Ad hoc is best
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The best programmers utilize domain specific knowledge gained through years of experience to perform the project design and development tasks that make sense. Trying to generalize one model to fit all domains is doomed to failure. Mainframe COBOL screens work differently than web screens which work differently than low level screen drivers and so on.
If you're starting work in a new domain, no methodology is magically going to make things work. New domains of development require plenty of experimentation and failure. How to best build the project is going to depend on what comes out of that experimentation.
And above all, the most important factor is people. You need smart people. No amount of clever methodology is going to make mediocre programmers create a great project. And for smart people, SDLC usually stands in the way of what they already know works best.
But really, in the short term I don't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses. The uncertainty of Suns customers wouldn't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner, so pretty much the only thing that'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.
It simply isn't the EU that's causing the losses and they'd be there either way.
Sun's losses have everything to do with the delays in their acquisition by Oracle. What's happening is that Sun's future is now uncertain. Sun is either bought by Oracle or they go out of business. Businesses hate uncertainty. Sun may still be in business next year, or maybe they won't be. That's not reassuring. So businesses are dumping Sun's products left and right, even faster than they were before. It is likely that there would have been serious financial and market share losses anyway, but the EU delays have made things much worse than they otherwise would have been.
In case it wasn't clear enough for you, here are my reasons:
1) EU places the burden on Oracle to prove that the deal will not harm competition. That's not just. 2) Oracle has no real control over MySQL anyway. 3) Sun is quickly withering into a worthless husk of its former self the longer this deal is delayed.
Let me try to reconstruct your argument: 1') I don't state any reasons for disliking the EU. 2') Oracle is laying off these workers due to (unstated) evil reasons. 3') Oracle is using people like me who "bend forwards" to mask the evil reasons behind these layoffs.
I'm not sure what you're conclusion is supposed to be, but regardless, it's a horrible argument. (1') is clearly false as my reasons have been elucidated. (2') doesn't even make sense since Oracle doesn't even have control of Sun yet. I'm not sure what the evil reasons are supposed to be, but regardless, a lot more people are going to lose their jobs the longer this drags on. (3') isn't true in the slightest. I have no love of Oracle and would never recommend their products to anyone. I am not particularly happy to see Sun buy Oracle but I'm even sadder to see a somewhat open source friendly company like Sun wither away due to the delays of the EU regulators.
Also a merger between the two companies will likely result in even more job cuts.
Sun has no way of surviving on its own at this point. So Sun is either acquired, or everyone at Sun loses their jobs, ala SGI. By the time this regulatory investigation completes there will be few left to cut.
I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place. IIRC, most of the original people behind it have left and started their own companies around mysql open source forks, or gone to other projects. The supposed "ownership" Oracle will have seems mostly worthless. If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.
That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here. They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delays, then turning around and saying that the burden is on Oracle to prove it's innocence. If the EU is going to be so disruptive to businesses, they need to act quickly and with their own resources. I'm no fan of corporations, but the EU looks to be clearly in the wrong here.
There was a time several years ago that newegg started to get screen happy with reviews. I think they got some backlash from that and then pretty much started letting everything through.
I've done more statistics than you give me credit for. And "statistically impossible" is a manner of speech. Anyway, here's what I'm talking about:
What is the probability that the first result will be a1, the second a2, the third a3, and so on for some given set of constants a1...an? Well, the probability that the results measured will be those exact values is pretty much impossible, statistically speaking. Well, it is if you're asking the question before you actually do your experiments. But if you have your experimental results at hand, you can ask that question, having the benefit of having the results right in front of you, and make the results seem implausible. Of course, that example is very simplistic. In any set of data, there is some pattern that, a priori, is nearly impossible to obtain. But there are an uncountable number of such patterns. So for every data set, you can find some pattern that shouldn't happen.
Not sure if you're trying to make a pun, but "categorical" in this case means "without exception." For example, Kant talks about categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Categorical imperatives you do always without exception (such as never lying, according to Kant anyway). Hypothetical imperatives are what you do based on the situation (CPR is appropriate only when someone is not breathing, for example).
This "respected blogger" seems to be doing numerology. Take any data set and you'll find patterns that are statistically impossible. This is because you're asking the questions after you have the data at hand. It's like placing a bet at the Kentucky Derby after the race rather than before.
When it comes to proprietary lock-in. Styling and hype is much more exciting than philosophical and economical arguments for having an open platform. I encourage anyone with appreciation of these issues to boycott closed platforms like the iPhone, consoles, and set top cable boxes.
Maudlin indeed argues that any backwards causation interpretation fails. As far as I can tell, however, his argument is little more than one from ignorance: "How can we do science if stochastic influences are going both directions in time?" Berkovitz finds Maudlin's argument to be not very strong. And Kastner, in the very paper you linked, supports Cramer's interpretation against Maudlin. As far as I know, Maudlin has yet to respond to Kastner or Berkovitz.
It's been too long since I've gone into a historical analysis of the EPR experiment and how it relates to the tensions between QM and relativity. So instead of giving an inadequate response I'll defer to someone much more capable: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9406028
On macroscopic scales not much changes since backward causes are limited...
Says who? What is the definitive study of backwards causation? I'd like to see some sources which claim that violating causality would not cause experimental problems. What about simple particle physics experiments where we are working on microscopic scales?
Without an entropy gradient from past to future we would be in heat death. The only bodies of knowledge that have any relevance in heat death are particle physics and perhaps some chemistry. Anything that depends on the entropy gradient for its existence, such as all biological creatures, will be strongly asymmetric in time. Thus, animals die after being born and not vice versa. What I'm saying is that backwards influences will exist, but they will be incredibly overpowered by the asymmetry of the entropy gradient such as to be ignorable. For disciplines studying anything influenced by entropy, reverse causation is ignorable.
As for micro physics...
You're not understanding my point. I didn't say the calculations or experiments would be difficult. I said that in any experiment where future events would have to be taken into account, you couldn't make definitive statements about your results. If I do an experiment to show A causes B and future events can also cause B, there is no way for me to state definitively that a seemingly positive result is caused by A and not some future event I can't control for. This is what makes causality so essential for science.
We already control the future in the particle experiments. The future is the interaction with the measuring device. The measuring device is partly controlled (however we choose to set it up) and partly determined (otherwise our experiment would have no results). As for the general case, you shield yourself from future influences the same way you shield from past influences: set up a lead wall or something.
How do you know what causes what? There isn't any fundamental problem. You just have two dependent variables where you used to have one. S1, S2,...Sn as the source setups. M1, M2,...Mn as the measurement setups. And then the dependent variable will the reading of your device in the future: R1, R2,...Rn. This is already what is being done and is what allowed Bell to determine his problematic inequalities.
Perhaps you can give me a more concrete example to work with. I'm having trouble understanding your actual objection.
Yes you're right. The neutral kaon is a small but definite counterexample to the symmetry of particle physics. And it's difficult to say exactly what symmetry is or should be. The standard symmetry illustration is to take billiard balls bouncing on a frictionless table: you cannot tell whether a video of this is being run forward or reverse. However, something like gravity would violate this as it's very easy to distinguish items moving towards each other vs. away from each other.
Symmetry is well known at the fundamental levels of physics, so I went with that. But the argument to allow reverse influences doesn't need it. It just needs that neither direction of time is privileged. The commensurability of quantum mechanics and relativity would be a great reason in itself to allow influences contrary to the standard direction of time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it accounts for all the same phenomena that standard collapse models do, with the bonus of not requiring crazy metaphysics like the Observer or action at a distance. You're right it doesn't predict anything new over the standard models, but it seems like avoiding the tension with relativity should be enough in its favor.
Einstein had a lot of trouble dealing with the results of quantum mechanics. His ERP paradox ironically ended up being a reductio of his own views of causality. If you want to cite authorities on QM, you'll need to look elsewhere.
First about causal paradoxes. The going back in time to kill your grandfather type of paradox is impossible for the quantum measurements we are talking about. This act of preventing a future event is known as "bilking" and is a pretty sound argument against time travel. However, bilking is impossible for entangled particles. I cannot measure the particle so as to change the future measuring device since the observation becomes the new measurement.
Second about science being impossible. I doubt that. On macroscopic scales not much changes since backward causes are limited and most "causes" actually derive from the entropy decrease of local systems. So far we've only seen entropy increase towards the past. This is a mystery in itself given the largely symmetric nature of particle physics, but is besides the point when we're discussing quantum measurements of single particles where thermodynamics plays little or no role.
Moreover, sometimes science and mathematical calculations are hard. But that's the way the world is and the simplicity of calculations can't stand against the reality of observations. Calculation difficulties have been around since the three body problem.
Finally, I'll address your first point that it's either all forwards or all backwards. Well certainly, if you limit yourself to theories where determination only goes one way, then that must be the case. But that's question begging since the very issue at hand is whether influences can go both ways in time to influence certain events. Typically calculating influences from both directions is not done. But the very point I'm making is that it should be. And it certainly can be done. Cramer's transactional theory is a case in point.
If "causality" as you use it is explicitly asymmetric, then yes, it's fairly straightforward to reject it. Typical arguments against backwards causation don't apply to these quantum measurements. Why? Because it's impossible to get between the particle and the future measurement. Any attempt to do so just becomes a measurement in itself. "Causality" as described by Bell just seems like simplistic philosophy. The very inequalities Bell derived should serve as a counterexample to this notion of "causality".
Bell's inequalities fall apart if current particles can "know" about future measuring devices. However, for particle physics, neither direction of time is privileged. Particles are just as likely to be influenced by future interactions as they are by past interactions. Because of this, there is no "action at a distance". Influences travel along the backwards light cone and remain perfectly relativistic.
This simple, straightforward solution has been largely ignored.
Note that most interpretations of quantum mechanics are explicitly time asymmetric due to the "collapse" caused by observation. Cramer's transactional theory is an exception, it is symmetric and there is no collapse, but it doesn't get much attention.
You mention condensation but you don't suggest a way of dealing with it (I didn't read the entire 8 page thread though). There are many ways to cool water, but the water should never be cooler than the ambient temperature around the computer being cooled or else you will have condensation. I had this problem when putting my radiator out the window during winter.
I think the point is that the Founding Fathers were prescient in many things. It's not about being reactionary. It's about realizing "hey, maybe there's a good reason excessive fines were explicitly made unconstitutional."
No epistemic criteria will escape that dilemma. It either justifies itself circularly or falls into an infinite regress of justifications. This problem has nothing to do with physicalism--it applies to epistemology in general. And it's not specific to reason either. Substitute your favorite epistemic criterion for "reason", and it will hold just as well.
At a certain point you have to take things as given, as ill founded as they may nonetheless be. You can try to shake out the kinks by going round and considering each belief in light of the others. You may not achieve Truth, but you will at least approach consistency. That's much more than most people manage.
Just because you don't know absolutely everything about the brain, doesn't mean you can not distinguish its hardware from its software.
No, it wouldn't mean that. I didn't make that inference. However, it is nonetheless true that we have little idea what the "software" of the brain comprises. If we did have such an idea, we'd certainly have done a better job by now of codifying it into computers.
The line most definitely exists, as should be obvious to anyone from the fact that we think faster than the brain can physically change.
I'm not sure what you mean mean by "thinking faster than the brain can change." Do you have a source that clarifies this point? I was under the impression that our thinking is actually pretty slow, thus our difficulty in swatting flies, among other tasks.
"Where" you draw it is also pretty obvious if you have ever written a program. The only unknown, quite separate from the "where", is finding out how the hardware and the software work.
I program for a living, have degrees in CS and philosophy, yet I don't see this as obvious at all. I also don't see the "where" and "how" questions being all that separate. If we could successfully identify the "software", then we could codify it into an algorithm, even if we didn't know exactly how it did its job. There are certain neural circuits that we have isolated in crabs and such that we know work, but not exactly how. I'd hardly call them "software" though.
Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence is a very good book on the subject.
I'm going to have to apologize as I'm not going to invest enough time in a random internet discussion to read a book. But any points of his you want to bring up here I'll listen to.
Slashdot Mirror
The best programmers utilize domain specific knowledge gained through years of experience to perform the project design and development tasks that make sense. Trying to generalize one model to fit all domains is doomed to failure. Mainframe COBOL screens work differently than web screens which work differently than low level screen drivers and so on.
If you're starting work in a new domain, no methodology is magically going to make things work. New domains of development require plenty of experimentation and failure. How to best build the project is going to depend on what comes out of that experimentation.
And above all, the most important factor is people. You need smart people. No amount of clever methodology is going to make mediocre programmers create a great project. And for smart people, SDLC usually stands in the way of what they already know works best.
But really, in the short term I don't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses. The uncertainty of Suns customers wouldn't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner, so pretty much the only thing that'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.
It simply isn't the EU that's causing the losses and they'd be there either way.
Sun's losses have everything to do with the delays in their acquisition by Oracle. What's happening is that Sun's future is now uncertain. Sun is either bought by Oracle or they go out of business. Businesses hate uncertainty. Sun may still be in business next year, or maybe they won't be. That's not reassuring. So businesses are dumping Sun's products left and right, even faster than they were before. It is likely that there would have been serious financial and market share losses anyway, but the EU delays have made things much worse than they otherwise would have been.
In case it wasn't clear enough for you, here are my reasons:
1) EU places the burden on Oracle to prove that the deal will not harm competition. That's not just.
2) Oracle has no real control over MySQL anyway.
3) Sun is quickly withering into a worthless husk of its former self the longer this deal is delayed.
Let me try to reconstruct your argument:
1') I don't state any reasons for disliking the EU.
2') Oracle is laying off these workers due to (unstated) evil reasons.
3') Oracle is using people like me who "bend forwards" to mask the evil reasons behind these layoffs.
I'm not sure what you're conclusion is supposed to be, but regardless, it's a horrible argument. (1') is clearly false as my reasons have been elucidated. (2') doesn't even make sense since Oracle doesn't even have control of Sun yet. I'm not sure what the evil reasons are supposed to be, but regardless, a lot more people are going to lose their jobs the longer this drags on. (3') isn't true in the slightest. I have no love of Oracle and would never recommend their products to anyone. I am not particularly happy to see Sun buy Oracle but I'm even sadder to see a somewhat open source friendly company like Sun wither away due to the delays of the EU regulators.
Also a merger between the two companies will likely result in even more job cuts.
Sun has no way of surviving on its own at this point. So Sun is either acquired, or everyone at Sun loses their jobs, ala SGI. By the time this regulatory investigation completes there will be few left to cut.
Top engineers left for greener pastures years ago. Few people with highly valued talent are going to stay aboard a sinking ship.
I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place. IIRC, most of the original people behind it have left and started their own companies around mysql open source forks, or gone to other projects. The supposed "ownership" Oracle will have seems mostly worthless. If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.
That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here. They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delays, then turning around and saying that the burden is on Oracle to prove it's innocence. If the EU is going to be so disruptive to businesses, they need to act quickly and with their own resources. I'm no fan of corporations, but the EU looks to be clearly in the wrong here.
There was a time several years ago that newegg started to get screen happy with reviews. I think they got some backlash from that and then pretty much started letting everything through.
I've done more statistics than you give me credit for. And "statistically impossible" is a manner of speech. Anyway, here's what I'm talking about:
What is the probability that the first result will be a1, the second a2, the third a3, and so on for some given set of constants a1...an? Well, the probability that the results measured will be those exact values is pretty much impossible, statistically speaking. Well, it is if you're asking the question before you actually do your experiments. But if you have your experimental results at hand, you can ask that question, having the benefit of having the results right in front of you, and make the results seem implausible. Of course, that example is very simplistic. In any set of data, there is some pattern that, a priori, is nearly impossible to obtain. But there are an uncountable number of such patterns. So for every data set, you can find some pattern that shouldn't happen.
Not sure if you're trying to make a pun, but "categorical" in this case means "without exception." For example, Kant talks about categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Categorical imperatives you do always without exception (such as never lying, according to Kant anyway). Hypothetical imperatives are what you do based on the situation (CPR is appropriate only when someone is not breathing, for example).
This "respected blogger" seems to be doing numerology. Take any data set and you'll find patterns that are statistically impossible. This is because you're asking the questions after you have the data at hand. It's like placing a bet at the Kentucky Derby after the race rather than before.
When it comes to proprietary lock-in. Styling and hype is much more exciting than philosophical and economical arguments for having an open platform. I encourage anyone with appreciation of these issues to boycott closed platforms like the iPhone, consoles, and set top cable boxes.
Maudlin indeed argues that any backwards causation interpretation fails. As far as I can tell, however, his argument is little more than one from ignorance: "How can we do science if stochastic influences are going both directions in time?" Berkovitz finds Maudlin's argument to be not very strong. And Kastner, in the very paper you linked, supports Cramer's interpretation against Maudlin. As far as I know, Maudlin has yet to respond to Kastner or Berkovitz.
As far as I'm aware Bohm's interpretation is non-local, and thus not compatible with relativity.
It's been too long since I've gone into a historical analysis of the EPR experiment and how it relates to the tensions between QM and relativity. So instead of giving an inadequate response I'll defer to someone much more capable: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9406028
On macroscopic scales not much changes since backward causes are limited...
Says who? What is the definitive study of backwards causation? I'd like to see some sources which claim that violating causality would not cause experimental problems. What about simple particle physics experiments where we are working on microscopic scales?
Without an entropy gradient from past to future we would be in heat death. The only bodies of knowledge that have any relevance in heat death are particle physics and perhaps some chemistry. Anything that depends on the entropy gradient for its existence, such as all biological creatures, will be strongly asymmetric in time. Thus, animals die after being born and not vice versa. What I'm saying is that backwards influences will exist, but they will be incredibly overpowered by the asymmetry of the entropy gradient such as to be ignorable. For disciplines studying anything influenced by entropy, reverse causation is ignorable.
As for micro physics...
You're not understanding my point. I didn't say the calculations or experiments would be difficult. I said that in any experiment where future events would have to be taken into account, you couldn't make definitive statements about your results. If I do an experiment to show A causes B and future events can also cause B, there is no way for me to state definitively that a seemingly positive result is caused by A and not some future event I can't control for. This is what makes causality so essential for science.
We already control the future in the particle experiments. The future is the interaction with the measuring device. The measuring device is partly controlled (however we choose to set it up) and partly determined (otherwise our experiment would have no results). As for the general case, you shield yourself from future influences the same way you shield from past influences: set up a lead wall or something.
How do you know what causes what? There isn't any fundamental problem. You just have two dependent variables where you used to have one. S1, S2,...Sn as the source setups. M1, M2, ...Mn as the measurement setups. And then the dependent variable will the reading of your device in the future: R1, R2, ...Rn. This is already what is being done and is what allowed Bell to determine his problematic inequalities.
Perhaps you can give me a more concrete example to work with. I'm having trouble understanding your actual objection.
Yes you're right. The neutral kaon is a small but definite counterexample to the symmetry of particle physics. And it's difficult to say exactly what symmetry is or should be. The standard symmetry illustration is to take billiard balls bouncing on a frictionless table: you cannot tell whether a video of this is being run forward or reverse. However, something like gravity would violate this as it's very easy to distinguish items moving towards each other vs. away from each other.
Symmetry is well known at the fundamental levels of physics, so I went with that. But the argument to allow reverse influences doesn't need it. It just needs that neither direction of time is privileged. The commensurability of quantum mechanics and relativity would be a great reason in itself to allow influences contrary to the standard direction of time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it accounts for all the same phenomena that standard collapse models do, with the bonus of not requiring crazy metaphysics like the Observer or action at a distance. You're right it doesn't predict anything new over the standard models, but it seems like avoiding the tension with relativity should be enough in its favor.
Einstein had a lot of trouble dealing with the results of quantum mechanics. His ERP paradox ironically ended up being a reductio of his own views of causality. If you want to cite authorities on QM, you'll need to look elsewhere.
First about causal paradoxes. The going back in time to kill your grandfather type of paradox is impossible for the quantum measurements we are talking about. This act of preventing a future event is known as "bilking" and is a pretty sound argument against time travel. However, bilking is impossible for entangled particles. I cannot measure the particle so as to change the future measuring device since the observation becomes the new measurement.
Second about science being impossible. I doubt that. On macroscopic scales not much changes since backward causes are limited and most "causes" actually derive from the entropy decrease of local systems. So far we've only seen entropy increase towards the past. This is a mystery in itself given the largely symmetric nature of particle physics, but is besides the point when we're discussing quantum measurements of single particles where thermodynamics plays little or no role.
Moreover, sometimes science and mathematical calculations are hard. But that's the way the world is and the simplicity of calculations can't stand against the reality of observations. Calculation difficulties have been around since the three body problem.
Finally, I'll address your first point that it's either all forwards or all backwards. Well certainly, if you limit yourself to theories where determination only goes one way, then that must be the case. But that's question begging since the very issue at hand is whether influences can go both ways in time to influence certain events. Typically calculating influences from both directions is not done. But the very point I'm making is that it should be. And it certainly can be done. Cramer's transactional theory is a case in point.
If "causality" as you use it is explicitly asymmetric, then yes, it's fairly straightforward to reject it. Typical arguments against backwards causation don't apply to these quantum measurements. Why? Because it's impossible to get between the particle and the future measurement. Any attempt to do so just becomes a measurement in itself. "Causality" as described by Bell just seems like simplistic philosophy. The very inequalities Bell derived should serve as a counterexample to this notion of "causality".
Bell's inequalities fall apart if current particles can "know" about future measuring devices. However, for particle physics, neither direction of time is privileged. Particles are just as likely to be influenced by future interactions as they are by past interactions. Because of this, there is no "action at a distance". Influences travel along the backwards light cone and remain perfectly relativistic.
This simple, straightforward solution has been largely ignored.
Note that most interpretations of quantum mechanics are explicitly time asymmetric due to the "collapse" caused by observation. Cramer's transactional theory is an exception, it is symmetric and there is no collapse, but it doesn't get much attention.
You mention condensation but you don't suggest a way of dealing with it (I didn't read the entire 8 page thread though). There are many ways to cool water, but the water should never be cooler than the ambient temperature around the computer being cooled or else you will have condensation. I had this problem when putting my radiator out the window during winter.
I think the point is that the Founding Fathers were prescient in many things. It's not about being reactionary. It's about realizing "hey, maybe there's a good reason excessive fines were explicitly made unconstitutional."
No epistemic criteria will escape that dilemma. It either justifies itself circularly or falls into an infinite regress of justifications. This problem has nothing to do with physicalism--it applies to epistemology in general. And it's not specific to reason either. Substitute your favorite epistemic criterion for "reason", and it will hold just as well.
At a certain point you have to take things as given, as ill founded as they may nonetheless be. You can try to shake out the kinks by going round and considering each belief in light of the others. You may not achieve Truth, but you will at least approach consistency. That's much more than most people manage.
Just because you don't know absolutely everything about the brain, doesn't mean you can not distinguish its hardware from its software.
No, it wouldn't mean that. I didn't make that inference. However, it is nonetheless true that we have little idea what the "software" of the brain comprises. If we did have such an idea, we'd certainly have done a better job by now of codifying it into computers.
The line most definitely exists, as should be obvious to anyone from the fact that we think faster than the brain can physically change.
I'm not sure what you mean mean by "thinking faster than the brain can change." Do you have a source that clarifies this point? I was under the impression that our thinking is actually pretty slow, thus our difficulty in swatting flies, among other tasks.
"Where" you draw it is also pretty obvious if you have ever written a program. The only unknown, quite separate from the "where", is finding out how the hardware and the software work.
I program for a living, have degrees in CS and philosophy, yet I don't see this as obvious at all. I also don't see the "where" and "how" questions being all that separate. If we could successfully identify the "software", then we could codify it into an algorithm, even if we didn't know exactly how it did its job. There are certain neural circuits that we have isolated in crabs and such that we know work, but not exactly how. I'd hardly call them "software" though.
Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence is a very good book on the subject.
I'm going to have to apologize as I'm not going to invest enough time in a random internet discussion to read a book. But any points of his you want to bring up here I'll listen to.