From TFA: "Even reputable sources like the official presidential campaigns may encroach on what many of us consider a reasonable expectation of privacy and limitations on data collection."
Journalists today, silly kids. Presidential campaigns "reputable"? Now, get off my lawn...
"European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech."
Article 9 states (bold is mine): "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Public order? Morals? That's a whole set up loopholes you could drive a fleet of trucks through.
I'll settle for days not so far in the past. I used to fly out of Dallas Love Field, which is a fairly small airport. Park you car, walk to the check-in counter, walk to the gate, get on the plane. Somewhere in there you walked through a metal detector. Total elapsed time: 30 minutes.
Now, in the US with TSA security theater, you have to allow 90 minutes. An entire extra hour, times 600,000,000 flights per year: TSA costs the equivalent of more than 1000 lifetimes of time each and every year. Add to that the monetary and social costs of paying an army of morons to humiliate everyone, and you can only shake your head in disgust...
I want to go back to simple security measures, run by the airlines, who presumably have some interest in (a) efficiency and (b) customer service.
I remember reading an article many years ago - long before the global warming scare - that pointed out that moving to lower carbon fuels was a long-term trend. Industry started out with coal and charcoal, essentually pure carbon. Then it moved on to oil, which contains a mix of carbon and hydrogen. Natural gas was up-and-coming, with 1 carbon to 4 hydrogens. The article assumed that the future held nuclear and solar, both of which are essentially zero-carbon.
Aside from the hiccups with nuclear (justified or not, depending on your point of view), the article seems to have been pretty prescient.
Some rare earths (and lots of other elements) do not exist in their pure form in nature - they are only found in chemical compounds. If I invent a refining process to extract these elements in pure form, I can patent that process. Fair enough.
However, this judge has said that DNA fragments have been manipulated chemically, and can therefore be patented because this new form does not exist in nature. So, by his logic, I can patent not only my refining process, but the actual chemical element that results from it.
This guy needs to go back and take some basic science classes. Alternatively, one needs to have a hard look at his (very close) ties to the IP industry.
I've been in computer science for around 30 years. My experience, in order of decreasing importance:
Frequent: algebra, propositionaly logic
Occasional: Statistics, graph theory, set theory, predicate logic, automata theory
Rare (but non-zero): geometry, trigonometry
As you suspect, calculus does not come up unless you are doing something very domain specific. Differential equations are bloody useless, even as a math course, at least they way I was taught: trust the cookbook, don't ask questions about why they work. Again, maybe useful in a specific domain.
That said, I found calculus to be useful as a gateway to fun courses in relativity and quantum mechanics, and it can be a useful way to think about some problems (continuous instead of discrete).
Ok, my first off-the-cuff response got modded "flamebait". I hadn't RTFA, I just based my opinion on Hansen's past publicity stunts. More, look at the timing: Right after the Curiosity landing sends NASA hits through the roof, to stage your next publicity stunt as a "NASA scientist".
So now I've read the publicly accessible parts of the paper. I stick by my initial opinion: he's a publicity hound, nothing more. The paper is based on the trend of "hot weather" incidents starting in 1950 through 2000. Why didn't he include the 1930's and 1940's? Probably because they were hotter than the 1950's and would mess up his nice little trend. Anyway, looking for serious climate trends over a period of only 50 years is just dumb. There is a natural 60-year climate oscillation (see Scafetta, 2010) that lines up nicely with this little line segment that Hansen has chopped out. If you cherry pick your data, of course you can find a trend.
I stick by my original message: Hansen is a publicity cow, cynically using the Curiosity publicity to advance his own agenda.
To start with a specific example with which I am familiar: not death, but stroke. My mother suffered a stroke in her visual cortex. In the end, she had a blank area in her field of vision. But as the stroke happened, and for a short time afterwards, she said that she saw funny rainbows and colors in that area.
In the case of a heart attack, the brain isn't always instantly deprived of oxygen: this may happen over some time, depending on the specifics of the case. A partially oxygen-deprived brain may continue to "function" in unreliable ways, which may lead to hallucinations: seeing bright lights, or whatever.
It is well-known that the brain will invent entire stories to fill in gaps and cover up inconsistencies in its experience. Combine hallucinations and a belief in an afterlife with this "invention" capability, and you get near-death religious experiences. Here in Switzerland, there have been a number of people who claimed to "float" over the scene of their death, seeing everything from above. This became so prevalent that a skeptics program has placed pictures on top of the cabinets in various emergency rooms around the country. They are still waiting for the first person who suffers a near-death experience and can name anything they saw on top of the cabinets...
You have got to be kidding. Even if you get a real security pro to work for the government, in 10 years, he/she will be totally out of date and heading an evergrowing empire of unqualified idiots. These bureaucrats will secure their jobs by getting out of the consulting business entirely and writing regulations that they can enforce.
In my time in the support-barrel, I eliminated real-time support in favor of email. This may not fit every situation, of course. We were supporting a complex software product (ERP) used by largely non-technical users. When we offered real-time support, users would contact us whenever they got stuck, rather than looking in the product documentation, or even asking the person sitting at the next desk. When they really did have a support issue, they would contact us completely unprepared: they didn't know how the error occurred, they didn't know how to reproduce it, they usually hadn't even written the error message down before clicking it away.
As soon as we required contact by email, most of the RTFM questions went away. The real support issues usually arrived with at least some of the necessary information, simply because the user had to sit down and describe in writing what had happened.
After an initial period of adaptation "no, we can't take your call, please describe your issue in an email to xxx@yyy.zzz", we never had the impression that anyone missed the real-time support.
Maybe Intuit does feed their programmers well. Now if they would just hire some decent support people. We used to use a multi-currency version of QuickBooks, and the errors were simply astounding in their stupidity. As one, minor example: it was completely clear that some conversions were handled using floating point numbers, with the inevitable decimal rounding errors. At the end of the year, we had huge currency conversion errors - far beyond what even floating-point errors could explain - and essentially impossible to justify to the tax authorities.
There were lots of other problems as well. Trying to report errors was like talking to a black hole. The one time we really needed some real-time support, we spent ages on hold, or going around in circles with different people, and wound up getting no useful help at all. In the end, the only solution was to go back to a single-currency system, and deal with currency outside of QuickBooks.
Still, as bad as our experiences with QuickBooks have been, there's nothing better in the same price category.
I love examples like this, in a perverse sort of way, because it give me yet another example to give to my students. Government contracts are essentially always done with the "waterfall" model, because the government insists on complete specs before funding. Any competent software engineer educated in the past 20 years knows that waterfall-projects fail if they are above a certain size. Hence, there is an endless supply of examples like this, and will be as long as the government software contracts are managed by people who know nothing about software.
Of course, you can also add in all of the above comments about revolving-door, management turnover, and simple corruption. But even without these, the projects would have failed.
From TFA: "The department is racing to meet a statutory September 2017 deadline for passing a full financial audit."
Ya gotta love it. Any publically traded company has its accounts audited annually. The government is so out of control that it looks unlikely to meet a deadline of a successful audit five years in the future.
The government ought to be required to follow the same standards required of companies. No one has any idea what the financial status of the US government really is, least of all the government itself...
Here's the clue: "The Sheriff’s Department paid about $36 for each Stack-On Safe."
For $36, you do not get a high-security safe. You are getting a metal box with a cheap lock. Really, you'd be better off sticking the gun in your nightstand - at least then there is no illusion of security.
Follow the money. Selling replacement chargers is an income source. Just look at Dell laptops: they use an industry standard connector with an additional pin inside. The extra pin serves only one purpose: the laptop can tell whether or not the charger is made by Dell. You can buy chargers from other companies, and they will plug into your Dell. The laptop will use the power to run, but will not charge the battery. This behavior serves only one purpose: to guarantee that you buy your replacement from Dell.
This kind of idiotic mentality is what finally let the EU to require a standard for mobile phones. The government shouldn't have to regulate such things, but sometimes the free market fails. I can imagine this happening here as well...
There have been lots and lots and lots of studies on how to improve education. Out of all of these, there are two measures that bring substantial gains, while reducing costs:
- Fire incompetent teachers. You don't even have to replace them - just fire the worst teachers and put their students in the other classes.
- Reduce regulation and administration. Let the teachers teach, instead of dealing with bureaucratic idiocy from adminstrators and government regulators.
Of course, the first is opposed by the teacher's unions, and the second is opposed by administrative empire builders, so neither of these is likely to happen. In particular, of course the government wants another governmental program to interfere in education. When, in reality, the federal government has absolutely no business meddling in any educational system outside of DC.
Not saying they haven't thought of it and engineering for it. Just interesting numbers:
Storage pressure of around 2000psi in a natural cavern provides quite the energy potential. They say they can generate 300MW for 100 hours from the full cavern. It's not quite in the nuclear class, but if I ran my numbers right, we are talking energy storage on the order of 1/10 of a megaton.
Either it is the long-term climatic change that the IPCC and others have been warning about, or it isn't. You say "a few years of drought" - that isn't long-term climate at all, but short-term weather patterns. Anyway, the US east of the Rockies (which I'll bet is where you are) is yammering about hot temperatures and drought being signs of global warming. Meanwhile, lots of the rest of the planet is having a cool, rainy summer. Your local weather is exactly that: local, and short term.
I am definitely a skeptic. There is no question that CO2 contributes to a greenhouse effect, however, there is no evidence (and never has been) that this triggers large positive feedback cycles. It has all been based on computer models, and most of the predictions of those models have been wrong.
For what it's worth, I once spent a good deal of time testing this hypothesis. I spent a lot of time researching optimized layouts, picked one, and used it for a solid year - parallel to the QWERTY layout that I was still using at work. After a year, I was equally proficient with both (I could touch-type either at will, same error-rate, etc.), and I ran a number of tests.
The results were quite consistent: about a 10% speed increase (from 60wpm to 66 wpm), no significant difference in the error rates. For what it's worth, at that point I decided for QWERTY. That's what most keyboards in the West are based on, and for a 10% gain in speed, you have the irritation of switching back-and-forth all the time. If you don't type a lot on both layouts, your speed-gain on one quickly becomes a massive speed-penalty on the other.
Note: there is a nice little open-source application out there that will let you take your personal keyboard layout with you whereever you go. Unfortunately, it currently only supports Windows.
For smart phones, the situation is obviously different. If you want to be able to type quickly, you pretty much need a predictive keyboard (something like SwiftKey, for example). Beyond that, it's simply a matter of being able to find the "keys" quickly. For anyone who also uses a normal keyboard, that means QWERTY.
Do they still have the Congressional district that cuts the entire UT campus out of Austin and ties it via a long, skinny corridor to San Antonio? I always found that a particularly impressive bit of gerrymandering...
If you want a device that has no controls except the touch screen itself, you are going to wind up with a screen surrounded by a narrow frame. The only choice is color, and black has been a safe bet as a trendy color for decades.
So the usual question: what else should a tablet look like?
Don't judge the people around you, learn from them. Try to empathize with them
This. One of the most valuable tips I was ever given: ignore people's real age, look at them as though they are young, before all of the facades went up. What kind of person were they as a kid? What were they like at your age? Viewing people this way lets you get a much better understanding of what they are really like.
As the parent post says: it sounds like a lot of them have just been worn down. Heck, if you love the technology, and are decently modest about it (rather than "in your face"), you may get some of them interested again.
Something else to be aware of: When I was 22, I was much like you. I knew everything about the technology, from how to design a processer from transistors up, through programming, databases, and all the rest. You get into a job, and use only a few technologies, probably not the most modern. You keep up on the rest in your spare time. I did, when I was in my 20s, and it sounds like you are too.
Life then happens. You get married, start a family. Your job takes more and more of your energy, and is using technologies 10 years out of date. Your spare time mostly goes to other things: raising the kids, fixing up the house, whatever. One day you wake up and realize...you've lost touch. You aren't current, You are one of the old farts you didn't understand 20 or 30 years ago.
So, have some understanding, look at people as they are. Be a resource for them, not a know-it-all that they resent.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA: "Even reputable sources like the official presidential campaigns may encroach on what many of us consider a reasonable expectation of privacy and limitations on data collection."
Journalists today, silly kids. Presidential campaigns "reputable"? Now, get off my lawn...
"European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech."
Article 9 states (bold is mine): "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Public order? Morals? That's a whole set up loopholes you could drive a fleet of trucks through.
I'll settle for days not so far in the past. I used to fly out of Dallas Love Field, which is a fairly small airport. Park you car, walk to the check-in counter, walk to the gate, get on the plane. Somewhere in there you walked through a metal detector. Total elapsed time: 30 minutes.
Now, in the US with TSA security theater, you have to allow 90 minutes. An entire extra hour, times 600,000,000 flights per year: TSA costs the equivalent of more than 1000 lifetimes of time each and every year. Add to that the monetary and social costs of paying an army of morons to humiliate everyone, and you can only shake your head in disgust...
I want to go back to simple security measures, run by the airlines, who presumably have some interest in (a) efficiency and (b) customer service.
I remember reading an article many years ago - long before the global warming scare - that pointed out that moving to lower carbon fuels was a long-term trend. Industry started out with coal and charcoal, essentually pure carbon. Then it moved on to oil, which contains a mix of carbon and hydrogen. Natural gas was up-and-coming, with 1 carbon to 4 hydrogens. The article assumed that the future held nuclear and solar, both of which are essentially zero-carbon.
Aside from the hiccups with nuclear (justified or not, depending on your point of view), the article seems to have been pretty prescient.
Here's an analogy:
Some rare earths (and lots of other elements) do not exist in their pure form in nature - they are only found in chemical compounds. If I invent a refining process to extract these elements in pure form, I can patent that process. Fair enough.
However, this judge has said that DNA fragments have been manipulated chemically, and can therefore be patented because this new form does not exist in nature. So, by his logic, I can patent not only my refining process, but the actual chemical element that results from it.
This guy needs to go back and take some basic science classes. Alternatively, one needs to have a hard look at his (very close) ties to the IP industry.
Sure, one wants the police to have good tools. The thing is, these tools should only be used in genuine criminal cases.
How about this:
- The license plate scanners are great, they run all the time, scanning every plate they see.
- The data on the plate (this car was here at this time) only if the plate is in a list of accepted cases. Otherwise the data is immediately discarded
- A plate can only be placed in the list if the car has been reported as stolen, or if a judge has issued a warrant.
- Plates may only remain in the list for a limited time, for example, as specified in the warrant.
- If data collected on a plate is not needed (e.g., no criminal complaint results from a warrant) the data is deleted.
This way, the police have a good tool to use, and the privacy rights of innocent citizens are not infringed.
I've been in computer science for around 30 years. My experience, in order of decreasing importance:
As you suspect, calculus does not come up unless you are doing something very domain specific. Differential equations are bloody useless, even as a math course, at least they way I was taught: trust the cookbook, don't ask questions about why they work. Again, maybe useful in a specific domain.
That said, I found calculus to be useful as a gateway to fun courses in relativity and quantum mechanics, and it can be a useful way to think about some problems (continuous instead of discrete).
Ok, my first off-the-cuff response got modded "flamebait". I hadn't RTFA, I just based my opinion on Hansen's past publicity stunts. More, look at the timing: Right after the Curiosity landing sends NASA hits through the roof, to stage your next publicity stunt as a "NASA scientist".
So now I've read the publicly accessible parts of the paper. I stick by my initial opinion: he's a publicity hound, nothing more. The paper is based on the trend of "hot weather" incidents starting in 1950 through 2000. Why didn't he include the 1930's and 1940's? Probably because they were hotter than the 1950's and would mess up his nice little trend. Anyway, looking for serious climate trends over a period of only 50 years is just dumb. There is a natural 60-year climate oscillation (see Scafetta, 2010) that lines up nicely with this little line segment that Hansen has chopped out. If you cherry pick your data, of course you can find a trend.
I stick by my original message: Hansen is a publicity cow, cynically using the Curiosity publicity to advance his own agenda.
Hansen is a "scientist" who likes headlines and attention. Nothing to see here, move along...
To start with a specific example with which I am familiar: not death, but stroke. My mother suffered a stroke in her visual cortex. In the end, she had a blank area in her field of vision. But as the stroke happened, and for a short time afterwards, she said that she saw funny rainbows and colors in that area.
In the case of a heart attack, the brain isn't always instantly deprived of oxygen: this may happen over some time, depending on the specifics of the case. A partially oxygen-deprived brain may continue to "function" in unreliable ways, which may lead to hallucinations: seeing bright lights, or whatever.
It is well-known that the brain will invent entire stories to fill in gaps and cover up inconsistencies in its experience. Combine hallucinations and a belief in an afterlife with this "invention" capability, and you get near-death religious experiences. Here in Switzerland, there have been a number of people who claimed to "float" over the scene of their death, seeing everything from above. This became so prevalent that a skeptics program has placed pictures on top of the cabinets in various emergency rooms around the country. They are still waiting for the first person who suffers a near-death experience and can name anything they saw on top of the cabinets...
"government-paid security pros"
ROTFL
You have got to be kidding. Even if you get a real security pro to work for the government, in 10 years, he/she will be totally out of date and heading an evergrowing empire of unqualified idiots. These bureaucrats will secure their jobs by getting out of the consulting business entirely and writing regulations that they can enforce.
Never start a new government program.
In my time in the support-barrel, I eliminated real-time support in favor of email. This may not fit every situation, of course. We were supporting a complex software product (ERP) used by largely non-technical users. When we offered real-time support, users would contact us whenever they got stuck, rather than looking in the product documentation, or even asking the person sitting at the next desk. When they really did have a support issue, they would contact us completely unprepared: they didn't know how the error occurred, they didn't know how to reproduce it, they usually hadn't even written the error message down before clicking it away.
As soon as we required contact by email, most of the RTFM questions went away. The real support issues usually arrived with at least some of the necessary information, simply because the user had to sit down and describe in writing what had happened.
After an initial period of adaptation "no, we can't take your call, please describe your issue in an email to xxx@yyy.zzz", we never had the impression that anyone missed the real-time support.
Maybe Intuit does feed their programmers well. Now if they would just hire some decent support people. We used to use a multi-currency version of QuickBooks, and the errors were simply astounding in their stupidity. As one, minor example: it was completely clear that some conversions were handled using floating point numbers, with the inevitable decimal rounding errors. At the end of the year, we had huge currency conversion errors - far beyond what even floating-point errors could explain - and essentially impossible to justify to the tax authorities.
There were lots of other problems as well. Trying to report errors was like talking to a black hole. The one time we really needed some real-time support, we spent ages on hold, or going around in circles with different people, and wound up getting no useful help at all. In the end, the only solution was to go back to a single-currency system, and deal with currency outside of QuickBooks.
Still, as bad as our experiences with QuickBooks have been, there's nothing better in the same price category.
I love examples like this, in a perverse sort of way, because it give me yet another example to give to my students. Government contracts are essentially always done with the "waterfall" model, because the government insists on complete specs before funding. Any competent software engineer educated in the past 20 years knows that waterfall-projects fail if they are above a certain size. Hence, there is an endless supply of examples like this, and will be as long as the government software contracts are managed by people who know nothing about software.
Of course, you can also add in all of the above comments about revolving-door, management turnover, and simple corruption. But even without these, the projects would have failed.
From TFA: "The department is racing to meet a statutory September 2017 deadline for passing a full financial audit."
Ya gotta love it. Any publically traded company has its accounts audited annually. The government is so out of control that it looks unlikely to meet a deadline of a successful audit five years in the future.
The government ought to be required to follow the same standards required of companies. No one has any idea what the financial status of the US government really is, least of all the government itself...
Here's the clue: "The Sheriff’s Department paid about $36 for each Stack-On Safe."
For $36, you do not get a high-security safe. You are getting a metal box with a cheap lock. Really, you'd be better off sticking the gun in your nightstand - at least then there is no illusion of security.
Follow the money. Selling replacement chargers is an income source. Just look at Dell laptops: they use an industry standard connector with an additional pin inside. The extra pin serves only one purpose: the laptop can tell whether or not the charger is made by Dell. You can buy chargers from other companies, and they will plug into your Dell. The laptop will use the power to run, but will not charge the battery. This behavior serves only one purpose: to guarantee that you buy your replacement from Dell.
This kind of idiotic mentality is what finally let the EU to require a standard for mobile phones. The government shouldn't have to regulate such things, but sometimes the free market fails. I can imagine this happening here as well...
There have been lots and lots and lots of studies on how to improve education. Out of all of these, there are two measures that bring substantial gains, while reducing costs:
- Fire incompetent teachers. You don't even have to replace them - just fire the worst teachers and put their students in the other classes.
- Reduce regulation and administration. Let the teachers teach, instead of dealing with bureaucratic idiocy from adminstrators and government regulators.
Of course, the first is opposed by the teacher's unions, and the second is opposed by administrative empire builders, so neither of these is likely to happen. In particular, of course the government wants another governmental program to interfere in education. When, in reality, the federal government has absolutely no business meddling in any educational system outside of DC.
Not saying they haven't thought of it and engineering for it. Just interesting numbers:
Storage pressure of around 2000psi in a natural cavern provides quite the energy potential. They say they can generate 300MW for 100 hours from the full cavern. It's not quite in the nuclear class, but if I ran my numbers right, we are talking energy storage on the order of 1/10 of a megaton.
Either it is the long-term climatic change that the IPCC and others have been warning about, or it isn't. You say "a few years of drought" - that isn't long-term climate at all, but short-term weather patterns. Anyway, the US east of the Rockies (which I'll bet is where you are) is yammering about hot temperatures and drought being signs of global warming. Meanwhile, lots of the rest of the planet is having a cool, rainy summer. Your local weather is exactly that: local, and short term.
I am definitely a skeptic. There is no question that CO2 contributes to a greenhouse effect, however, there is no evidence (and never has been) that this triggers large positive feedback cycles. It has all been based on computer models, and most of the predictions of those models have been wrong.
Well, this was in the days of being young, single and having lots of spare time. I plead insanity.
For what it's worth, I once spent a good deal of time testing this hypothesis. I spent a lot of time researching optimized layouts, picked one, and used it for a solid year - parallel to the QWERTY layout that I was still using at work. After a year, I was equally proficient with both (I could touch-type either at will, same error-rate, etc.), and I ran a number of tests.
The results were quite consistent: about a 10% speed increase (from 60wpm to 66 wpm), no significant difference in the error rates. For what it's worth, at that point I decided for QWERTY. That's what most keyboards in the West are based on, and for a 10% gain in speed, you have the irritation of switching back-and-forth all the time. If you don't type a lot on both layouts, your speed-gain on one quickly becomes a massive speed-penalty on the other.
Note: there is a nice little open-source application out there that will let you take your personal keyboard layout with you whereever you go. Unfortunately, it currently only supports Windows.
For smart phones, the situation is obviously different. If you want to be able to type quickly, you pretty much need a predictive keyboard (something like SwiftKey, for example). Beyond that, it's simply a matter of being able to find the "keys" quickly. For anyone who also uses a normal keyboard, that means QWERTY.
Do they still have the Congressional district that cuts the entire UT campus out of Austin and ties it via a long, skinny corridor to San Antonio? I always found that a particularly impressive bit of gerrymandering...
If you want a device that has no controls except the touch screen itself, you are going to wind up with a screen surrounded by a narrow frame. The only choice is color, and black has been a safe bet as a trendy color for decades.
So the usual question: what else should a tablet look like?
Design patents aren't.
Don't judge the people around you, learn from them. Try to empathize with them
This. One of the most valuable tips I was ever given: ignore people's real age, look at them as though they are young, before all of the facades went up. What kind of person were they as a kid? What were they like at your age? Viewing people this way lets you get a much better understanding of what they are really like.
As the parent post says: it sounds like a lot of them have just been worn down. Heck, if you love the technology, and are decently modest about it (rather than "in your face"), you may get some of them interested again.
Something else to be aware of: When I was 22, I was much like you. I knew everything about the technology, from how to design a processer from transistors up, through programming, databases, and all the rest. You get into a job, and use only a few technologies, probably not the most modern. You keep up on the rest in your spare time. I did, when I was in my 20s, and it sounds like you are too.
Life then happens. You get married, start a family. Your job takes more and more of your energy, and is using technologies 10 years out of date. Your spare time mostly goes to other things: raising the kids, fixing up the house, whatever. One day you wake up and realize...you've lost touch. You aren't current, You are one of the old farts you didn't understand 20 or 30 years ago.
So, have some understanding, look at people as they are. Be a resource for them, not a know-it-all that they resent.