps.

First of all: how would we avoid them traveling through a safe country?

Why would you want to? How about they just stop at the first safe country, especially countries where the culture is more like their own. And you're ignoring that the majority are economic migrants.

Secondly: which country would you consider save?

As an example, the dead boy on the beach was taken from a safe environment in Turkey by his father.

Because they don't get Hatz IV, they only get something like $200 pocket money per month.

You said they didn't get money. You were wrong.

He was not supposed to be deported.

Yes, he was. He used every trick, legal loophole, and spineless inaction by the government to avoid it. And after 13 years, the best the government could come up with was to take away his allowance.

The refugees came first, and then Merkel formed politics to organize how to receive them.

She turned a stream of "refugees" into a flood:

"Merkel's suspension of the Dublin II accord and her decision to do away with all effective vetting of asylum applications submitted by Syrians looks certain to lead to an unprecedented number of migrants arriving in the country; according to the latest estimates, 1.5 million refugees are likely to have arrived in Germany in 2015 alone."

you lecture about a situation you have no knowledge about

*snort* You're the one that has been wrong on every front, in complete denial of news reports. You haven't even provided one link in this debate, while I have provided many. You even accused me of not reading a link, when it showed that you were the one who was wrong.

You blame a politician for refugees seeking asylum into the EU, while that politician only has influence over Germany.

Even you can't be this dumb. Laying out the doormat for Germany was obviously going to affect other countries and Europe, and it did. The EU even tried to force other countries to take their "fair share", while wise countries with a backbone told them to fuck off.

You are beyond a useful idiot. You are a bleating sheep with blinkers on your eyes:

"Muslims invading Europe used to get repelled by armies. Now you just invite them in, shove your people aside, and give them welfare. In return for your pathological kindness, they slaughter your people at Christmas markets, sexually assault your women in gangs, and ignore your laws for their own. All while you pay the jizya like a flock of stupid sheep."

This is the same Google that in 2017 was fined 2.4 billion Euro by the EU for manipulating search results?

https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

I trust experts. What I don't trust is politicians to select experts for me and then force me to act according to their preferences.

Could you be a little more vague? If you're referring to stuff like the "experts" who went on TV and lied us into a war in Iraq, sure. If you're talking about climate change, that's nonsense, as the USG is so into fossil fuel production that it will overthrow countries if they dare nationalize their own resources.

Chomsky, Habermas, and Sartre are intellectuals, but they have no expertise on anything that matters, like running the economy, treating cancer, or fixing a leak.

Experts on politics. Yeah, politics doesn't effect anyone or anything, way to enhance your credibility there slick.

The Steel and aluminium taffifs are against the WTO rules.

What 10% difference bullshit are you talking about Windy? You never found it the last few times you claimed it was a rule.

Funny when Google was helping develop better guided missile programs for the US government that would actually save lives they all had a collective hissy fit. But helping the Chinese government oppress its people is A-Ok with them.

You don't pay attention to the news. Google engineers are complaining about the proposed censored Chinese search engine: https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/16/google-employees-protest-censored-china-search-engine/
https://www.dw.com/en/google-employees-protest-plans-for-chinese-censored-search-engine/a-45113112

You hit the nail on the head.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

More specifically, the CBP's position is that they can keep all data that they inspect forever, and her lawsuit would force them to prove that they only used it to inspect her as she comes into the country, and to wipe the data now that they're done. This is an important lawsuit, because right now they're pulling all data from all devices that they 'inspect' (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us...) and have demanded social network credentials so that they can log into your account and capture your posts and friends. I'm sure it's all useful to them, but it sure feels unconstitutional, in a country founded on freedom and individual rights.

However, how Amazon operates affects the lives of the people in the surrounding communities

Exactly, what I mean by Collectivist Bullshit.

then the government-run health and workers compensation programs will be burdened

Yes, a good argument against government-run health and workers compensation programs, thank you.

the community should be able to voice their concerns

Everyone is entitled to voice concerns. But there are loud calls to force Amazon to change... From the same people, who've sung praises to dictators forcing such changes on others. Because that's the way to Worker's Paradise.

It is those calls, that must be rejected. And not so much for the sake of Amazon, who is is rich and big enough to fight its own battles, but for all of us.

However, how Amazon operates affects the lives of the people in the surrounding communities

Exactly, what I mean by Collectivist Bullshit.

then the government-run health and workers compensation programs will be burdened

Yes, a good argument against government-run health and workers compensation programs, thank you.

the community should be able to voice their concerns

Everyone is entitled to voice concerns. But there are loud calls to force Amazon to change... From the same people, who've sung praises to dictators forcing such changes on others. Because that's the way to Worker's Paradise.

It is those calls, that must be rejected. And not so much for the sake of Amazon, who is is rich and big enough to fight its own battles, but for all of us.

However, how Amazon operates affects the lives of the people in the surrounding communities

Exactly, what I mean by Collectivist Bullshit.

then the government-run health and workers compensation programs will be burdened

Yes, a good argument against government-run health and workers compensation programs, thank you.

the community should be able to voice their concerns

Everyone is entitled to voice concerns. But there are loud calls to force Amazon to change... From the same people, who've sung praises to dictators forcing such changes on others. Because that's the way to Worker's Paradise.

It is those calls, that must be rejected. And not so much for the sake of Amazon, who is is rich and big enough to fight its own battles, but for all of us.

However, how Amazon operates affects the lives of the people in the surrounding communities

Exactly, what I mean by Collectivist Bullshit.

then the government-run health and workers compensation programs will be burdened

Yes, a good argument against government-run health and workers compensation programs, thank you.

the community should be able to voice their concerns

Everyone is entitled to voice concerns. But there are loud calls to force Amazon to change... From the same people, who've sung praises to dictators forcing such changes on others. Because that's the way to Worker's Paradise.

It is those calls, that must be rejected. And not so much for the sake of Amazon, who is is rich and big enough to fight its own battles, but for all of us.

... from the usual "political correctness" complaint, which is somebody with a regular appearance on a major newspaper page, TV or radio show, complaining to an audience of millions that they are being "silenced". ( https://www.theguardian.com/us... )

On a practical note, if these millions are "unsilenced", how I am supposed to find time to listen to them? I can only listen to each of even one million people every month, if I spend 18 hours a day listening to each for two seconds.

There are many other things that businesses do that I think are worse.

Free speech is the bedrock of a democracy. Big Tech is trying to use their power to decide the outcomes of the midterm elections, by silencing those they disagree with. The future is now.

As for Maduro, he publicly called Bernie Sanders "our revolutionary friend" and praised his candidacy. Pretty odd thing for a non-socialist to do.

Tourists flock not to the beaches, but the slums to see '21st-century socialism'
From a trickle a few years ago there are now thousands, travelling individually and on package tours, exploring a leftwing mecca which promises to build social justice in the form of "21st century socialism".

Your clothes are made to fit you.

That depends to an extent on whether you saw a tailor or bought off the rack.

They don't hide your shape or size

With exceptions. For the past several decades, a lot of money in the fashion industry has gone toward hiding the overweight brought on by the modern American diet. The loose clothing commonly associated with the Middle East hides the shape of the body for two reasons: as a side effect of "chimney effect" convective cooling design for hot weather and (allegedly) to distract the brain from sexual desire. The loose ankle-length vestments worn by Catholic clergy have a similar distractive effect. The hoop skirts popular in the 16th century and the 1860s made a woman's hips look bigger, and a reenactor told me that men preferred large hips in a wife because large hips are correlated with less risk of CPD and other complications that would interfere with birth of the pair's children.

Likewise, libraries such as Xlib and PulseAudio hide the fact that a machine has only one video output and only one stereo audio output by dividing up the video and mixing the audio from multiple applications.

An giraffe costume isn't a natural fit for you

That depends on whether you bought an off-the-shelf fursuit or commissioned a custom one.

So is Wine for the furry fandom? ;-)

Facebook did some kind of experiment to see if they could make people sad, intentionally. Experimenting with psychological manipulation on a mass scale... is a far cry... from what a town crier can do. I'd dump a girl who was that manipulative, wouldn't you? "let's see how sad I can make him today." Nope.

But you're right, it is like a town crier, just more efficient. But being more efficient can cause issues. (eg, a machine that kills a bird is not a big deal, but a machine that kills a million is.)

And the town crier can could mess with people too. ...if he was a dickbag.

Facebook, the super efficient dickbag town crier.

Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

And that isn't even considering America is a quarter the size of China.

As a real actual scuba diver, rather than someone who clearly pretends to be like yourself, I've seen the impact of plastic on our oceans and it is frankly tragic.

If a local public park had even a fraction of the litter that turns up on almost every reef in the world then the local residents would be in uproar about the littering of their park.

There are also plenty of pictures of the problem that trivially disprove your lies. Most beaches have local residents or local governments cleaning them regularly, this is what things look like when they don't:

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

And this is just one example of a real actual scuba diver diving in a real actual plastic island that you're downplaying as not existing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

In terms of micro-plastics though specifically, I'm not sure I understand why the summary is pretending the reasons for plastics moving up the food chain are unknown. They're well known and well understood, there's even a common word for the effect, it's called bioamplification, where smaller creatures consume something (in this case, micro-plastics) and then larger predators eat many of these smaller things, and in turn ingest the microplastics in the smaller prey they've consumed, carry on ad-nauseum until you reach the top of the food chain. At this point there is a significant amount of evidence suggesting this is a leading cause of infertility and still births in, for example, a number of whale populations.

So kindly fuck off with your anti-science bullshit, this is a tech site and you're in the wrong place if you think this is somewhere where people want to be fed that crap.

You wrote an expert-sounding essay on a topic like this without doing your homework on pthalates? Really??

https://www.theguardian.com/li...

Still much less than the all time highest emitter America

In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames

Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google.

Why bother continuing the lie further? Are you really that stupid?

In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames

Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

An evidence review published in the journal Renewable Energy in 2010, which included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years, concluded that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines.

In other words, the concrete, the rare earths and the steel can all be mined and refined for less than 5% of the energy output of the windmill. Even if increased demand causes us to use slightly less easily mined materials, increasing the energy use by a few percentage points, so what? It would still be immensely profitable from an energy standpoint.

On the solar side: Concentrators don't require silicon. If silicon consumption really is such a big problem for pv panels, we can build concentrators instead. They're not suited for residential rooftops, but they're fine for large-scale installations.

Before paying any attention to this guy's predictions it's worth remembering that he and the BoE have a long history of failed predictions.

Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting :

Andrew Haldane says his profession must adapt to regain the trust of the public, claiming narrow models ignored ‘irrational behaviour'

He predicted a massive recession that would kill 800,000 jobs in the UK in 2017-2018, which never materialised. Instead the economy grew. But as you can see from the quote, instead of blaming bad modelling, he blamed the people he was trying to model for being "irrational".

In other words, I - Anonymous Coward - have more credibility than Andy Haldane when it comes to predictions of job losses because I don't have a track record of making bogus predictions of job losses.

Here, let me Google that for you...

https://www.theguardian.com/sc...