It wouldn't have to be done by the government - but government intervention is necessary to direct private money into a venture like this. Nuclear plants are profitable investments after all - the existing plants are much sought after by energy companies because they are now cash cows. A carbon tax on fossil fuel would do it, regulatory provisions requiring nuclear power be added to the mix when capacity is expanded would do it, offering special financing bonds at low interest rates to compensate for the long pay-off time would do it.
Due to the scale of the credits and the timeframe of the guarantees, what such a scheme would do is essentially to convert a company into a government employee. It would likely be easier if the gov does it itself directly. An additional point is that probably only government has the legitimacy and accountability before the people to engage in the kind of (perceived) risks that come from such an operation. Maybe the private sector shouldn't own reactors in the same way as it shouldn't own an army.
No, the hippies aren't holding back nuclear power. It is being held back by the high capital cost and long construction lead time* of nuclear power plants that make them unattractive investments for building new plants compared to coal or natural gas. It takes much longer for the trivial fuel cost and high plant availability of nuclear to pay-off those upfront costs.
A very insightful comment. If the executive class and corporate conglomerates wanted nuclear plants, they would have them. They could blow up at a rate of one every year, and it wouldn't matter. The fact is that they do not make sense economically, at least not as a private venture. Nuclear probably only makes sense if the government does it, by considering the building and operation costs as a subsidies to be recovered in taxes. This is probably what the chinese are doing. In the rest of the world this type of arrangement seems to be out of fashion.
*And, no, the hippies aren't running up the costs and lead times by demanding unreasonable safety features and studies. Well built nuclear power plants are quite safe, but only because stringent safety standards are followed. The definitely non-hippie Edward Teller pioneered these strict safety standards. When you don't do that you get -- Fukushima.
Do you have any pointers to texts recounting the involvement of E. Teller in reactor safety?
Re:Fuck that, I've created Upsilon!
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
Change and progress in academia!?... Preposterous!!...
Morphine007 actually understanding anything? No way!!...
Re:Fuck that, I've created Upsilon!
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
Check out what it does to Euler's Identity. That and the straightforward definition of radians has made me a convert, too.
Well, not me. Frankly, I think this is a completely superfluous point to waste brains in. The inconvenient incompatibility with the sizeable literature corpus absolutely dwarfs any of the incredibly marginal advantages this tau idea might have. I think this is simply a campaign by someone who wants to draw attention to himself (i.e. a troll)
"Shocking nonsense" means to make up a short phrase or sentence that is both nonsensical and shocking in the culture of the user, that is, it contains grossly obscene, racist, impossible or other extreme juxtaposition of ideas. This technique is permissable because the passphrase, by its nature, is never revealed to anyone with sensibilities to be offended.
On the face of it the idea sounds good. But I would not use it without some additional care, because you never know under which circumstances you will be forced to surrender the passphrase. Then it better not be, for example, something brutal up the police, if you get my meaning.
Anyway I don't see how this is supposed to help with pins.
The only thing [basic] will do for you is give you serious brain damage.
Well, evidence suggests it may give you the right kind of brain damage. Many people that learned with basic became great programmers afterwards.
After learning to program with old style basic, and then moving to a higher language, the student will understand the value of many of the constructs. She will recognize the advantage of proper procedures and functions over GOSUB madness. She will understand the great freedom and power that comes from sane scope rules and proper control structures. I believe that this gives the student a deeper relationship with and understanding of language features. It also teaches that the choice of language is important, and that language features matter.
In my opinion, starting with basic and then moving up is an important experience. Better than staring directly with the better language, confronted to answers for questions you don't know.
Have you visited the Bitcoin forums? Quite a few economists there. Also, high profile magazines, such as The Economist, have written about it from the point of view that Bitcoin is, in the very least, a highly interesting experiment. No mention of any built-in economic failures there.
Well, the economist article is interesting because it gets it wrong from the start. There is indeed a limited supply of BTC which leads to deflation, etc.
I think the most important effect of bitcoin will be to convince a lot of nerds to actually understand some basic economics. That can't be good news for libertarianism!
It only needs to be a minority if they're disruptive enough. This is true of almost all crime today, whereby it is only perpetrated by a small minority but the ramifications and ripples for that affect the majority to varying degrees.
Actually, becoming a tax evader is very easy. Start buying and selling random stuff for profit - and 'forget' to pay taxes on that. BAM! - Tax evader. It really is that simple. And If you buy N bitcoins and sell them a week later for twice the amount, you will have to declare your income and pay taxes on it. If you don't you are a tax evader. End of story.
The FQA gives the word "disingenuous" a bad name. The author spends a lot of time with red herrings, straw men, and minutiae, and never actually seems to have a point.
The point is that the language sucks.
Calling it a "pack of lies" would be unfair to packs of lies.
While it may be inaccurate at some places, that is mostly due to feature drift (the FQA is somewhat old). The general theme is correct though, down to the technical details.
Bitcoin is a decentralised computer currency designed by self-righteous Ayn Rand-reading nerds who despise looters and parasites like, er, you. It is used to purchase Internet services, illegal drugs and pictures of naked women holding video cards.
That's what capitalistic medicine produces - a system where you can never be sick.
That is exactly right. I haven't seen it modelled and discussed in detail, but it is clear that an insurance system where risk is completely known must become a pay-for-yourself system. Since having an edge in risk management is good for an insurance company, that's where competition leads them.
An adequate system is one where everybody is accepted regardless, and then the collective costs are split according to some method. I.e what libertarians call 'communism'.
Under capitalism, the above is an optimization problem where individual freedom is the means of finding the optimal balance. The government primarily just prevents fraud.
An optimization problem? So, what is being optimized for what? Only one objective function? Really??
It seems to me that you conceive of government and capitalism in a parallel universe that for some reason managed to be simple. It's not this one.
People aren't going to stop using fossil fuels until it's no longer financially viable to extract it from the Earth. At the rate we're going, that shouldn't take too long.
I think it is possible to underestimate the degree to which we are addicted to fossil fuels, and thus to underestimate the kind of prices that will still be "financially viable".
Another issue is that the actual cost of extracting a barrel of crude from Saudi soil is about four bucks. From Iraki soil - about two bucks. As you can see, there's a long way to go.
Well, in a case like this, the normal modus operandi is to send a mail to the manager with that content, and save it together with his answer for eventual buttock-covering needs. Then you take some off-the-shelf algorithm that produces an approximation, and provide that.
Most likely: the customer is happy, the manager is happy, you are happy.
Less likely: shit hits the fan, but you have your saved mails and come out reasonably unscathed.
The "management and image problem" faces one of the most powerful propaganda forces of the 20th Century. That's going to remain because industry doesn't have the resources to counter such propaganda.
Calling it "the most powerful propaganda forces of the 20th Century" is way, way off. Claiming that the industry doesn't have the resources - whoa (actually, even calling it "propaganda" is arrogant bullshit, but I guess we're moving in circles now).
The industry is simply unable to communicate in a sensible manner. Perhaps there is a deep reason for it.
I'm not going to bother trying to reverse decades of Green propaganda.
Might be better that way. If one wanted to discredit the industry, someone like you doing public relations for it would make the task very, very easy.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand your position. You are just very mistaken about the value of public opinion.
You are saying this to someone who saw the industry loose Germany due to the mismanagement of public opinion for decades. It is you who are very, very mistaken about the importance of public opinion. In that country, Fukushima was just the last drop. A somewhat big one, true, but the mess with nuclear waste storage that immediately preceded that event was likely of bigger influence (a large stack of largely unnecessary lies was uncovered, including corruption and arrogant incompetence). The excuses were similar like they have been before: the public cannot make a judgement, trust us, panicked herd, etc.
In any case, it's worth remembering that there was a magnitude 9 earthquake and a very large tsunami involved, which by themselves can explain most of the tribulations of Fukushima.
Ok, so that excuse absolves the operators from responsibility? It was known that there could be a bigger tsunami than according to spec. Yet nothing was done. They could have mounted extra backup diesels on towers, for example, and would be looking like great heroes now.
The rest is explained by an inexperienced disaster response crew and management (I call them "inexperienced" because no similar accident has occurred in 25 years) operating under very adverse conditions.
No, it was an underpayed, temporary worker gang that got to figure out stuff that was well beyond them.
Another system that worked as advertised was the prompt scramming of all three active reactors.
Well, as it turned out, the cores melted down almost immediately, so great way of working. What really did work like a clockwork was the industry shooting itself in the foot (the mitsne "planned failure mode" fiasco). Man did that work well.
Anyway, I am going to sumarize my points:
- The industry is very inept at communicating with the public. It studiously keeps acting like someone who killed people during a DUI episode, and then says "couldn't been the vodka - been driving drunk for ten years and nothing ever happened!"
- The industry has a management and an image problem, and keeps making it worse as soon as it has the oportunity. When a plane crashes (for example) the reaction of the aviation industry is very different.
- For this ineptitude, it is loosing ground in its potentially biggest hour. That it lost Germany is a fuckup of biblic proportions.
- It didn't and doesn't have to be that way.
Before you hit your head against the screen again, I have a little quiz question for you: someone making the above four points is against or in favor of nuclear energy?
As for me, I'm not remotely interested in hearing empty labels such as "cold-hearted," "broken," "asshole," etc. Those are irrelevant and merely proof of a weak argument.
It is obvious that you haven't grasped the argument at all (you keep believing it is a strictly technical one, which I really find puzzling). That's why you need to make up rules like this.
Etiquette is trumped by reality
How well said!:-)
Once again, do you have evidence that any of these factors played a role in the accident? Without such evidence, your words are empty
What I've been trying to explain to you, for what feels like a couple of hundreds of posts, is that the perception matters a lot. You could be all the right you want, but it was still a plant that failed under shady security practices, including an underspeced security. Given that since it is likely that TEPCO would hide all evidence of security malpractice compounding the disaster, I don't need to provide it. Perhaps in a strictly legal argument I do, but in an assessment of likelihood (which is what would matter in a political arena and public opinion), I'd say there is a 50% chance that the diesels didn't run at all. Because the people running the plant didn't think it necessary to keep them running. Because, since they were convinced nothing is ever going to happen, they thought they were there for show, and that it wasn't a crime to evade the meaningless and onerous chore of keeping them up. There is enough evidence to consider that chain of evidence much more than a remote possibility, including this discussion with you, so that you lose. You don't have evidence that things were managed with utmost pulcritude, do you?
It's worth remembering that much of nuclear power regulation is theater, done for show. Evading onerous and meaningless paperwork is a far less serious crime.
That is and stays a negligent and stupid attitude. It will bury your dreams. Hopefully without killing anyone in the process.
I am making sure that cold-hearted propellerheads like you, who think the ocasional meltdown must be accepted for cost reasons, get to run your toys. You are convincing me more and more that anything else would be iresponsible.
All that sentiment doesn't make the light bulb go on when you flick the switch. You need infrastructure instead.
Go ahead, continue to argue like you do on points of security, communication, and management. If your industry keeps that up, it is more likely we will end up lighting candles made of animal fat.
When it really mattered in the Fukushima accident, TEPCO, the owner and manager of the nuclear plant, with support from the Japanese government, contained the accident under remarkably adverse circumstances. And nobody died from radiation exposure.
How can you claim something like that? What about all the toxic stuff that got spread out far about? What about cancers ten years down the road? You guys keep claiming stuff that cant be true, I really wish I understood why.
How about something like the following: Large ammounts of toxic radioactive materials were released with likely detrimental effects on the population. The operators and government are doing their best to avoid further damage. It was a regrettable mistake not to upgrade the tsunami defenses once it was known that the predicted levels were too low. We are working on policies that will ensure such a mistake does not happen again. Safety systems on running plants are getting an upgrade to take into account tail risk better.
Or something like that.
As to the heroic efforts of TEPCO, that isn't how I remember the story. Did you glue your rose-tinted glasses to your face? The way you remember it, I bet, is that there were a lot of top trained engineers on site, that they were prepared, etc, etc. (Among other things, they were ordered to stay by the gov). And that Helicopter with the water. Beautiful.
The anti-nuke activists' position is based on uncertainty. Nuclear power should be banned because something really bad could happen. As we get more real accidents rather than hypothetical accidents over many decades of service, we see this belief being undermined.
Open your eyes. That is not what is happening. I know you wish it would happen, but it just isn't. China building untested designs is likely to harm the technology more than help it in the medium to long term.
The anti-nuke activists are a heterogeneous lot. There are some that think splitting the atom is a sin and stuff. The majority is mostly convinced that you guys have an attitude to tail risk that is not acceptable. And that is partly due to that being true, and partly due to bad public relations (which isn't the same as propaganda). The issue of waste has not been solved either, BTW.
As to the alleged corruption and lying, I repeat that there's no evidence that this played a role in the Fukushima accident. It's worth remembering that much of nuclear power regulation is theater, done for show. Evading onerous and meaningless paperwork is a far less serious crime.
Which just shows how broken your mentality and attitude is. That is precisely the mentality that has given, and continues to give, arguments to those opposing nuclear power. No, scratch that. That is the sort of attitude and mentality that converts people to being anti nuclear. That is more accurate.
klicked submit when trying to preview. What I wanted to write is:
I am making sure that cold-hearted propellerheads like you, who think the ocasional meltdown must be accepted for cost reasons, don't get to run your toys. You are convincing me more and more that anything else would be iresponsible.
Right. So when are you going to take this claimed power responsibly?
For some reason, you have chosen to be an asshole, while I am trying to explain you something. Do you realize I am trying to help you?
I am making sure that cold-hearted propellerheads like you, who think the ocasional meltdown must be accepted for cost reasons, get to run your toys. You are convincing me more and more that anything else would be iresponsible.
Further, propaganda can portray anything as bad. That's what has happened to nuclear power. That perception won't get fixed by generating counter-propaganda.
I am not saying "improve your propaganda", but "improve your attitude". And thus, "improve your interaction with people, and with risk". For example, when will you finally admit that ot making Fukushima safe against that kind of tsunami was a mistake?
It'll get fixed by decades of reliable and safe nuclear power.
Look around. That's not the way it is working.
Root out corruption, stop lying to people - that might help.
You're the one who thinks you, personally need to "trust" something before it can be done.
Me, as a member of the public. You may not want to accept it but the opinions of people actually matter.
How would you know what the problems are and whether they've been acted on?
Come on! The problems are in plain sight. The industry is discredited. The PR associated with Fukushima shows that they haven't grown a clue and thus made it worse.
As I see it, the "political solution" is simply to continue to run nuclear power. Eventually, the panicked herd will get over its fear of nuclear power as a history is built and the risks of nuclear power become more understood by the general public.
That is very arrogant position (do you even realize that?). And one that is not going to get "you" (the industry) very far. It in fact hardens the positions and confirms the image of the industry, and anyone associated, as being reckless assholes. And when being pro-nuclear is a guaranteed way to lose an election, the industry is dead. C.f. Germany.
BTW that political solution, as you have wittingly observed yourself, isn't working very well.
Slashdot Mirror
Due to the scale of the credits and the timeframe of the guarantees, what such a scheme would do is essentially to convert a company into a government employee. It would likely be easier if the gov does it itself directly. An additional point is that probably only government has the legitimacy and accountability before the people to engage in the kind of (perceived) risks that come from such an operation. Maybe the private sector shouldn't own reactors in the same way as it shouldn't own an army.
(and thanks for the Feller pointer).
A very insightful comment. If the executive class and corporate conglomerates wanted nuclear plants, they would have them. They could blow up at a rate of one every year, and it wouldn't matter. The fact is that they do not make sense economically, at least not as a private venture. Nuclear probably only makes sense if the government does it, by considering the building and operation costs as a subsidies to be recovered in taxes. This is probably what the chinese are doing. In the rest of the world this type of arrangement seems to be out of fashion.
Do you have any pointers to texts recounting the involvement of E. Teller in reactor safety?
Change and progress in academia!? ... Preposterous!!...
Morphine007 actually understanding anything? No way!!...
It will end in tears.
Well, not me. Frankly, I think this is a completely superfluous point to waste brains in. The inconvenient incompatibility with the sizeable literature corpus absolutely dwarfs any of the incredibly marginal advantages this tau idea might have. I think this is simply a campaign by someone who wants to draw attention to himself (i.e. a troll)
(from here):
On the face of it the idea sounds good. But I would not use it without some additional care, because you never know under which circumstances you will be forced to surrender the passphrase. Then it better not be, for example, something brutal up the police, if you get my meaning.
Anyway I don't see how this is supposed to help with pins.
Well, evidence suggests it may give you the right kind of brain damage. Many people that learned with basic became great programmers afterwards.
After learning to program with old style basic, and then moving to a higher language, the student will understand the value of many of the constructs. She will recognize the advantage of proper procedures and functions over GOSUB madness. She will understand the great freedom and power that comes from sane scope rules and proper control structures. I believe that this gives the student a deeper relationship with and understanding of language features. It also teaches that the choice of language is important, and that language features matter.
In my opinion, starting with basic and then moving up is an important experience. Better than staring directly with the better language, confronted to answers for questions you don't know.
Well, the economist article is interesting because it gets it wrong from the start. There is indeed a limited supply of BTC which leads to deflation, etc.
I think the most important effect of bitcoin will be to convince a lot of nerds to actually understand some basic economics. That can't be good news for libertarianism!
Actually, becoming a tax evader is very easy. Start buying and selling random stuff for profit - and 'forget' to pay taxes on that. BAM! - Tax evader. It really is that simple. And If you buy N bitcoins and sell them a week later for twice the amount, you will have to declare your income and pay taxes on it. If you don't you are a tax evader. End of story.
The point is that the language sucks.
While it may be inaccurate at some places, that is mostly due to feature drift (the FQA is somewhat old). The general theme is correct though, down to the technical details.
Of course, it hurts C++ fans, but hey.
Haha, good one.
C++ is the Lisp of Mordor - me
That is exactly right. I haven't seen it modelled and discussed in detail, but it is clear that an insurance system where risk is completely known must become a pay-for-yourself system. Since having an edge in risk management is good for an insurance company, that's where competition leads them.
An adequate system is one where everybody is accepted regardless, and then the collective costs are split according to some method. I.e what libertarians call 'communism'.
Huge indeed, but judging by the results, not particularly good.
A doc that needs to be read by more people is the C++ Frequently Questioned Answers.
An optimization problem? So, what is being optimized for what? Only one objective function? Really??
It seems to me that you conceive of government and capitalism in a parallel universe that for some reason managed to be simple. It's not this one.
I think it is possible to underestimate the degree to which we are addicted to fossil fuels, and thus to underestimate the kind of prices that will still be "financially viable".
Another issue is that the actual cost of extracting a barrel of crude from Saudi soil is about four bucks. From Iraki soil - about two bucks. As you can see, there's a long way to go.
A nice detail is the "Forward" by Arty Clark.
Well, in a case like this, the normal modus operandi is to send a mail to the manager with that content, and save it together with his answer for eventual buttock-covering needs. Then you take some off-the-shelf algorithm that produces an approximation, and provide that.
Most likely: the customer is happy, the manager is happy, you are happy.
Less likely: shit hits the fan, but you have your saved mails and come out reasonably unscathed.
Calling it "the most powerful propaganda forces of the 20th Century" is way, way off. Claiming that the industry doesn't have the resources - whoa (actually, even calling it "propaganda" is arrogant bullshit, but I guess we're moving in circles now).
The industry is simply unable to communicate in a sensible manner. Perhaps there is a deep reason for it.
Might be better that way. If one wanted to discredit the industry, someone like you doing public relations for it would make the task very, very easy.
You are saying this to someone who saw the industry loose Germany due to the mismanagement of public opinion for decades. It is you who are very, very mistaken about the importance of public opinion. In that country, Fukushima was just the last drop. A somewhat big one, true, but the mess with nuclear waste storage that immediately preceded that event was likely of bigger influence (a large stack of largely unnecessary lies was uncovered, including corruption and arrogant incompetence). The excuses were similar like they have been before: the public cannot make a judgement, trust us, panicked herd, etc.
Ok, so that excuse absolves the operators from responsibility? It was known that there could be a bigger tsunami than according to spec. Yet nothing was done. They could have mounted extra backup diesels on towers, for example, and would be looking like great heroes now.
No, it was an underpayed, temporary worker gang that got to figure out stuff that was well beyond them.
Well, as it turned out, the cores melted down almost immediately, so great way of working. What really did work like a clockwork was the industry shooting itself in the foot (the mitsne "planned failure mode" fiasco). Man did that work well.
Anyway, I am going to sumarize my points:
- The industry is very inept at communicating with the public. It studiously keeps acting like someone who killed people during a DUI episode, and then says "couldn't been the vodka - been driving drunk for ten years and nothing ever happened!"
- The industry has a management and an image problem, and keeps making it worse as soon as it has the oportunity. When a plane crashes (for example) the reaction of the aviation industry is very different.
- For this ineptitude, it is loosing ground in its potentially biggest hour. That it lost Germany is a fuckup of biblic proportions.
- It didn't and doesn't have to be that way.
Before you hit your head against the screen again, I have a little quiz question for you: someone making the above four points is against or in favor of nuclear energy?
It is obvious that you haven't grasped the argument at all (you keep believing it is a strictly technical one, which I really find puzzling). That's why you need to make up rules like this.
How well said! :-)
What I've been trying to explain to you, for what feels like a couple of hundreds of posts, is that the perception matters a lot. You could be all the right you want, but it was still a plant that failed under shady security practices, including an underspeced security. Given that since it is likely that TEPCO would hide all evidence of security malpractice compounding the disaster, I don't need to provide it. Perhaps in a strictly legal argument I do, but in an assessment of likelihood (which is what would matter in a political arena and public opinion), I'd say there is a 50% chance that the diesels didn't run at all. Because the people running the plant didn't think it necessary to keep them running. Because, since they were convinced nothing is ever going to happen, they thought they were there for show, and that it wasn't a crime to evade the meaningless and onerous chore of keeping them up. There is enough evidence to consider that chain of evidence much more than a remote possibility, including this discussion with you, so that you lose. You don't have evidence that things were managed with utmost pulcritude, do you?
That is and stays a negligent and stupid attitude. It will bury your dreams. Hopefully without killing anyone in the process.
Go ahead, continue to argue like you do on points of security, communication, and management. If your industry keeps that up, it is more likely we will end up lighting candles made of animal fat.
How can you claim something like that? What about all the toxic stuff that got spread out far about? What about cancers ten years down the road? You guys keep claiming stuff that cant be true, I really wish I understood why.
How about something like the following: Large ammounts of toxic radioactive materials were released with likely detrimental effects on the population. The operators and government are doing their best to avoid further damage. It was a regrettable mistake not to upgrade the tsunami defenses once it was known that the predicted levels were too low. We are working on policies that will ensure such a mistake does not happen again. Safety systems on running plants are getting an upgrade to take into account tail risk better.
Or something like that.
As to the heroic efforts of TEPCO, that isn't how I remember the story. Did you glue your rose-tinted glasses to your face? The way you remember it, I bet, is that there were a lot of top trained engineers on site, that they were prepared, etc, etc. (Among other things, they were ordered to stay by the gov). And that Helicopter with the water. Beautiful.
Open your eyes. That is not what is happening. I know you wish it would happen, but it just isn't. China building untested designs is likely to harm the technology more than help it in the medium to long term.
The anti-nuke activists are a heterogeneous lot. There are some that think splitting the atom is a sin and stuff. The majority is mostly convinced that you guys have an attitude to tail risk that is not acceptable. And that is partly due to that being true, and partly due to bad public relations (which isn't the same as propaganda). The issue of waste has not been solved either, BTW.
Which just shows how broken your mentality and attitude is. That is precisely the mentality that has given, and continues to give, arguments to those opposing nuclear power. No, scratch that. That is the sort of attitude and mentality that converts people to being anti nuclear. That is more accurate.
klicked submit when trying to preview. What I wanted to write is:
I am making sure that cold-hearted propellerheads like you, who think the ocasional meltdown must be accepted for cost reasons, don't get to run your toys. You are convincing me more and more that anything else would be iresponsible.
For some reason, you have chosen to be an asshole, while I am trying to explain you something. Do you realize I am trying to help you?
I am making sure that cold-hearted propellerheads like you, who think the ocasional meltdown must be accepted for cost reasons, get to run your toys. You are convincing me more and more that anything else would be iresponsible.
Me, as a member of the public. You may not want to accept it but the opinions of people actually matter.
Come on! The problems are in plain sight. The industry is discredited. The PR associated with Fukushima shows that they haven't grown a clue and thus made it worse.
That is very arrogant position (do you even realize that?). And one that is not going to get "you" (the industry) very far. It in fact hardens the positions and confirms the image of the industry, and anyone associated, as being reckless assholes. And when being pro-nuclear is a guaranteed way to lose an election, the industry is dead. C.f. Germany.
BTW that political solution, as you have wittingly observed yourself, isn't working very well.