From their point of view, if they'd forced the customer to buy the direct ticket, the customer would have had to pay more. So from their point of view, yeah, they're losing money.
I have two responses to that: (1) Fuck them. (2) Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuucccckkk them.
Yeah, I hate airlines. I'm 6'2" so of course I do.
I don't see that they have a leg to stand on. Which is great, because with no legs perhaps the case will be able to fit in one of their own seats.
I suspect the real purpose of the case is intimidation. But the reality is it'll give publicity to methods to save money on plane travel, while simultaneously reminding people that airlines are trash and that there are more comfortable alternatives.
What I'd actually though like to see is the courts not merely forcing the airlines to pay the costs of the lawsuits, but also setting a precedent where the customer can ask for his money back for the original flight because the customer never got to their destination...
I think a good reason to suggest C is one of the worst languages is to compare it with PHP. PHP is a terrible language with obvious flaws. C is also a terrible language with obvious flaws.
But... my experience is that the average PHP programmer does actually recognize that the language they're being forced to program in is shit. They know mistakes are going to occur no matter how smart they are and that a sizable number of those will be because the language is hot garbage.
C, on the other hand, seems to attract a bizarre level of machismo, people absolutely insisting that C is the best, and the only reason why there's so much terrible C written is that the average programmer is worse than they are, because C, you know, it needs to be written by a true expert. A REAL C programmer. Programming in REAL C. Alongside REAL men, REAL women, and REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
The only other language I can think of that attracts that level of misplaced arrogance is C++, which is kinda what you'd expect given one is an extension of the other.
No, he's right. There's nothing he wrote that implies he doesn't know what a null is. There's plenty that you're writing here though that shows you don't understand the problem.
There is absolutely nothing about null termination that's more secure than length+string. It's entirely possible, and indeed a common source of errors, to not put a null at the end of a string, for example:
#define BUFFER_LENGTH 4
main() { char buffer[BUFFER_LENGTH]; char buffer2[255]; strncpy(buffer, "Hello world!", BUFFER_LENGTH); strcpy(buffer2, " is a language called C"); puts(buffer); }
This will, on C compilers that store everything in the most obvious way (which isn't all of them) print "Hell is a language called C". On others, it'll fill your screen with garbage. And on a handful it'll, by accident, print "Hell" because whatever data is stored after "buffer" happens to be zero by coincidence.
How is this better? It isn't! And it's not a contrived answer either, because strncpy was introduced precisely to prevent buffer overflow errors, and yet nobody noticed between implementation and standardization/release that to use it in such a way that it didn't cause overflows a programmer had to do a, usually redundant, step of sticking a null in the last element of the destination buffer, just to make sure that if the string was too long, it was still a string.
Yes, null termination is so bad that even the experts at ANSI couldn't figure out how to fix it properly. (IIRC it was the OpenBSD people who introduced the world's first safe string copying function as a standard - in the very late nineties, 15-20 years after C first appeared. FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS. FIFTEEN to SAFELY COPY A STRING. Do you have ANY idea how terrible that is?
The good news is that the average viewer has more smarts than the average Slashdotter when it comes to this video. Most actually interpreted it the way it was meant to be, rather than the bizarre "OMG THEY'RE CRITIFICATING THE MANS!" thing going on on Slashdot right now.
Most viewers do not appear to be taking it as a general attack on men. None of the comments in the Ace Metrix survey suggest that, and the fact most men saw it as positive, shares their values, and that it's likely to take business away from Harrys and Dollar Shave definitely suggests men weren't patronized or felt under attack by it.
Only you and presumably some/r/the_donald, KIA, and 8chan regulars felt like that. So, take from that what you will.
There's a lot of assumptions about what it means right now which'll be updated as more information comes in. The Spinosaurus has a massive collection of bone spikes sticking up out of its back, which presumably would have similar issues. The consensus right now is that they supported some kind of a sail or hump type structure. What the story is with this dinosaur won't become clear until more fossils are found.
Dude, give up. He's not going to get it. Right wingers think "racist" is an insult. Not a word with any meaning, an insult. Just an insult. Virtually every time a right winger does something blatantly racist, just like c6gunner did, and someone calls them out on it, they respond as if their mother was just called a whore. Reality doesn't matter, as far as they're concerned you insulted them and there is nothing that could possibly justify you using the label "racist" to describe being prejudiced against non-whites.
Fuck, I'm surprised c6gunner hasn't said "Just because I hate [n-word]s and brown people doesn't mean I'm a racist, you're a racist, checkmate, I win."
It's rare that I come to defense of Microsoft but ActiveX has been on death row since Silverlight was released back in 2007, they've had a decade plus to fix their shit.
It isn't an overnight, or even over decade, process to remove all legacy apps from a business, and the bigger the business it's harder to remove "obsolete" software. I guarantee you that there are many big corporations out there still reliant on 16 bit or even DOS software (I don't mean "To control this real time piece of hardware", I mean to run something that was written in 1983 and nobody has been able to set the process in motion of getting it rewritten.)
Now, before you start blaming GM, Sears, Edison, or whatever company you feel is being ignorant by not rewriting all their software using the latest Rust frameworks, and I agree they do share the blame, Microsoft's intention by introducing ActiveX was to get this kind of lock-in. They knew how businesses worked, how big corporations worked in particular, and how smaller businesses needed to be compatible with the big corporations. This is why they actively encouraged people to write "web" software using a technology that gave them full access to the Windows API.
They knew that once a bigger corporation made the decision to build a giant application architecture based on ActiveX, the company would be locked into ActiveX, and Windows, for decades. That IT directors would almost certainly be opposed to rewriting it, but even if they supported the idea, IT directors would have massive difficulty persuading their superiors to support projects to replace a working technology with something functionally identical at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, and even if it passes that hurdle, the average megacorp is so wrapped up with bureaucracy and politics such projects would be unlikely to succeed, being killed by replacement IT managers, or dying with the next company wide reorganization.
Microsoft made this problem and they really have to fix it. Short of creating a cross platform plug-in that implements a 32 bit ix86 VM that includes most of Windows 98 in it, I don't see them doing that.
First, nobody keeps black people in the US in poverty
Keeping black people in poverty is enormously profitable and there are plenty of examples, from the abuse of the criminal justice system (example: people fined more than they can possibly afford for minor offenses like minor traffic violations, then imprisoned for not paying the fines, guaranteeing they can't continue), to the selling of subprime/variable rate mortgages to black people and refusing to even offer regular mortgages even if they're eligible.
Let's also not forget the defunding of public education in predominantly black areas.
Making that claim shows a chronic ignorance of what's going on around you. I'm not even sure why you'd make that claim without at least doing the research and finding out why community leaders and anti-racist and anti-poverty groups say otherwise.
I can't even begin to reply to the confusion of concepts you're making here. Yes, the Ice Age is something that happened. No, it has nothing to do with the brief period in the 1970s where some scientists opined it might be possible we might see global cooling and the media hyped that up.
I would suggest a quick visit to Wikipedia to look up "Ice Age" and "Global cooling" to see how they're entirely unrelated concepts (other than, I suppose, GC being a theory that a new ice age might occur), this'll give you a better picture.
The scientific consensus has never been for global cooling. Never. It was discussed, researched, but at no point was it ever the consensus. Those are the facts. No amount of misunderstood displays at the Smithsonian change that, and I seriously don't believe that the Smithsonian has an exhibit predicting global cooling. Even if it has a "global cooling" exhibit in the past, it would have been for a short time during the 1970s, and is unlikely to have implied that most scientists believe that global cooling was imminent.
I'm not claiming you're taking implied meaning, I'm claiming you're wrong, that there's no legitimate way to interpret the summary as saying it's asphalt. There isn't.
And given that clicking through the summary to the main article ALSO reveals it's tar, not asphalt, I'm struggling to understand why you're still arguing this. It'd be one thing if the summary had been ambiguous (it wasn't) and the article implied asphalt, but that's not the case. Stop digging!
Which is what matters, unless you're implying some other metric exists that Apple would take into account that IBM did better than Motorola with. As far as I'm aware they were equally reliable, for example. So price-performance was the only metric in which they differed.
but they had inferior performance,
But not per dollar, so it doesn't matter. Desktop users don't really give a rats behind if there's a $1,000 CPU from IBM that performs 50% better than the $250 CPU in their Performa.
They also had inferior performance (and price-performance) to x86 processors
IBM didn't make x86 processors, except for that brief time when they partnered with Cyrix.
Are you seriously still arguing this? The term the summary uses is "Sealant". In other words, to people who know what words mean, TAR, not ASPHALT.
Calling it a "second cover-up" with hot asphalt strongly implies that this is the composition of the first coating
No, it doesn't. It actually implies the exact opposite. It's saying they put a second cover-up on it, and the fact they feel the need to explain what material they used tells you (not "strongly implies", but actually directly tells you) it wasn't what the original material was.
It's not asphalt. If it were, they wouldn't have described as a sealant nor felt the need to mention what they were replacing the sealant with.
They developed the 88000 series, which was well received, but suffered from internal politics (Motorola didn't promote it and priced it ridiculously high because they didn't want to cannibalize their 68k business) and being just one RISC CPU in a market full of them. Meanwhile Apple didn't want to be reliant upon one supplier and was looking for a unified architecture supported by numerous third parties. From Apple's point of view they wanted CPUs with a well supported ABI, that wasn't Intel. That meant someone had to throw their hat into the ring with someone else, rejecting their own work. And from that point of view, given the 88000's low adoption, Motorola teaming with IBM worked for everyone.
Motorola's CPU engineers were the best in the business and they made the best CPUs. The switch to PowerPC shouldn't be interpreted as meaning they didn't know what they were doing - indeed, far from it, Motorola's implementations were considered superior to IBM's until the G5 came along, when it came to desktop and mobile CPUs.
The only reference I see to "hot asphalt" is in describing the fix they did when the tar started coming off. Are you sure YOU'RE reading the same summary?
I've yet to hear her advocate anything that isn't supported by mainstream conservatives in Europe, and isn't working well in Europe. The problem isn't that any of her ideas are insane, it's that US government is strangled by batshit insane right wing ideology which means even the "left" part of the establishment cannot actually advocate normal, sane, rational policies.
The popularity of AOC's major policies also suggests that she's centrist by real American (non-Washington, non-media) standards, not left wing or insane.
/r/the_donald is also notorious for that, but yes, I agree, there are plenty of Reddit forums that are 99% open, more or less "Say what you want unless you're very obviously trolling."
If someone wanted to be tracked, they could easily turn the flag off.
No, they couldn't easily turn the flag off, because most of the time they wouldn't even be aware there is such a flag.
Microsoft could have handled this differently, for example putting up a dialog when you start the browser for the first time, asking whether the user wants to allow advertisers to record information about their web histories in order to place more relevant ads. Then (1) the user would know exactly what the flag is about and what the implications are, and (2) the user would know (because they're forced to) how to switch the flag on or off.
But they didn't. They turned off something most people didn't know existed or why it existed so didn't know how to turn on. So the setting became meaningless. Sabotage.
Except almost nobody denies that the climate changes and is changing.
Climate deniers are not people who deny the climate changes, but people who deny the overwhelming evidence that AGW is occurring and who pretend studies like the one this article is quoting are "unscientific" because it has the audacity to assign probabilities to possible outcomes and include some where the probability is less than 50%.
When the GP talkings about climate deniers refusing to take bets, he's talking about those people, people who claim on one hand that the studies are "unscientific" but on the other refuse to make easy bets that would succeed more frequently than fail if climate scientists were, actually, not scientists.
1. Take a look at this: https://xkcd.com/1732/
2. "Global cooling" was a briefly hyped (six months at best) concept at some point in the 1970s. It has never represented the scientific consensus.
It is up to the compiler/interpreter to handle it better.
Maybe doing the exact opposite might solve the issue. Right now web development is managed by random Javascript developers working hand in hand with insane marketing people. Google has been going the "Give them what they want and make it work best in our browser" philosophy for a while now, and it doesn't work. Autoplaying video coupled with fifteen tracking scripts from different tracking companies? Hey, Chrome allows that, so let's do it.
What about we don't. What about when the marketing guy demands they add another tracker, it noticeably slows down the web browser. What about autoplaying video that isn't enabled by default. What about restricting which events a page can capture so we don't lose our middle click or right click features. What about imposing limits so that, for example, over use of closures doesn't result in a web page suddenly gobbling hundreds of megabytes of RAM.
It's time broken web pages showed up as such so the developers and their managers can clearly see they're asking for the ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
From their point of view, if they'd forced the customer to buy the direct ticket, the customer would have had to pay more. So from their point of view, yeah, they're losing money.
I have two responses to that: (1) Fuck them. (2) Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuucccckkk them.
Yeah, I hate airlines. I'm 6'2" so of course I do.
I don't see that they have a leg to stand on. Which is great, because with no legs perhaps the case will be able to fit in one of their own seats.
I suspect the real purpose of the case is intimidation. But the reality is it'll give publicity to methods to save money on plane travel, while simultaneously reminding people that airlines are trash and that there are more comfortable alternatives.
What I'd actually though like to see is the courts not merely forcing the airlines to pay the costs of the lawsuits, but also setting a precedent where the customer can ask for his money back for the original flight because the customer never got to their destination...
I think a good reason to suggest C is one of the worst languages is to compare it with PHP. PHP is a terrible language with obvious flaws. C is also a terrible language with obvious flaws.
But... my experience is that the average PHP programmer does actually recognize that the language they're being forced to program in is shit. They know mistakes are going to occur no matter how smart they are and that a sizable number of those will be because the language is hot garbage.
C, on the other hand, seems to attract a bizarre level of machismo, people absolutely insisting that C is the best, and the only reason why there's so much terrible C written is that the average programmer is worse than they are, because C, you know, it needs to be written by a true expert. A REAL C programmer. Programming in REAL C. Alongside REAL men, REAL women, and REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
The only other language I can think of that attracts that level of misplaced arrogance is C++, which is kinda what you'd expect given one is an extension of the other.
No, he's right. There's nothing he wrote that implies he doesn't know what a null is. There's plenty that you're writing here though that shows you don't understand the problem.
There is absolutely nothing about null termination that's more secure than length+string. It's entirely possible, and indeed a common source of errors, to not put a null at the end of a string, for example:
This will, on C compilers that store everything in the most obvious way (which isn't all of them) print "Hell is a language called C". On others, it'll fill your screen with garbage. And on a handful it'll, by accident, print "Hell" because whatever data is stored after "buffer" happens to be zero by coincidence.
How is this better? It isn't! And it's not a contrived answer either, because strncpy was introduced precisely to prevent buffer overflow errors, and yet nobody noticed between implementation and standardization/release that to use it in such a way that it didn't cause overflows a programmer had to do a, usually redundant, step of sticking a null in the last element of the destination buffer, just to make sure that if the string was too long, it was still a string.
Yes, null termination is so bad that even the experts at ANSI couldn't figure out how to fix it properly. (IIRC it was the OpenBSD people who introduced the world's first safe string copying function as a standard - in the very late nineties, 15-20 years after C first appeared. FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS. FIFTEEN to SAFELY COPY A STRING. Do you have ANY idea how terrible that is?
The health affects of caffeine aren't fully known, but Nicotine does reduce your body's defenses against cancer.
You're right that vaping is definitely less unhealthy than cigarettes though.
Yes, they reported on the older version. The one the summary talks about the deficiencies of and how this version fixes them.
Must... use... preview...
Ace Metrix.
The good news is that the average viewer has more smarts than the average Slashdotter when it comes to this video. Most actually interpreted it the way it was meant to be, rather than the bizarre "OMG THEY'RE CRITIFICATING THE MANS!" thing going on on Slashdot right now.
Morning Consult
Ace Metrix
Most viewers do not appear to be taking it as a general attack on men. None of the comments in the Ace Metrix survey suggest that, and the fact most men saw it as positive, shares their values, and that it's likely to take business away from Harrys and Dollar Shave definitely suggests men weren't patronized or felt under attack by it.
Only you and presumably some /r/the_donald, KIA, and 8chan regulars felt like that. So, take from that what you will.
There's a lot of assumptions about what it means right now which'll be updated as more information comes in. The Spinosaurus has a massive collection of bone spikes sticking up out of its back, which presumably would have similar issues. The consensus right now is that they supported some kind of a sail or hump type structure. What the story is with this dinosaur won't become clear until more fossils are found.
Dude, give up. He's not going to get it. Right wingers think "racist" is an insult. Not a word with any meaning, an insult. Just an insult. Virtually every time a right winger does something blatantly racist, just like c6gunner did, and someone calls them out on it, they respond as if their mother was just called a whore. Reality doesn't matter, as far as they're concerned you insulted them and there is nothing that could possibly justify you using the label "racist" to describe being prejudiced against non-whites.
Fuck, I'm surprised c6gunner hasn't said "Just because I hate [n-word]s and brown people doesn't mean I'm a racist, you're a racist, checkmate, I win."
If only there was a way to pay for the wall in Bitcoin the trifecta would be complete.
It isn't an overnight, or even over decade, process to remove all legacy apps from a business, and the bigger the business it's harder to remove "obsolete" software. I guarantee you that there are many big corporations out there still reliant on 16 bit or even DOS software (I don't mean "To control this real time piece of hardware", I mean to run something that was written in 1983 and nobody has been able to set the process in motion of getting it rewritten.)
Now, before you start blaming GM, Sears, Edison, or whatever company you feel is being ignorant by not rewriting all their software using the latest Rust frameworks, and I agree they do share the blame, Microsoft's intention by introducing ActiveX was to get this kind of lock-in. They knew how businesses worked, how big corporations worked in particular, and how smaller businesses needed to be compatible with the big corporations. This is why they actively encouraged people to write "web" software using a technology that gave them full access to the Windows API.
They knew that once a bigger corporation made the decision to build a giant application architecture based on ActiveX, the company would be locked into ActiveX, and Windows, for decades. That IT directors would almost certainly be opposed to rewriting it, but even if they supported the idea, IT directors would have massive difficulty persuading their superiors to support projects to replace a working technology with something functionally identical at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, and even if it passes that hurdle, the average megacorp is so wrapped up with bureaucracy and politics such projects would be unlikely to succeed, being killed by replacement IT managers, or dying with the next company wide reorganization.
Microsoft made this problem and they really have to fix it. Short of creating a cross platform plug-in that implements a 32 bit ix86 VM that includes most of Windows 98 in it, I don't see them doing that.
Keeping black people in poverty is enormously profitable and there are plenty of examples, from the abuse of the criminal justice system (example: people fined more than they can possibly afford for minor offenses like minor traffic violations, then imprisoned for not paying the fines, guaranteeing they can't continue), to the selling of subprime/variable rate mortgages to black people and refusing to even offer regular mortgages even if they're eligible.
Let's also not forget the defunding of public education in predominantly black areas.
Making that claim shows a chronic ignorance of what's going on around you. I'm not even sure why you'd make that claim without at least doing the research and finding out why community leaders and anti-racist and anti-poverty groups say otherwise.
I can't even begin to reply to the confusion of concepts you're making here. Yes, the Ice Age is something that happened. No, it has nothing to do with the brief period in the 1970s where some scientists opined it might be possible we might see global cooling and the media hyped that up.
I would suggest a quick visit to Wikipedia to look up "Ice Age" and "Global cooling" to see how they're entirely unrelated concepts (other than, I suppose, GC being a theory that a new ice age might occur), this'll give you a better picture.
The scientific consensus has never been for global cooling. Never. It was discussed, researched, but at no point was it ever the consensus. Those are the facts. No amount of misunderstood displays at the Smithsonian change that, and I seriously don't believe that the Smithsonian has an exhibit predicting global cooling. Even if it has a "global cooling" exhibit in the past, it would have been for a short time during the 1970s, and is unlikely to have implied that most scientists believe that global cooling was imminent.
No, it says tar. It uses the world sealant, but in context that means tar. (Also, FWIW, from the article it links to.)
I'm not claiming you're taking implied meaning, I'm claiming you're wrong, that there's no legitimate way to interpret the summary as saying it's asphalt. There isn't.
And given that clicking through the summary to the main article ALSO reveals it's tar, not asphalt, I'm struggling to understand why you're still arguing this. It'd be one thing if the summary had been ambiguous (it wasn't) and the article implied asphalt, but that's not the case. Stop digging!
By their customers, noteably Apple.
Which is what matters, unless you're implying some other metric exists that Apple would take into account that IBM did better than Motorola with. As far as I'm aware they were equally reliable, for example. So price-performance was the only metric in which they differed.
But not per dollar, so it doesn't matter. Desktop users don't really give a rats behind if there's a $1,000 CPU from IBM that performs 50% better than the $250 CPU in their Performa.
IBM didn't make x86 processors, except for that brief time when they partnered with Cyrix.
Are you seriously still arguing this? The term the summary uses is "Sealant". In other words, to people who know what words mean, TAR, not ASPHALT.
No, it doesn't. It actually implies the exact opposite. It's saying they put a second cover-up on it, and the fact they feel the need to explain what material they used tells you (not "strongly implies", but actually directly tells you) it wasn't what the original material was.
It's not asphalt. If it were, they wouldn't have described as a sealant nor felt the need to mention what they were replacing the sealant with.
They developed the 88000 series, which was well received, but suffered from internal politics (Motorola didn't promote it and priced it ridiculously high because they didn't want to cannibalize their 68k business) and being just one RISC CPU in a market full of them. Meanwhile Apple didn't want to be reliant upon one supplier and was looking for a unified architecture supported by numerous third parties. From Apple's point of view they wanted CPUs with a well supported ABI, that wasn't Intel. That meant someone had to throw their hat into the ring with someone else, rejecting their own work. And from that point of view, given the 88000's low adoption, Motorola teaming with IBM worked for everyone.
Motorola's CPU engineers were the best in the business and they made the best CPUs. The switch to PowerPC shouldn't be interpreted as meaning they didn't know what they were doing - indeed, far from it, Motorola's implementations were considered superior to IBM's until the G5 came along, when it came to desktop and mobile CPUs.
The only reference I see to "hot asphalt" is in describing the fix they did when the tar started coming off. Are you sure YOU'RE reading the same summary?
I've yet to hear her advocate anything that isn't supported by mainstream conservatives in Europe, and isn't working well in Europe. The problem isn't that any of her ideas are insane, it's that US government is strangled by batshit insane right wing ideology which means even the "left" part of the establishment cannot actually advocate normal, sane, rational policies.
The popularity of AOC's major policies also suggests that she's centrist by real American (non-Washington, non-media) standards, not left wing or insane.
/r/the_donald is also notorious for that, but yes, I agree, there are plenty of Reddit forums that are 99% open, more or less "Say what you want unless you're very obviously trolling."
Two inches of asphalt wouldn't have been enough either, but FWIW the summary says tar, not asphalt.
No, they couldn't easily turn the flag off, because most of the time they wouldn't even be aware there is such a flag.
Microsoft could have handled this differently, for example putting up a dialog when you start the browser for the first time, asking whether the user wants to allow advertisers to record information about their web histories in order to place more relevant ads. Then (1) the user would know exactly what the flag is about and what the implications are, and (2) the user would know (because they're forced to) how to switch the flag on or off.
But they didn't. They turned off something most people didn't know existed or why it existed so didn't know how to turn on. So the setting became meaningless. Sabotage.
Climate deniers are not people who deny the climate changes, but people who deny the overwhelming evidence that AGW is occurring and who pretend studies like the one this article is quoting are "unscientific" because it has the audacity to assign probabilities to possible outcomes and include some where the probability is less than 50%.
When the GP talkings about climate deniers refusing to take bets, he's talking about those people, people who claim on one hand that the studies are "unscientific" but on the other refuse to make easy bets that would succeed more frequently than fail if climate scientists were, actually, not scientists.
1. Take a look at this: https://xkcd.com/1732/
2. "Global cooling" was a briefly hyped (six months at best) concept at some point in the 1970s. It has never represented the scientific consensus.
Maybe doing the exact opposite might solve the issue. Right now web development is managed by random Javascript developers working hand in hand with insane marketing people. Google has been going the "Give them what they want and make it work best in our browser" philosophy for a while now, and it doesn't work. Autoplaying video coupled with fifteen tracking scripts from different tracking companies? Hey, Chrome allows that, so let's do it.
What about we don't. What about when the marketing guy demands they add another tracker, it noticeably slows down the web browser. What about autoplaying video that isn't enabled by default. What about restricting which events a page can capture so we don't lose our middle click or right click features. What about imposing limits so that, for example, over use of closures doesn't result in a web page suddenly gobbling hundreds of megabytes of RAM.
It's time broken web pages showed up as such so the developers and their managers can clearly see they're asking for the ridiculous.