..and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
This is very much a recent (and entirely-artificial meme), as virtually every nation on Earth with an intelligence agency has been doing this de rigueurfor a lot fucking longer than the ignorant plebs realize.
You are correct, but please expand on your point. Why does that mean as a country we shouldn't try to counter it or at least expose when it's happening? Analogously, just because thieves have trying to steal private property for ages doesn't mean we shouldn't make people aware of new lines of attack so they can secure themselves.
Public knowledge moves slowly, and I don't think the public generally appreciates, even if it's obvious given some thought, how much astroturfing can take place on new forms of communication.
... it was to take a widely-loved hero and turn him into a coward that just shrugs his shoulders and abandons his friends and family during their time of greatest need!
And this is where Rian Johnson absolutely effed up. It wasn't just the boring, logic-defying 'chase' that lasted nearly the whole movie, or the pointless side quest to the casino planet, or all the SJW stuff. He was handed one of the most liked, iconic, heroic characters in movie history... and turned him into an asshole that I couldn't really root for anymore. I'm fine with a character changing as they get older, but TLJ Luke was completely unrecognizable from the trilogy Luke.
I'm not sure you can lay that entirely on Johnson. Abrams was the one who sequestered Luke on a hidden planet on a remote island for essentially no reason while hiding his own whereabouts from the people he cared about, when he knew Snoke and the First Order were out there. Even just after TFA, fans were wondering why the heck Luke would have abandoned everyone. Given that setup, the answer that Johnson gave that, yes, he actually did something wrong and abandoned everyone is a pretty likely one.
And to be clear, Luke ignited his lightsaber immediately following a vision pushed on him by Snoke of the destruction of everything he had previously sacrificed for. He's been a rash person in the past - it's just not that unbelievable to me given the way he was once prodded and provoked by the Emperor.
Not sure where that comes from. I always had the feel she was hidden there because Luke or whoever realized she was powerful and didn't want Snoke/Ren getting ahold of her.
How positively dreary the second one completely abandons it.
Interesting to see the different perspectives on this - as a very long time Star Wars fan I honestly rolled my eyes when it was being implied in TFA that Rey was heavily connected to the old players. The EU had high points but I had been finding the insular, claustrophobic universe dreary in and of itself.
There are literally trillions of sentients in the Star Wars universe - connecting everyone of import to the Skywalkers and each other seems like an overly repetitive narrative beat to me. I enjoyed that Rey was revealed as coming from nowhere, as it reset the origin to what I had wanted in the first place. Even if it admittedly blunted the mystery set up in first movie.
Maybe it comes down to how much people consider Star Wars to be "The Skywalker Saga". I love the universe, but I honestly have never been that attached to Luke himself.
The Last Jedi was an objectively terrible movie with a bad story that was internally inconsistent and utterly incongruous. Truly, TLJ has absolutely no redeeming qualities.
So you didn't like it - which is fine - but why push so hard to misuse the word 'objective'?
We can only try to measure objective attributes statistically with averages and those averages are... fairly split. It's not where I would have taken the characters, but I still liked the movie a lot. Objectively, there's no consensus.
Monopoly, Guess Who, Operation, Game of Life, Risk, Clue, Trivial Pursuit...yes, they are a totally niche board game producer.
It's hard to say it without being a little dismissive, I suppose, but those games are largely considered antiquated and rarely appear in the modern board game community. They have a built in audience, certainly, of boomers buying games they remember from childhood; however, the market targeted by Asmodee, Mayfair, Fantasy Flight, etc. do not buy those games and are generally interested in fresher, newer designs, spurred on by hype from the big game conventions and sites like boardgamegeek.com.
Hasbro certainly doesn't attempt to set up a booth at Origins Game Fair or GenCon to sell Monopoly.
I had always assumed (I suppose without justification) that this was a direct reference to all of the sci-fi/horror (e.g. the Thing) in which the humans run a blade across their hand or body to show that they have flesh and bleed, and are thus truly human and not a robot.
This was probably a reasonable tactic for early replicants that may have used more artificial components or a blood-like substance that was less like blood. Later replicants were "more human than human", but the name would stick for the group that was meant to ferret out replicants amongst the human population.
I always liked that origin as it implied some very interesting, untold replicant horror stories.
... You have stupid companies willing to risk money on betting prediction AI, which is nowhere near even as good as what a person and a spreadsheet can do. Both of these things make uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
I'm an ML researcher, so I'm totally with you on the overall sentiment. We don't even know the right questions to ask, let along solve, in hard AI. However, the notion that a prediction AI is nowhere near as good as what a person can do is now behind us for a lot of tasks and what's happening now is deployment. For instance, a number of trained systems are better than humans at diagnosing radiology results: https://www.forbes.com/sites/p... http://news.stanford.edu/2017/...
Strong AI is going to be garbage for a while, but whatever the name, machine learning doesn't have to be hard AI to change a lot our everyday lives.
I appreciate the point that, statistically, this *will* happen as some accidents are unavoidable. You're absolutely correct and we should look at the bigger picture.
However I'm skeptical of reports where the self driving car is not at fault because the other car "failed to yield". Being legally in the right doesn't necessarily mean the car was driving well or defensively, and these are the particular situations where a human might have been clued in to the other driver's behavior and avoided it entirely.
IIRC an average of 3 people/year die in Chicago from ice falling off buildings. You can have it.
Three people per year is a rounding error. Do you really consider that an argument against Chicago? Because that makes me statistically feel much better about it!
Anything that moves or vibrates radiates some energy. Hence such crystals would provide "free" energy and that is very, very, very unlikely to be possible in this universe.
Nope, not necessarily. The state of the material is its lowest energy "ground" state. Quantum mechanical ground states can easily have overall dynamical motion, but avoid interaction with the electromagnetic field that would cause radiation because there's no state with lower energy. These will act the same as normal matter - they'll give off energy from breaking bonds when you break them, but are otherwise inert.
Clarity is what's important, and the notion of absolute percentage isn't necessarily universal.
The statement "No. of people with dementia dropped by 2.8% between 2000 and 2012" is wrong given a standard interpretation of the base of a percentage. In an average population, where 4 people once would have gotten dementia, now only 3 will. That is absolutely a drop of ~25%. Your statement would imply that out of a 100 people who would gotten dementia, now only ~97 will, which understates the effect.
Again though, this is best solved by a clear explanation in the first place. I didn't think the summary was unclear, but it appears to have caused some confusion.
However, they do define a jammer thusly: "A radiocommunication jamming device, also known as a signal silencer, blocker or disabler, is a radiocommunication transmitter designed to interfere with, disrupt, or block radiocommunication signals and services. "
Basing that conclusion around the adjectives seems pretty thin. The main definition, "is a... transmitter", is pretty unambiguous. A Faraday cage is in no way a transmitter. It is a wire mesh, hooked up to nothing but ground. It transmits nothing, and any possible scattered or evanescent waves are miniscule.
Okay - so the initial adoption here is also rough. That sounds like pretty much the same experience.
Reader says "insert chip in the bottom". You insert chip in the bottom. Reader says "enter pin". You enter pin.
This is not how it's rolling out. Nowhere in the US has that happened to me. There was no PIN rollout; my cards (5 of them) might have PINs but I haven't been informed. Instead, with every retailer, it is a guessing game of if they want me to use the chip reader that's there. Sometimes it's inactive, sometimes it's active but they want me to swipe anyway. Always the verification is a signature.
Painstakingly slow
I've noticed some readers are slow, but this probably has nothing to do with the chip, the merchant just has a shitty system. If you're talking about the process being slower, ok yeah, by about 10 to 15 seconds or so.
The chip and the systems are a pair - it's not like I can use the chip without a reader - and all systems I've seen are slow. 10 to 15 seconds is indeed agonizingly slow. Retailers should care. After 5-10 customers that adds up.
What alternatives? Getting a signature that no teller ever verifies or checking the name against your ID (which again, never actually happens)?
Not saying chip and pin is perfect, but I really don't get why this is such a big "disaster".
The only place is comes in below 150th is in land area, which is *not* a good proxy for energy consumption. Population is a far better one, except for incredibly efficient outliers.
Disagree entirely. They have similar *settings*. Their stories share the goal of entertaining, but beyond that have entirely different purposes. Shaun of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead are both movies about a zombie plague. One is a horror comedy, the other is horror drama. "Hard sci-fi" is an extra descriptor that indicates a goal of the movie is to explore impact of X technology. It's just not something that applies to Star Wars.
No, it's not phony. Fine, say hard sci-fi rather than real sci-fi, since it may seem less snooty, but it makes the same point. Star Wars is focused on an adventure in a society with advanced technology, not so much the societal implications of a particular imagined technological advance. I'm not sure why you consider "space opera" pejorative, it's just focused more on a personal journey than on a narrative about the effect of hyperdrive on a society, for instance. I love Star Wars, but I don't think the cast and crew consider it a priority to deeply consider the ramifications (or even consistencty) of the technology it presents.
If you speed in the left you are also technically violating the law and in many more places than you would be violating it by doing the speed limit in the left lane.
So yes, people going at the speed limit are violating the law in some places (which I never disputed so you can kindly stop pointing it out repeatedly) but they are not particularly dangerous unless mixed with other people violating the law.
When speeding in a residential area the danger created by a single driver. When traveling in the left lane this is rarely the case, ergo you are arguing from personal annoyance than any regards for the danger created by the driver.
I was attempting to be informative; someone stated that it wasn't their job to be "accommodating". Legally, you are absolutely supposed to be accommodating in many states by staying out of the left hand lane when it isn't necessary for passing or turning. Not sure what you mean by "repeatedly", as that was the first time I posted on this issue.
Again, your last point is correct. It's more dangerous to speed in a residential zone. I wasn't taking issue with it.
Not sure where you live, but in my state, the left lane is for passing. If you linger there while not passing or turning, you are technically violating the law. Here's a map: http://jalopnik.com/5501615/le...
Many other iterations of the law specify that you should not block the "normal flow of traffic", specifically distinct from the "speed limit".
Speeding in a residential area can be more dangerous, but you're still often in the wrong if you're doing exactly the speed limit in the left lane.
You have to be able to float that much money to wait for the rebate, correct? (I was pretty sure that car maker doesn't apply on your behalf.) Plus paperwork, and the uncertainty of a car type you are unfamiliar with.
With all that, I would choose a known quantity like a used gas car as well. It's rational to minimize expected variance of outcome when buying a potentially necessary item like a car.
What the heck? Is it improper to even describe the issue? I'm 'white', which is ultimately a silly name, since I'm actually some variation of pale tan. The word 'black' to describe people isn't exactly uncommon or inappropriate. Race is a constructed thing, but that doesn't mean people don't use it, and on average, being 'black' implies skin colors that range from light to dark brown, but almost never total obsidian black or grey. As GP mentioned, the point is that the color balance looks off in the initial image anyway. These colors matter because they're reduced to a floating point number that becomes an input features for the (likely) neural net.
Can you explain why GP's statement is wrong? The scope of 'we' clearly includes everyone, black and white. If you thought it was awkwardly phrased, that's one thing, but jumping on the GP seems to indicate you gave him no benefit of the doubt in the first place. I mean, it's the Internet. If we can't start from the assumption that people are posting in good faith, discussion here isn't going to work.
The paleo diet might end up being silly, but just once I'd like to see this discussion without the kneejerk "20-30 year life expectancy".
If you made it to 15 years of age or so in a hunter-gatherer society, you might reasonably expect to survive to 60. As an infant, you are highly likely to fall prey to disease or poor care, pushing the life expectancy at birth way down on average even though those deaths usually had nothing to do with the diet of a mature adult in the community. Adults didn't usually drop dead at 30 from poor nutrition.
"Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome", Nature 505, 559–563 (23 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12820 http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
"Here we show that the short-term consumption of diets composed entirely of animal or plant products alters microbial community structure and overwhelms inter-individual differences in microbial gene expression. "
Slashdot Mirror
..and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
This is very much a recent (and entirely-artificial meme), as virtually every nation on Earth with an intelligence agency has been doing this de rigueur for a lot fucking longer than the ignorant plebs realize.
You are correct, but please expand on your point. Why does that mean as a country we shouldn't try to counter it or at least expose when it's happening? Analogously, just because thieves have trying to steal private property for ages doesn't mean we shouldn't make people aware of new lines of attack so they can secure themselves.
Public knowledge moves slowly, and I don't think the public generally appreciates, even if it's obvious given some thought, how much astroturfing can take place on new forms of communication.
... it was to take a widely-loved hero and turn him into a coward that just shrugs his shoulders and abandons his friends and family during their time of greatest need!
And this is where Rian Johnson absolutely effed up. It wasn't just the boring, logic-defying 'chase' that lasted nearly the whole movie, or the pointless side quest to the casino planet, or all the SJW stuff. He was handed one of the most liked, iconic, heroic characters in movie history... and turned him into an asshole that I couldn't really root for anymore. I'm fine with a character changing as they get older, but TLJ Luke was completely unrecognizable from the trilogy Luke.
I'm not sure you can lay that entirely on Johnson. Abrams was the one who sequestered Luke on a hidden planet on a remote island for essentially no reason while hiding his own whereabouts from the people he cared about, when he knew Snoke and the First Order were out there. Even just after TFA, fans were wondering why the heck Luke would have abandoned everyone. Given that setup, the answer that Johnson gave that, yes, he actually did something wrong and abandoned everyone is a pretty likely one.
And to be clear, Luke ignited his lightsaber immediately following a vision pushed on him by Snoke of the destruction of everything he had previously sacrificed for. He's been a rash person in the past - it's just not that unbelievable to me given the way he was once prodded and provoked by the Emperor.
Not sure where that comes from. I always had the feel she was hidden there because Luke or whoever realized she was powerful and didn't want Snoke/Ren getting ahold of her.
How positively dreary the second one completely abandons it.
Interesting to see the different perspectives on this - as a very long time Star Wars fan I honestly rolled my eyes when it was being implied in TFA that Rey was heavily connected to the old players. The EU had high points but I had been finding the insular, claustrophobic universe dreary in and of itself.
There are literally trillions of sentients in the Star Wars universe - connecting everyone of import to the Skywalkers and each other seems like an overly repetitive narrative beat to me. I enjoyed that Rey was revealed as coming from nowhere, as it reset the origin to what I had wanted in the first place. Even if it admittedly blunted the mystery set up in first movie.
Maybe it comes down to how much people consider Star Wars to be "The Skywalker Saga". I love the universe, but I honestly have never been that attached to Luke himself.
The Last Jedi was an objectively terrible movie with a bad story that was internally inconsistent and utterly incongruous. Truly, TLJ has absolutely no redeeming qualities.
So you didn't like it - which is fine - but why push so hard to misuse the word 'objective'?
We can only try to measure objective attributes statistically with averages and those averages are... fairly split. It's not where I would have taken the characters, but I still liked the movie a lot. Objectively, there's no consensus.
Monopoly, Guess Who, Operation, Game of Life, Risk, Clue, Trivial Pursuit...yes, they are a totally niche board game producer.
It's hard to say it without being a little dismissive, I suppose, but those games are largely considered antiquated and rarely appear in the modern board game community. They have a built in audience, certainly, of boomers buying games they remember from childhood; however, the market targeted by Asmodee, Mayfair, Fantasy Flight, etc. do not buy those games and are generally interested in fresher, newer designs, spurred on by hype from the big game conventions and sites like boardgamegeek.com.
Hasbro certainly doesn't attempt to set up a booth at Origins Game Fair or GenCon to sell Monopoly.
I had always assumed (I suppose without justification) that this was a direct reference to all of the sci-fi/horror (e.g. the Thing) in which the humans run a blade across their hand or body to show that they have flesh and bleed, and are thus truly human and not a robot.
This was probably a reasonable tactic for early replicants that may have used more artificial components or a blood-like substance that was less like blood. Later replicants were "more human than human", but the name would stick for the group that was meant to ferret out replicants amongst the human population.
I always liked that origin as it implied some very interesting, untold replicant horror stories.
... You have stupid companies willing to risk money on betting prediction AI, which is nowhere near even as good as what a person and a spreadsheet can do. Both of these things make uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
I'm an ML researcher, so I'm totally with you on the overall sentiment. We don't even know the right questions to ask, let along solve, in hard AI. However, the notion that a prediction AI is nowhere near as good as what a person can do is now behind us for a lot of tasks and what's happening now is deployment. For instance, a number of trained systems are better than humans at diagnosing radiology results:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/...
Strong AI is going to be garbage for a while, but whatever the name, machine learning doesn't have to be hard AI to change a lot our everyday lives.
I appreciate the point that, statistically, this *will* happen as some accidents are unavoidable. You're absolutely correct and we should look at the bigger picture.
However I'm skeptical of reports where the self driving car is not at fault because the other car "failed to yield". Being legally in the right doesn't necessarily mean the car was driving well or defensively, and these are the particular situations where a human might have been clued in to the other driver's behavior and avoided it entirely.
IIRC an average of 3 people/year die in Chicago from ice falling off buildings. You can have it.
Three people per year is a rounding error. Do you really consider that an argument against Chicago? Because that makes me statistically feel much better about it!
Anything that moves or vibrates radiates some energy. Hence such crystals would provide "free" energy and that is very, very, very unlikely to be possible in this universe.
Nope, not necessarily. The state of the material is its lowest energy "ground" state. Quantum mechanical ground states can easily have overall dynamical motion, but avoid interaction with the electromagnetic field that would cause radiation because there's no state with lower energy. These will act the same as normal matter - they'll give off energy from breaking bonds when you break them, but are otherwise inert.
Clarity is what's important, and the notion of absolute percentage isn't necessarily universal.
The statement "No. of people with dementia dropped by 2.8% between 2000 and 2012" is wrong given a standard interpretation of the base of a percentage. In an average population, where 4 people once would have gotten dementia, now only 3 will. That is absolutely a drop of ~25%. Your statement would imply that out of a 100 people who would gotten dementia, now only ~97 will, which understates the effect.
Again though, this is best solved by a clear explanation in the first place. I didn't think the summary was unclear, but it appears to have caused some confusion.
However, they do define a jammer thusly: "A radiocommunication jamming device, also known as a signal silencer, blocker or disabler, is a radiocommunication transmitter designed to interfere with, disrupt, or block radiocommunication signals and services. "
Basing that conclusion around the adjectives seems pretty thin. The main definition, "is a ... transmitter", is pretty unambiguous. A Faraday cage is in no way a transmitter. It is a wire mesh, hooked up to nothing but ground. It transmits nothing, and any possible scattered or evanescent waves are miniscule.
while the initial adoption was a bit rough
Okay - so the initial adoption here is also rough. That sounds like pretty much the same experience.
Reader says "insert chip in the bottom".
You insert chip in the bottom.
Reader says "enter pin".
You enter pin.
This is not how it's rolling out. Nowhere in the US has that happened to me. There was no PIN rollout; my cards (5 of them) might have PINs but I haven't been informed. Instead, with every retailer, it is a guessing game of if they want me to use the chip reader that's there. Sometimes it's inactive, sometimes it's active but they want me to swipe anyway. Always the verification is a signature.
Painstakingly slow
I've noticed some readers are slow, but this probably has nothing to do with the chip, the merchant just has a shitty system. If you're talking about the process being slower, ok yeah, by about 10 to 15 seconds or so.
The chip and the systems are a pair - it's not like I can use the chip without a reader - and all systems I've seen are slow. 10 to 15 seconds is indeed agonizingly slow. Retailers should care. After 5-10 customers that adds up.
What alternatives? Getting a signature that no teller ever verifies or checking the name against your ID (which again, never actually happens)?
Not saying chip and pin is perfect, but I really don't get why this is such a big "disaster".
Again, no PIN.
That is demonstrably incorrect. For the city limits by population, it's in the mid-20s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For metropolitan area population, it's sixth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only place is comes in below 150th is in land area, which is *not* a good proxy for energy consumption. Population is a far better one, except for incredibly efficient outliers.
Disagree entirely. They have similar *settings*. Their stories share the goal of entertaining, but beyond that have entirely different purposes. Shaun of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead are both movies about a zombie plague. One is a horror comedy, the other is horror drama. "Hard sci-fi" is an extra descriptor that indicates a goal of the movie is to explore impact of X technology. It's just not something that applies to Star Wars.
No, it's not phony. Fine, say hard sci-fi rather than real sci-fi, since it may seem less snooty, but it makes the same point. Star Wars is focused on an adventure in a society with advanced technology, not so much the societal implications of a particular imagined technological advance. I'm not sure why you consider "space opera" pejorative, it's just focused more on a personal journey than on a narrative about the effect of hyperdrive on a society, for instance. I love Star Wars, but I don't think the cast and crew consider it a priority to deeply consider the ramifications (or even consistencty) of the technology it presents.
If you speed in the left you are also technically violating the law and in many more places than you would be violating it by doing the speed limit in the left lane.
So yes, people going at the speed limit are violating the law in some places (which I never disputed so you can kindly stop pointing it out repeatedly) but they are not particularly dangerous unless mixed with other people violating the law.
When speeding in a residential area the danger created by a single driver. When traveling in the left lane this is rarely the case, ergo you are arguing from personal annoyance than any regards for the danger created by the driver.
I was attempting to be informative; someone stated that it wasn't their job to be "accommodating". Legally, you are absolutely supposed to be accommodating in many states by staying out of the left hand lane when it isn't necessary for passing or turning. Not sure what you mean by "repeatedly", as that was the first time I posted on this issue.
Again, your last point is correct. It's more dangerous to speed in a residential zone. I wasn't taking issue with it.
Not sure where you live, but in my state, the left lane is for passing. If you linger there while not passing or turning, you are technically violating the law. Here's a map: http://jalopnik.com/5501615/le...
Many other iterations of the law specify that you should not block the "normal flow of traffic", specifically distinct from the "speed limit".
Speeding in a residential area can be more dangerous, but you're still often in the wrong if you're doing exactly the speed limit in the left lane.
You have to be able to float that much money to wait for the rebate, correct? (I was pretty sure that car maker doesn't apply on your behalf.) Plus paperwork, and the uncertainty of a car type you are unfamiliar with.
With all that, I would choose a known quantity like a used gas car as well. It's rational to minimize expected variance of outcome when buying a potentially necessary item like a car.
What the heck? Is it improper to even describe the issue? I'm 'white', which is ultimately a silly name, since I'm actually some variation of pale tan. The word 'black' to describe people isn't exactly uncommon or inappropriate. Race is a constructed thing, but that doesn't mean people don't use it, and on average, being 'black' implies skin colors that range from light to dark brown, but almost never total obsidian black or grey. As GP mentioned, the point is that the color balance looks off in the initial image anyway. These colors matter because they're reduced to a floating point number that becomes an input features for the (likely) neural net.
Can you explain why GP's statement is wrong? The scope of 'we' clearly includes everyone, black and white. If you thought it was awkwardly phrased, that's one thing, but jumping on the GP seems to indicate you gave him no benefit of the doubt in the first place. I mean, it's the Internet. If we can't start from the assumption that people are posting in good faith, discussion here isn't going to work.
True. You have to test at about the 20th percentile to be a bean counter.
Hint: Because it is difficult to you, doesn't make it difficult.
Ahh, needless putdowns. Slashdot, I've missed you.
Post apocalyptic big dig could have been cool. If it had been built before the bombs fell in the FO timeline.
In the Fallout timeline, the bombs fell in 2077. The Big Dig or something like it would very likely be around.
The paleo diet might end up being silly, but just once I'd like to see this discussion without the kneejerk "20-30 year life expectancy".
If you made it to 15 years of age or so in a hunter-gatherer society, you might reasonably expect to survive to 60. As an infant, you are highly likely to fall prey to disease or poor care, pushing the life expectancy at birth way down on average even though those deaths usually had nothing to do with the diet of a mature adult in the community. Adults didn't usually drop dead at 30 from poor nutrition.
Diet doesn't really change the microbes.
That is not what recent science indicates at all.
"Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome", Nature 505, 559–563 (23 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12820
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
"Here we show that the short-term consumption of diets composed entirely of animal or plant products alters microbial community structure and overwhelms inter-individual differences in microbial gene expression. "
Drones Could 3D-Map Scores of Hectares of Land In Just a Baker's Dozen of Milli-fortnights
Fixed for consistency.