Operational can simply mean a system used for monitoring and statistics. It could even mean a system for scheduling maintenance. You could feed it the wrong information, or the system could have an internal fault, a bad sensor, and present the wrong information. Bu like you said, the systems can handle anomalies. Its not like some movie where they fool everyone.
Of course we could guess at what they mean all day. That's the problem, they are intentionally vague, and every time we see that the reality is much more benign than the hyperbole. Too much doesn't make sense, maybe they are just not competent at explaining. That's sometimes part of the problem, having IT guys trying to talk about power and grid related systems in context.
All good points. I agree they could have meant a DMZ, but I have been reading these types of article that talk about power system (or company) breaches and one thing that has been consistent is where there is vagueness, and where the actual details come out later, the original article was misleading, making things sound worse then they really were.
I did not mean to assert when they meant, but meant to point out that there is good reason, based on the vagueness coupled with hyperbole, to be very skeptical. "operational' and even "controls" can mean a lot of different things. You might be control some monitoring function but not actually any equipment, for example. I get that for some facilities, secrecy brings vagueness, but they are talking about power companies, and grid systems, not likely to have that type of restriction and I can think of no reason why they could not have given a generic explanation of the type of control network, or type of thing they claim could have been disrupted. And 'disrupted' is a nice word for any effect on anything, no matter how small. A malware infection that does nothing is a "disruption" because it forces you to take action. "networks that control the actual power grid" needs a lot of clarification. "the actual power grid" is really a collection of systems, many levels, fragmented and segmented. Choosing that terminology tells me there may be confusion on their part about the specifics. It makes little sense in this context.
I do appreciate your thoughtful reply. Its nice to have an intelligent discussion. I hope you understand my basis for significant skepticism. That doesn't mean I'm right but I'd make a big bet on it.
and many improvements and changes have been made to prevent the same from recurring.
Oh horsepucky. 2003 wasn't the first cascade failure and it won't be the last. It's been 14 years and these power companies are padding their exec bonus packages like nothing ever happened and the unions are padding the pension schemes and the grid rots. Meanwhile developers develop and lines get extended and plants get uprated and the margins get incrementally smaller and smaller until ping! Some tree branch outside Deplorableville, PA shorts a high tension line or a long overdue for service transformer welds itself together and the North East goes dark for a day.
And then we'll have ourselves another "investigation" that concludes with nothing of note beyond "Moare Money!" and another round of "never let this happen again" from the prevailing notables. Rinse. Repeat. All this story contributes is a possible reordering of the list of failure modes; sabotage jumps up a few notches and perhaps approaches the level of neglect and incompetence.
Despite the breathless reporting, there is no "energy grid" that can be hacked. Individual servers and routers can be hacked. Unprotected SCADA systems can be hacked. But it would take far more than this to bring down the electric system in the US. It's not contiguous or synchronous. It's not impervious either (see 2003 blackout) but it doesn't work the way it's described here.
That's the impression many seem to have. It takes a tremendous effort just to bring down one small part of the grid, the rest will hum along just fine as the grid is designed to deal with disturbances. The 2003 blackout is well studied and many improvements and changes have been made to prevent the same from recurring. Isolation should happen before a cascade of failures. Although we haven't had any events to test it, the causes were quite clear and therefore we can have good confidence.
Well, they were not talking about air gapped systems (although their vagueness leaves much to assume). There are what can be called 'operational networks' that are not part of any plant or grid control, but merely places where operational data is stored. This is most likely what they are talking about because you can bet if a plant control system had been breached it would have been spelled out. They specifically avoid the term 'control' network.
Yes, there are ways to breach air gaps, and the human element is the weak link, but there are also proven ways to deal with those risks. One air gap breach is rarely that large of a vulnerability as those systems are so segmented/fragmented Even with that, a successful breach of an air gap is one thing, one that actually instigates significant damage is another. There are layers to get through.
More hyperbole with little substance. With the obligatory mention of NUCLEAR! even though no nuclear plant was involved in the referenced attack. And now some generic reference to 'operational networks' which tells me they were not control networks, so any 'disruption' as claimed still isn't going to turn off power anywhere.
Maybe there is a reason, despite these continuously 'escalating attacks', that we are not seeing any power outages in the US. Maybe it is because our methods to prevent them from being successful are effective. Maybe because we know about all these attacks before they are doing any harm is also a sign our methods are effective.
We can't let our guard down, but we don't have to fall for the hype.
You're right about that - T-Mobile and Netflix would always (and should always) be free to bundle their services. This isn't strictly the issue, though. I believe the implication is that without net neutrality, an additional "feature" of a deal such as the one announced today would be increased bandwidth or data limits for Netflix over T-Mobile's network. To me, this deal today is a lure, something that in the long-term will be recognizable as a step in a greater bait-and-switch, which is ultimately what net neutrality opponents argue. Connectivity providers today argue that consumers should trust them to only use the monopoly power (resultant from infrastructural realities like spectrum and cabling) to benefit the consumer, to provide a wider range of better options - "Look what we want to do for you: free Netflix! Why won't you let us do this for you??" The countervailing point would be that in the end, what we'll see are more scenarios with particular companies teaming up to force consumers into particular courses of action - you know, like every scenario where personal motive comes into play. Free Netflix will of course turn into connectivity-provider exclusive content, or even network-exclusive access. Ohh, the internet... you seemed so good and empowering, how come the big content providers are trying to take you all for their selves? Oh wait... I can see why.
Valid points. Is allowing NF content for free and not counting against data caps considered different treatment? It is essentially a subsidization of NF video by the ISP in terms of access. Theoretically wireless ISPs could all do similar NF deals, then raise their rates so you are essentially paying more for all other streaming services.
I've had personal experience with stories covered by mainstream journalism, so I have limited trust in any media. I've sought out news sources with different biases, which is the best you're going to be able to do.
I agree with that. I've never seen a mainstream media outlet that wasn't clearly biased on one side or the other. As for any given one, its quite easy to see when alternate views are not presented, or not adequately presented, or purposely minimized or misrepresented.
-The behavior of overweight people is non-sequitur. Not a good way to start a point. Battling a health issue is quite different than choosing a car, and there are plenty of people that are not overweight who have determined BEVs are not right for them.
-ICE may eventually be dead, but they are not now. They are selling quite well. I see the emotion in your point, you speak of the world you want (ICEs dead) as if it were the present.
-One might imagine many things. Like ICEs being dead.
WTF? How do you navigate your smartphone? That's your fucking question? Texas is flooding, the earth is going to shit, and your biggest question is how to use a freaking product that my grandma can use (in her grave)? I navigate the damn thing with the freakin GUI provided and don't really GARA if someone else is swiping while I'm typing, or wiping.
Let's ponder the truly hard questions in life;
How do you turn off your lights at night?
How do you deal with seeds in seedless watermelons?
How do you decide how long to heat food in your microwave?
All news is biased. If you find one that seems unbiased, it means you've found one whose bias agrees with yours,
We are only talking about one blatantly biased source here.
. Once you understand the bias, you can get value out of any good news source.
I never claimed there is no value, but there is also a negative impact of bias. Which is why they won't get my donation. One could also argue that a publicly funded entity like NPR should strive to be neutral.
I assume, from your statements, that you never have any issues with biased reporting because, as you say, you can take value from it.
It's just short-sightedness, they didn't even realize what their product was.
Presumably they knew how to make the machine that they made, but didn't know how to cost-effectively package shredded fruit. You really have to be able to make money on both ends if you're not tying the razor to the blades.
The bags might have been the successful product had they thought it through. Some people like that kind of convenience. Bags that could be hand squeezed or even if they just had a cheap plastic hand press to get the juice out. Sell the press at cost and they might have made the money off the bags.
The idiocy abounds: Uber makes killer money; they just reinvest the shit out of it.
They re-invest because they MUST for sustainability. Operationally they don't have a path to margins that sustain the business, the only answer they have is increase revenue. They are not making 'killer' money. They are burning capital.,
BS. If what you said is true then China, the USSR, etc.. would not have happened or been put in check by the same moral code you claim can be adopted from nothing. Yet without a decent set of taught Religious morality, we simply don't see that happen. Not one time in history has a society simply become utopian. Though a whole shitload have been wiped out by delusional views of utopians inside of them.
Scientific facts: Not everyone is moral, not everyone has the same values, and not everyone has the desire or capacity to learn.
See Socrates' Noble Lie.
You vehemently dispute science AC, then make a completely false claim. Pretty funny that you attempt to belittle others for believing in fairies, when you believe in a tale of them.
Well said. I find it quite strange to see those that profess to having a scientific outlook on things, don't take a scientific outlook on religion in our society and the reasons people become 'religious'. What one might find is that religion and science have some common roots, in the human desire to explain things they don't understand, the need for meaning, and a societal need for commonality. Maybe we have grown beyond those needs, or are in the process, but to show hatred or belittlement for those that are religious is completely illogical and unscientific.
I"m not religious. I don't look down upon those that are because I understand elements of human psychology that apply to every one of us, that we each have the capability to deny something even if the evidence against it is clearly right in front of us because we can adjust our perceptions. If anyone thinks they are not susceptible to that, they are ignoring what science has told us.
And yet you use one example (the HOA) to back up your contention of 'most'. You may be right, but you haven't made the case. I find that 'most' comes with a lot of assumptions and possibly a singular perspective/viewpoint. I'm sure you strongly believe what you say. I'm more skeptical, in part because the market is saying otherwise. LOTS of smart people with two or more cars do the math and don't get a BEV. They may all have unique reasons.
I listen to sports stations while driving, but usually during football and basketballs seasons and even then only 1 day a week. I like a couple of NPR stations for their music, but get turned off when the biased news comes on. Too bad for them, i'd donate if they were neutral.
Commercial stations that play more obscure artists are hard to come by, none where I live.
Streaming over cell networks provides more options, more user control of content, and no rfi interference or dropouts. But there is a small cost.
Like I said, new just doesn't work financially. I can't speak for everyone and try not to. But you are telling me a used Leaf is likely a good investment but not providing the basis, and admitting the end game is not yet known. That is something that I care about.
You mention warranties. "It has a warranty" is easy to say but you have to understand the fine print. An 8 yr/100k mile warranty doesn't necessarily get you a new battery if you've worn out the old one, or even pay labor. Most warranties pay back a depreciated value based on time/use and only return a small part of what a replacement might cost. I don't know Leaf's BEV warranties so I'm not claiming anything, but just throwing out 'it has a warranty' is quite open and not helpful.
In the end, a Leaf is too small for me, and a second EV is still a problem because I am on the road for days at a time and my wife sometimes needs to do a lot of driving, transporting the kids and their friend, and making trips to nearby town offices to take care of business. A used on might handle a lot of that, but not with the certainty required for our personal needs. I can buy a much more functional, fuel efficient vehicle for less, drive it for 10 years, mostly self maintain, and still get good resale return. Fuel savings don't make up the difference, and I'd need to see a lot better than break even to be worth the reduced functionality.
Plenty of companies the size of Tesla have copious short interest and I've seen several who were larger than Tesla over the years.
30% of float is unusually high for a company of this 'weight' (considering market cap and actual size). In fact, its more common but still fairly unusual when you see more than 30% of float for small tech stocks except maybe right when something really bad is expected to happen or clear super high risk plays where the product is still vapor.
And of course its high because Tesla is overvalued. That's a reason why people short. Risk is another. In my experience, heavy short interest has proven to be an important red flag to consider, be it long term or short term investment.
A leaf is bit small for our needs. But assuming you can get one in decent condition under 50K mi for under $10K, how much to install charger? How much maintenance cost? What is my remaining range with this older battery? How fast will that degrade? What is resale on that after another 8 years of driving?
The 'you can get one cheap' part is only the beginning. I don't stop there when I do my calculations.
But I would argue that we are getting to a point where most two (or more) vehicle families would probably be better off if one of them were a BEV.
You'll have to demonstrate that with actual dollar analysis to convince me. How much money will they save for the lifecycle (purchase, fuel/charge, maintain, resale)? for an equivalent size, economically priced ICE. But at least you understand that a second ICE vehicle is pretty much still needed to make it work, I agree that's pretty much a given.
Personally, I buy used vehicles, like a lot of families do, the BEV case can't compete yet in that realm.
The OP said "Wow, it must be a lot of fun driving across the country driving 2 hours at a time and having to wait 20 minutes." He definitely did use the phrase "across the country."
My mistake. I looked for that but missed it. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
The weather has been screwed up ever since they let women in space.
I've already watched the older movies (at least the ones of interest), and NF doesn't stream new releases. I see no big loss
Operational can simply mean a system used for monitoring and statistics. It could even mean a system for scheduling maintenance. You could feed it the wrong information, or the system could have an internal fault, a bad sensor, and present the wrong information. Bu like you said, the systems can handle anomalies. Its not like some movie where they fool everyone.
Of course we could guess at what they mean all day. That's the problem, they are intentionally vague, and every time we see that the reality is much more benign than the hyperbole. Too much doesn't make sense, maybe they are just not competent at explaining. That's sometimes part of the problem, having IT guys trying to talk about power and grid related systems in context.
All good points. I agree they could have meant a DMZ, but I have been reading these types of article that talk about power system (or company) breaches and one thing that has been consistent is where there is vagueness, and where the actual details come out later, the original article was misleading, making things sound worse then they really were.
I did not mean to assert when they meant, but meant to point out that there is good reason, based on the vagueness coupled with hyperbole, to be very skeptical. "operational' and even "controls" can mean a lot of different things. You might be control some monitoring function but not actually any equipment, for example. I get that for some facilities, secrecy brings vagueness, but they are talking about power companies, and grid systems, not likely to have that type of restriction and I can think of no reason why they could not have given a generic explanation of the type of control network, or type of thing they claim could have been disrupted. And 'disrupted' is a nice word for any effect on anything, no matter how small. A malware infection that does nothing is a "disruption" because it forces you to take action. "networks that control the actual power grid" needs a lot of clarification. "the actual power grid" is really a collection of systems, many levels, fragmented and segmented. Choosing that terminology tells me there may be confusion on their part about the specifics. It makes little sense in this context.
I do appreciate your thoughtful reply. Its nice to have an intelligent discussion. I hope you understand my basis for significant skepticism. That doesn't mean I'm right but I'd make a big bet on it.
and many improvements and changes have been made to prevent the same from recurring.
Oh horsepucky. 2003 wasn't the first cascade failure and it won't be the last. It's been 14 years and these power companies are padding their exec bonus packages like nothing ever happened and the unions are padding the pension schemes and the grid rots. Meanwhile developers develop and lines get extended and plants get uprated and the margins get incrementally smaller and smaller until ping! Some tree branch outside Deplorableville, PA shorts a high tension line or a long overdue for service transformer welds itself together and the North East goes dark for a day.
And then we'll have ourselves another "investigation" that concludes with nothing of note beyond "Moare Money!" and another round of "never let this happen again" from the prevailing notables. Rinse. Repeat. All this story contributes is a possible reordering of the list of failure modes; sabotage jumps up a few notches and perhaps approaches the level of neglect and incompetence.
Well, that's quite a ranting list of assumptions.
Which countries did not buy ads from FB during the election?
Despite the breathless reporting, there is no "energy grid" that can be hacked. Individual servers and routers can be hacked. Unprotected SCADA systems can be hacked. But it would take far more than this to bring down the electric system in the US. It's not contiguous or synchronous. It's not impervious either (see 2003 blackout) but it doesn't work the way it's described here.
That's the impression many seem to have. It takes a tremendous effort just to bring down one small part of the grid, the rest will hum along just fine as the grid is designed to deal with disturbances. The 2003 blackout is well studied and many improvements and changes have been made to prevent the same from recurring. Isolation should happen before a cascade of failures. Although we haven't had any events to test it, the causes were quite clear and therefore we can have good confidence.
Well, they were not talking about air gapped systems (although their vagueness leaves much to assume). There are what can be called 'operational networks' that are not part of any plant or grid control, but merely places where operational data is stored. This is most likely what they are talking about because you can bet if a plant control system had been breached it would have been spelled out. They specifically avoid the term 'control' network.
Yes, there are ways to breach air gaps, and the human element is the weak link, but there are also proven ways to deal with those risks. One air gap breach is rarely that large of a vulnerability as those systems are so segmented/fragmented Even with that, a successful breach of an air gap is one thing, one that actually instigates significant damage is another. There are layers to get through.
More hyperbole with little substance. With the obligatory mention of NUCLEAR! even though no nuclear plant was involved in the referenced attack. And now some generic reference to 'operational networks' which tells me they were not control networks, so any 'disruption' as claimed still isn't going to turn off power anywhere.
Maybe there is a reason, despite these continuously 'escalating attacks', that we are not seeing any power outages in the US. Maybe it is because our methods to prevent them from being successful are effective. Maybe because we know about all these attacks before they are doing any harm is also a sign our methods are effective.
We can't let our guard down, but we don't have to fall for the hype.
You're right about that - T-Mobile and Netflix would always (and should always) be free to bundle their services. This isn't strictly the issue, though. I believe the implication is that without net neutrality, an additional "feature" of a deal such as the one announced today would be increased bandwidth or data limits for Netflix over T-Mobile's network. To me, this deal today is a lure, something that in the long-term will be recognizable as a step in a greater bait-and-switch, which is ultimately what net neutrality opponents argue. Connectivity providers today argue that consumers should trust them to only use the monopoly power (resultant from infrastructural realities like spectrum and cabling) to benefit the consumer, to provide a wider range of better options - "Look what we want to do for you: free Netflix! Why won't you let us do this for you??" The countervailing point would be that in the end, what we'll see are more scenarios with particular companies teaming up to force consumers into particular courses of action - you know, like every scenario where personal motive comes into play. Free Netflix will of course turn into connectivity-provider exclusive content, or even network-exclusive access. Ohh, the internet... you seemed so good and empowering, how come the big content providers are trying to take you all for their selves? Oh wait... I can see why.
Valid points. Is allowing NF content for free and not counting against data caps considered different treatment? It is essentially a subsidization of NF video by the ISP in terms of access. Theoretically wireless ISPs could all do similar NF deals, then raise their rates so you are essentially paying more for all other streaming services.
I've had personal experience with stories covered by mainstream journalism, so I have limited trust in any media. I've sought out news sources with different biases, which is the best you're going to be able to do.
I agree with that. I've never seen a mainstream media outlet that wasn't clearly biased on one side or the other. As for any given one, its quite easy to see when alternate views are not presented, or not adequately presented, or purposely minimized or misrepresented.
Well, I eat Twizzlers, kind of the same thing.
-The behavior of overweight people is non-sequitur. Not a good way to start a point. Battling a health issue is quite different than choosing a car, and there are plenty of people that are not overweight who have determined BEVs are not right for them.
-ICE may eventually be dead, but they are not now. They are selling quite well. I see the emotion in your point, you speak of the world you want (ICEs dead) as if it were the present.
-One might imagine many things. Like ICEs being dead.
WTF? How do you navigate your smartphone? That's your fucking question? Texas is flooding, the earth is going to shit, and your biggest question is how to use a freaking product that my grandma can use (in her grave)? I navigate the damn thing with the freakin GUI provided and don't really GARA if someone else is swiping while I'm typing, or wiping.
Let's ponder the truly hard questions in life;
How do you turn off your lights at night?
How do you deal with seeds in seedless watermelons?
How do you decide how long to heat food in your microwave?
All news is biased. If you find one that seems unbiased, it means you've found one whose bias agrees with yours,
We are only talking about one blatantly biased source here.
. Once you understand the bias, you can get value out of any good news source.
I never claimed there is no value, but there is also a negative impact of bias. Which is why they won't get my donation. One could also argue that a publicly funded entity like NPR should strive to be neutral.
I assume, from your statements, that you never have any issues with biased reporting because, as you say, you can take value from it.
It's just short-sightedness, they didn't even realize what their product was.
Presumably they knew how to make the machine that they made, but didn't know how to cost-effectively package shredded fruit. You really have to be able to make money on both ends if you're not tying the razor to the blades.
The bags might have been the successful product had they thought it through. Some people like that kind of convenience. Bags that could be hand squeezed or even if they just had a cheap plastic hand press to get the juice out. Sell the press at cost and they might have made the money off the bags.
I can not see any paths to profitability for Uber
The idiocy abounds: Uber makes killer money; they just reinvest the shit out of it.
They re-invest because they MUST for sustainability. Operationally they don't have a path to margins that sustain the business, the only answer they have is increase revenue. They are not making 'killer' money. They are burning capital.,
BS. If what you said is true then China, the USSR, etc.. would not have happened or been put in check by the same moral code you claim can be adopted from nothing. Yet without a decent set of taught Religious morality, we simply don't see that happen. Not one time in history has a society simply become utopian. Though a whole shitload have been wiped out by delusional views of utopians inside of them.
Scientific facts: Not everyone is moral, not everyone has the same values, and not everyone has the desire or capacity to learn.
See Socrates' Noble Lie.
You vehemently dispute science AC, then make a completely false claim. Pretty funny that you attempt to belittle others for believing in fairies, when you believe in a tale of them.
Well said. I find it quite strange to see those that profess to having a scientific outlook on things, don't take a scientific outlook on religion in our society and the reasons people become 'religious'. What one might find is that religion and science have some common roots, in the human desire to explain things they don't understand, the need for meaning, and a societal need for commonality. Maybe we have grown beyond those needs, or are in the process, but to show hatred or belittlement for those that are religious is completely illogical and unscientific.
I"m not religious. I don't look down upon those that are because I understand elements of human psychology that apply to every one of us, that we each have the capability to deny something even if the evidence against it is clearly right in front of us because we can adjust our perceptions. If anyone thinks they are not susceptible to that, they are ignoring what science has told us.
And yet you use one example (the HOA) to back up your contention of 'most'. You may be right, but you haven't made the case. I find that 'most' comes with a lot of assumptions and possibly a singular perspective/viewpoint. I'm sure you strongly believe what you say. I'm more skeptical, in part because the market is saying otherwise. LOTS of smart people with two or more cars do the math and don't get a BEV. They may all have unique reasons.
I listen to sports stations while driving, but usually during football and basketballs seasons and even then only 1 day a week. I like a couple of NPR stations for their music, but get turned off when the biased news comes on. Too bad for them, i'd donate if they were neutral. Commercial stations that play more obscure artists are hard to come by, none where I live. Streaming over cell networks provides more options, more user control of content, and no rfi interference or dropouts. But there is a small cost.
Like I said, new just doesn't work financially. I can't speak for everyone and try not to. But you are telling me a used Leaf is likely a good investment but not providing the basis, and admitting the end game is not yet known. That is something that I care about. You mention warranties. "It has a warranty" is easy to say but you have to understand the fine print. An 8 yr/100k mile warranty doesn't necessarily get you a new battery if you've worn out the old one, or even pay labor. Most warranties pay back a depreciated value based on time/use and only return a small part of what a replacement might cost. I don't know Leaf's BEV warranties so I'm not claiming anything, but just throwing out 'it has a warranty' is quite open and not helpful.
In the end, a Leaf is too small for me, and a second EV is still a problem because I am on the road for days at a time and my wife sometimes needs to do a lot of driving, transporting the kids and their friend, and making trips to nearby town offices to take care of business. A used on might handle a lot of that, but not with the certainty required for our personal needs. I can buy a much more functional, fuel efficient vehicle for less, drive it for 10 years, mostly self maintain, and still get good resale return. Fuel savings don't make up the difference, and I'd need to see a lot better than break even to be worth the reduced functionality.
Plenty of companies the size of Tesla have copious short interest and I've seen several who were larger than Tesla over the years.
30% of float is unusually high for a company of this 'weight' (considering market cap and actual size). In fact, its more common but still fairly unusual when you see more than 30% of float for small tech stocks except maybe right when something really bad is expected to happen or clear super high risk plays where the product is still vapor.
And of course its high because Tesla is overvalued. That's a reason why people short. Risk is another. In my experience, heavy short interest has proven to be an important red flag to consider, be it long term or short term investment.
A leaf is bit small for our needs. But assuming you can get one in decent condition under 50K mi for under $10K, how much to install charger? How much maintenance cost? What is my remaining range with this older battery? How fast will that degrade? What is resale on that after another 8 years of driving?
The 'you can get one cheap' part is only the beginning. I don't stop there when I do my calculations.
But I would argue that we are getting to a point where most two (or more) vehicle families would probably be better off if one of them were a BEV.
You'll have to demonstrate that with actual dollar analysis to convince me. How much money will they save for the lifecycle (purchase, fuel/charge, maintain, resale)? for an equivalent size, economically priced ICE. But at least you understand that a second ICE vehicle is pretty much still needed to make it work, I agree that's pretty much a given.
Personally, I buy used vehicles, like a lot of families do, the BEV case can't compete yet in that realm.
The OP said "Wow, it must be a lot of fun driving across the country driving 2 hours at a time and having to wait 20 minutes." He definitely did use the phrase "across the country."
My mistake. I looked for that but missed it. Thanks.