What has the fact that the boy is an autist have to do with this? Or is this about the old myth that all autists are extremely good in some thing?
In this case, I'd say it looks more like an appeal to sympathy, and possibly an implication that he lacks the ability to cheat (either cognitively, or in terms of not understanding/caring about the social concept of getting a high score for bragging rights). As for his having unbelievably high scores... Not the best example to try to dispel the "savant" myth.
Red hair just proves that his disease results from his status as the Spawn of Satan, and has no relevance to this particular discussion.
/ Still waiting for my italics to work again, Slashdot!
They don't have a Steve Jobs, so they figured, hey, what the fuck, the Black Eyed Peas know more about "cool" than our engineers do.
Ever gone to an Intel-hosted party? Trust me, they know "cool".
MULTIPLE 3d Doom 2 rigs (back when that actually meant something), an open bar, live BattleBots (also back when that meant something)... Those mofos can party.
Add the following to your userContent.css file:
a:link { color: blue !important; text-decoration: underline !important;}
a:visited { color: cyan !important; text-decoration: underline !important;}
Though if you can explain how I can get back my damned italic text (and tt or code), I'd certainly appreciate it...
But I'm willing to guess by "sole proprietorship" you meant "corporation with one shareholder or LLC with one shareholder."
Ah, my bad, I did indeed mean the latter. Thank you for clarifying that, I always interpreted the former as merely descriptive, such as for an LLC with only
one actual owner. Evidently not.:)
How may I ask are you taking a risk if your given shares.
Because most companies don't give straight shares, they give options.
If the stock price goes up, the owner of those options can exercise them, but actually has to
pay for the underlying stock. If the stock price goes down, their owner lets them expire,
giving them zero value.
So rather than "free money under a different name", stock options as a form of executive compensation
more closely resemble a one-sided bet... If he wins, he wins. If he loses, he doesn't really lose anything.
Tying that all back to the situation in TFA, however, it gets a whole lot shadier when you have a one-person
corporation - The owner of the company usually already owns 100% of the stock so can't pay himself with
more of it (not can he issue options to himself on it).
More practically, he should have done what most sole proprietorships do to hide money - Pay himself as much as
he really needs to live, and use the remaining profits on "capital improvements" that he just happens to personally
benefit from, ("company" car, new computer(s), perhaps an "office" (aka "place to spend the night for free") in a
remote location that he often visits, if that applies). That way, he also gets the perk of claiming depreciation
on those assets over time, which we mere humans don't get to do.
Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets.
No, someone dumb enough to express their unhappiness with government policies to their boss the government, most likely does not pose a serious security risk.
The guys who find our government reprehensible enough to want to do something about, and have the savvy to actually accomplish something on the scale of Manning, will keep their heads down, smile, and give all the "right" answers to any tests of their cheerfulness and loyalty.
Not interested. Most engineers make enough that the offer of more money doesn't really motivate us (and if it does, you don't want them).
Ownership stake
In a company that thinks overworking programmers will magically make it profitable? You have some dumb coders if they take that bait.
Look for your replacement
Oh, they'll pick that option all right, but not quite in the way you might want.
If you ask for a few extra hours a week, for a short period of time, everyone will grumble but do it (though don't expect to actually get more work out of people just because you see them in the office for an extra hour a day). If you ask for a long period of time, or a lot of extra hours, everyone will cheerfully respond with a silent smile as they head back to their desks... And you'll keep paying your staff for a few more weeks/months, with productivity immediately dropping to zero as they all start printing resumes and surfing the job sites. Pretty much the definition of "false economy".
In my experience, most engineers I've worked with, work basically to their capacity every single day. That doesn't mean they actually work 8/9/10/14 hours a day (more realistically, three to five hours of productive time regardless of how long convention expects them to heat a chair). You can perhaps squeeze another 5-10% out of them on the short term, but don't kid yourself if you think destroying morale will get things done. At best, you might get the project "finished" slightly earlier - With so many bugs you need to recall the first version. And the second, if you don't learn from the first time.
The physical ease of our working conditions aside, most people don't even have the capacity to attend to such precise detail for hours on end. When you catch a guy reading Slashdot or playing minesweeper instead of coding, rest assured that right at that moment, you don't want him touching any code.
Would they rather do 10 hour days 5 days a week? Would they rather do 8 hour days 6 days a week?
Or, would they rather have a life than work themselves to death for a company that will have forgotten their extra effort a week after the project finishes? If the company needs 20% more programmer-hours to meet a non-arbitrary deadline, it needs to hire 20% more programmers, simple as that.
I have no problem with working the occasional 12 (or rare 20) hour day when the feces hits the fan. But when talking about a regular workday over a prolonged period, you should seriously expect that anyone on the team will only stick around until they can find another job (and those who don't leave represent the bottom of the barrel who can't find another job).
I'll take an amateur who's willing to learn over a "professional" who thinks he's infallible, any day.
That sounds good... In general. In this specific case, you've just said you'd prefer the moron that doesn't realize making people work 11 hour days won't make them any more productive, and will destroy morale.
More importantly, you have omitted the obvious middle-ground of a manager willing to learn who has a sufficient background level of competence to realize that people, particularly programmers, have an amazing ability to look busy while actually slacking off. And the more they resent the company for stealing their free time, the more they'll take advantage of that skill. When companies pull crap like this, productivity goes down.
So to answer the FP's question - "Yes, I will work 10 or 11 hour days - Four of them a week, and the latter includes an hour for lunch."
this really gets me mad. why does living in Florida matter? why does living in a trailer park matter? that's wrong with people, this sort of prejudice...
You might want to avoid Fark for the foreseeable future...
most of those kinds of entities are bottom feeders who are very week and just feed on fear. A few are truly dangerous. And they don't come with resumes.
Hey, politicians have resumes... They just don't use them for the sort of jobs to which they apply.
And that is why the enterprise is starting to adopt Apple gear
Cite, please (from a non-Apple press release)? Because I call this complete and utter fiction.
Make no mistake, Apple has a "presence" in enterprise because a lot of people have iPhones (banned from connecting to the corporate email system unless you have the words "executive", "chief", or "vice" in your title), and iPods (banned from running iTunes or storing any form of media library on corporate PCs), and these people use them in and around (but unconnected with) their jobs.
But actual use by enterprise, I just don't see it. Apple occupies the same niche today in the corporate world as it has for the past 20 years - Sometimes the marketing folks will get a pass to use Macs at their job, which may or may not save them time, but at the cost of wasting IT's time when they need help converting to "real world" formats to send out-of-house three times a day.
Don't kid yourself, the suburbs are unsustainable.
How pathologically absurd... Dense populations make a lot of aspects of modern life more convenient, but you've completely reversed the reality of which allows the other to exist.
It takes half an acre of near-perfect arable land to support one person. Manhattan has a population density (as of the last census) of 100 people per acre. If not for the rural areas producing massively more food than their population needs, your beautiful, sustainable cities would rapidly starve to death.
For energy, the situation looks a bit better - Assuming nonexistent 100% efficiency solar collection, (4-5kWh per square meter per day), you would "only" need to pave 40% of Manhattan's 87.5 million square meters with solar panels to meet the 170GWh it uses per day (according to ConEd for 2009)... Or more realistically, you could just stick a mere 130 nuclear reactors in Times Square to meet the needs of the city.
Now, in fairness, I think you meant to suggest that it takes fewer resources per capita to support a city dweller than a suburbanite; And also in fairness, most suburbanites don't grow most of their own food (though they could). But the problem here simply boils down to total population, not localized population density. Eventually, if we don't find a faster way to kill our species off, the entire planet would look like Manhattan. And that just won't work no matter how much more efficient a dense population looks on paper when allowed infinite influx of resources from somewhere else.
I'm sitting here in a high-owner-occupancy-percentage gated condo in downtown Austin with 14-foot ceilings, outstanding noise isolation, a big courtyard to play with the dog, a enjoyable daily workout by doing my commute by bike... and I'm pretty damned happy with my quality of life. "Slum"? I don't see it.
Sure, you can keep the plague out - for a while. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist; you even mention otherwise-irrelevant aspects of your environment as positive features, rather than as wasteful necessities that allow you to preserve the fantasy.
The value they add to their customers: Cold hard cash. The value to the stock market: liquidity
One problem there - Moving "cold hard cash" around doesn't create value. It makes parasites fatter.
And in some cases, it can destroy value. When people around the world starve to death as red spring wheat sits rotting in storage, the system has a serious problem.
If I'm playing a robot or enhanced human, sure I'll grant being able to whirl around and hit five targets in five directions in less than a second. If I'm playing a WWII soldier, not so much.
Except, people do that as a human playing the game.
Assuming someone has a recoil-less ranged weapon with near-infinite firing speed (and some modern double-action semiautos come close), they really could perform such a feat. It the best of "twitch" gamers can drop a handful of targets in a single rapid sweep of the sights, so could a human with a similar weapon (and in fact, if you've ever watched some of the sport-shooting stars at play, they pretty much do that with real firearms).
Now, admittedly that doesn't describe any weapon that existed in WWII - But both consoles and PCs share that particular unrealistic edge equally.
Or maybe it's for implying that/b/tards are gay. Not sure which.
Heh, inorite? Silly GP.
At 11, I still considered girls "icky"... Tough to know your sexual orientation at that age. So to call them "gay", well... At best, they might have an unhealthy interest in yaoi.
Postulating Dark {Matter, Energy} is the height of hubris, since it implies that Astronomy Has Seen All There Is To See from our tiny little glasses on our tiny little rock in a backwater arm of the Galaxy.
Postulating that it doesn't exist also counts as the height of hubris, since it implies that Particle Physics Has Seen All There Is To See from their tiny little accelerators on our tiny little rock in a backwater arm of the Galaxy.:)
If he really was innocent why wouldn't he talk to the authorities?
First of all, he did offer to meet with the authorities, when this BS first broke. Now that it has turned into an international incident, he has scaled that down to meeting only remotely, for obvious reasons.
"Obvious reasons"? How about the fact that the ladies in question have already admitted they had consensual sex? How about the fact that one of them wrote her thesis (in part) on the use of rape as a weapon of the matriarchy, and has attempted to erase her entire public persona (such as her blog post on the finer points of revenge)?
Or how about the fact that, once they have him in custody, he has a moth's chance against a blowtorch of not "accidentally" dying before he ever sees a courtroom?
If not a fool, he'll take Ecuador up on its offer of asylum.
Yes, I used a bit of hyperbole there - But certainly not so much as to make the reality anything like what you describe (perhaps you sounded more breathless and desperate for help, so they cut to the chase? Of course, I could cut my arm off with a band-saw and still sound composed when I call, so, sucks for me I guess that I have a pretty decent ability to stay calm).
The past two times I've had occasion to call 911, they very much did as I describe - Not an efficient "what do you need, oh and by the way can we have your name", but they wanted my name, phone number, HOME address (not where I called from - They never even asked that), employer, work number, work address (I remember that question specifically because I didn't even know it at the time), profession, and a handful more completely irrelevant questions that I don't remember well enough to recount them.
Then, and only then, did they get around to asking if I needed help... Right, like I called just for the fun of getting my memoirs published in the 911 blotter.
Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.
FTFP: "Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks."
Before snarking on the FP author, perhaps you should actually read the FP's question?
It probably wouldn't work on the bottom floor of an underground parking garage, but it has no problem getting a lock on the ground floor of my house (when, for example, I connect it to the PC to send waypoints to it).
Is there any reason why you should text a 911 responder instead of just calling them?
Oh, I dunno, perhaps because you don't want the guy with a gun across the hall to hear you calling the police, as per TFA? Because your steering wheel has crushed your larynx and you can't talk? Or hell, just because you don't want to give 27 forms of ID before they'll even listen to your problem (I personally love that one - God forbid anyone actually use 911 for a real emergency, you'd die before the operator stops asking for details like your college roommate's pet chinchilla's name)?
I agree that 99.9% of the time, you should just call instead of texting. But if that 0.1% makes a difference, why not allow it?
Slashdot Mirror
What has the fact that the boy is an autist have to do with this? Or is this about the old myth that all autists are extremely good in some thing?
In this case, I'd say it looks more like an appeal to sympathy, and possibly an implication that he lacks the ability to cheat (either cognitively, or in terms of not understanding/caring about the social concept of getting a high score for bragging rights). As for his having unbelievably high scores... Not the best example to try to dispel the "savant" myth.
Red hair just proves that his disease results from his status as the Spawn of Satan, and has no relevance to this particular discussion.
/ Still waiting for my italics to work again, Slashdot!
They don't have a Steve Jobs, so they figured, hey, what the fuck, the Black Eyed Peas know more about "cool" than our engineers do.
Ever gone to an Intel-hosted party? Trust me, they know "cool".
MULTIPLE 3d Doom 2 rigs (back when that actually meant something), an open bar, live BattleBots (also back when that meant something)... Those mofos can party.
ps - Dear Slashdot - GIVE ME BACK ITALICS!
Add the following to your userContent.css file:
a:link { color: blue !important; text-decoration: underline !important;}
a:visited { color: cyan !important; text-decoration: underline !important;}
Though if you can explain how I can get back my damned italic text (and tt or code), I'd certainly appreciate it...
But I'm willing to guess by "sole proprietorship" you meant "corporation with one shareholder or LLC with one shareholder."
:)
Ah, my bad, I did indeed mean the latter. Thank you for clarifying that, I always interpreted the former as merely descriptive, such as for an LLC with only one actual owner. Evidently not.
How may I ask are you taking a risk if your given shares.
Because most companies don't give straight shares, they give options.
If the stock price goes up, the owner of those options can exercise them, but actually has to pay for the underlying stock. If the stock price goes down, their owner lets them expire, giving them zero value.
So rather than "free money under a different name", stock options as a form of executive compensation more closely resemble a one-sided bet... If he wins, he wins. If he loses, he doesn't really lose anything.
Tying that all back to the situation in TFA, however, it gets a whole lot shadier when you have a one-person corporation - The owner of the company usually already owns 100% of the stock so can't pay himself with more of it (not can he issue options to himself on it).
More practically, he should have done what most sole proprietorships do to hide money - Pay himself as much as he really needs to live, and use the remaining profits on "capital improvements" that he just happens to personally benefit from, ("company" car, new computer(s), perhaps an "office" (aka "place to spend the night for free") in a remote location that he often visits, if that applies). That way, he also gets the perk of claiming depreciation on those assets over time, which we mere humans don't get to do.
Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets.
No, someone dumb enough to express their unhappiness with government policies to their boss the government, most likely does not pose a serious security risk.
The guys who find our government reprehensible enough to want to do something about, and have the savvy to actually accomplish something on the scale of Manning, will keep their heads down, smile, and give all the "right" answers to any tests of their cheerfulness and loyalty.
More pay
Not interested. Most engineers make enough that the offer of more money doesn't really motivate us (and if it does, you don't want them).
Ownership stake
In a company that thinks overworking programmers will magically make it profitable? You have some dumb coders if they take that bait.
Look for your replacement
Oh, they'll pick that option all right, but not quite in the way you might want.
If you ask for a few extra hours a week, for a short period of time, everyone will grumble but do it (though don't expect to actually get more work out of people just because you see them in the office for an extra hour a day). If you ask for a long period of time, or a lot of extra hours, everyone will cheerfully respond with a silent smile as they head back to their desks... And you'll keep paying your staff for a few more weeks/months, with productivity immediately dropping to zero as they all start printing resumes and surfing the job sites. Pretty much the definition of "false economy".
In my experience, most engineers I've worked with, work basically to their capacity every single day. That doesn't mean they actually work 8/9/10/14 hours a day (more realistically, three to five hours of productive time regardless of how long convention expects them to heat a chair). You can perhaps squeeze another 5-10% out of them on the short term, but don't kid yourself if you think destroying morale will get things done. At best, you might get the project "finished" slightly earlier - With so many bugs you need to recall the first version. And the second, if you don't learn from the first time.
The physical ease of our working conditions aside, most people don't even have the capacity to attend to such precise detail for hours on end. When you catch a guy reading Slashdot or playing minesweeper instead of coding, rest assured that right at that moment, you don't want him touching any code.
Would they rather do 10 hour days 5 days a week? Would they rather do 8 hour days 6 days a week?
Or, would they rather have a life than work themselves to death for a company that will have forgotten their extra effort a week after the project finishes? If the company needs 20% more programmer-hours to meet a non-arbitrary deadline, it needs to hire 20% more programmers, simple as that.
I have no problem with working the occasional 12 (or rare 20) hour day when the feces hits the fan. But when talking about a regular workday over a prolonged period, you should seriously expect that anyone on the team will only stick around until they can find another job (and those who don't leave represent the bottom of the barrel who can't find another job).
I'll take an amateur who's willing to learn over a "professional" who thinks he's infallible, any day.
That sounds good... In general. In this specific case, you've just said you'd prefer the moron that doesn't realize making people work 11 hour days won't make them any more productive, and will destroy morale.
More importantly, you have omitted the obvious middle-ground of a manager willing to learn who has a sufficient background level of competence to realize that people, particularly programmers, have an amazing ability to look busy while actually slacking off. And the more they resent the company for stealing their free time, the more they'll take advantage of that skill. When companies pull crap like this, productivity goes down.
So to answer the FP's question - "Yes, I will work 10 or 11 hour days - Four of them a week, and the latter includes an hour for lunch."
this really gets me mad. why does living in Florida matter? why does living in a trailer park matter? that's wrong with people, this sort of prejudice...
You might want to avoid Fark for the foreseeable future...
most of those kinds of entities are bottom feeders who are very week and just feed on fear. A few are truly dangerous. And they don't come with resumes.
Hey, politicians have resumes... They just don't use them for the sort of jobs to which they apply.
And that is why the enterprise is starting to adopt Apple gear
Cite, please (from a non-Apple press release)? Because I call this complete and utter fiction.
Make no mistake, Apple has a "presence" in enterprise because a lot of people have iPhones (banned from connecting to the corporate email system unless you have the words "executive", "chief", or "vice" in your title), and iPods (banned from running iTunes or storing any form of media library on corporate PCs), and these people use them in and around (but unconnected with) their jobs.
But actual use by enterprise, I just don't see it. Apple occupies the same niche today in the corporate world as it has for the past 20 years - Sometimes the marketing folks will get a pass to use Macs at their job, which may or may not save them time, but at the cost of wasting IT's time when they need help converting to "real world" formats to send out-of-house three times a day.
Don't kid yourself, the suburbs are unsustainable.
How pathologically absurd... Dense populations make a lot of aspects of modern life more convenient, but you've completely reversed the reality of which allows the other to exist.
It takes half an acre of near-perfect arable land to support one person. Manhattan has a population density (as of the last census) of 100 people per acre. If not for the rural areas producing massively more food than their population needs, your beautiful, sustainable cities would rapidly starve to death.
For energy, the situation looks a bit better - Assuming nonexistent 100% efficiency solar collection, (4-5kWh per square meter per day), you would "only" need to pave 40% of Manhattan's 87.5 million square meters with solar panels to meet the 170GWh it uses per day (according to ConEd for 2009)... Or more realistically, you could just stick a mere 130 nuclear reactors in Times Square to meet the needs of the city.
Now, in fairness, I think you meant to suggest that it takes fewer resources per capita to support a city dweller than a suburbanite; And also in fairness, most suburbanites don't grow most of their own food (though they could). But the problem here simply boils down to total population, not localized population density. Eventually, if we don't find a faster way to kill our species off, the entire planet would look like Manhattan. And that just won't work no matter how much more efficient a dense population looks on paper when allowed infinite influx of resources from somewhere else.
I'm sitting here in a high-owner-occupancy-percentage gated condo in downtown Austin with 14-foot ceilings, outstanding noise isolation, a big courtyard to play with the dog, a enjoyable daily workout by doing my commute by bike... and I'm pretty damned happy with my quality of life. "Slum"? I don't see it.
Sure, you can keep the plague out - for a while. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist; you even mention otherwise-irrelevant aspects of your environment as positive features, rather than as wasteful necessities that allow you to preserve the fantasy.
The value they add to their customers: Cold hard cash. The value to the stock market: liquidity
One problem there - Moving "cold hard cash" around doesn't create value. It makes parasites fatter.
And in some cases, it can destroy value. When people around the world starve to death as red spring wheat sits rotting in storage, the system has a serious problem.
If I'm playing a robot or enhanced human, sure I'll grant being able to whirl around and hit five targets in five directions in less than a second. If I'm playing a WWII soldier, not so much.
Except, people do that as a human playing the game.
Assuming someone has a recoil-less ranged weapon with near-infinite firing speed (and some modern double-action semiautos come close), they really could perform such a feat. It the best of "twitch" gamers can drop a handful of targets in a single rapid sweep of the sights, so could a human with a similar weapon (and in fact, if you've ever watched some of the sport-shooting stars at play, they pretty much do that with real firearms).
Now, admittedly that doesn't describe any weapon that existed in WWII - But both consoles and PCs share that particular unrealistic edge equally.
Or maybe it's for implying that /b/tards are gay. Not sure which.
Heh, inorite? Silly GP.
At 11, I still considered girls "icky"... Tough to know your sexual orientation at that age. So to call them "gay", well... At best, they might have an unhealthy interest in yaoi.
Postulating Dark {Matter, Energy} is the height of hubris, since it implies that Astronomy Has Seen All There Is To See from our tiny little glasses on our tiny little rock in a backwater arm of the Galaxy.
:)
Postulating that it doesn't exist also counts as the height of hubris, since it implies that Particle Physics Has Seen All There Is To See from their tiny little accelerators on our tiny little rock in a backwater arm of the Galaxy.
If he really was innocent why wouldn't he talk to the authorities?
First of all, he did offer to meet with the authorities, when this BS first broke. Now that it has turned into an international incident, he has scaled that down to meeting only remotely, for obvious reasons.
"Obvious reasons"? How about the fact that the ladies in question have already admitted they had consensual sex? How about the fact that one of them wrote her thesis (in part) on the use of rape as a weapon of the matriarchy, and has attempted to erase her entire public persona (such as her blog post on the finer points of revenge)?
Or how about the fact that, once they have him in custody, he has a moth's chance against a blowtorch of not "accidentally" dying before he ever sees a courtroom?
If not a fool, he'll take Ecuador up on its offer of asylum.
Oh, and for those wondering... Bank of America. Duh.
Half the point of a credit card is portability and ease of use. Carrying around a hammer is rather counterproductive towards that end.
You need the new Chase(tm) Big Iron(sm)(r) card! For when you need convenience and heft, complete with a sensible no-hassle rewards program.
That's not really true.
Yes, I used a bit of hyperbole there - But certainly not so much as to make the reality anything like what you describe (perhaps you sounded more breathless and desperate for help, so they cut to the chase? Of course, I could cut my arm off with a band-saw and still sound composed when I call, so, sucks for me I guess that I have a pretty decent ability to stay calm).
The past two times I've had occasion to call 911, they very much did as I describe - Not an efficient "what do you need, oh and by the way can we have your name", but they wanted my name, phone number, HOME address (not where I called from - They never even asked that), employer, work number, work address (I remember that question specifically because I didn't even know it at the time), profession, and a handful more completely irrelevant questions that I don't remember well enough to recount them.
Then, and only then, did they get around to asking if I needed help... Right, like I called just for the fun of getting my memoirs published in the 911 blotter.
Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.
FTFP: "Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks."
Before snarking on the FP author, perhaps you should actually read the FP's question?
GPS only works outdoors.
Tell that to my Garmin 60CSx.
It probably wouldn't work on the bottom floor of an underground parking garage, but it has no problem getting a lock on the ground floor of my house (when, for example, I connect it to the PC to send waypoints to it).
Lets get with the times
Oh, puh-lease. Facebook has sooo jumped the shark.
All the cool kids today have "discovered" this cool retro thing called "IRC". It even has built-in filesharing and "rooms" for group chat!
Is there any reason why you should text a 911 responder instead of just calling them?
Oh, I dunno, perhaps because you don't want the guy with a gun across the hall to hear you calling the police, as per TFA? Because your steering wheel has crushed your larynx and you can't talk? Or hell, just because you don't want to give 27 forms of ID before they'll even listen to your problem (I personally love that one - God forbid anyone actually use 911 for a real emergency, you'd die before the operator stops asking for details like your college roommate's pet chinchilla's name)?
I agree that 99.9% of the time, you should just call instead of texting. But if that 0.1% makes a difference, why not allow it?