There have already been several excellent implementations of Python that compile to native code, either via JIT or directly, including IronPython. But Python's performance problems aren't in Python code, since anything compute intensive is done in native libraries. The real problem with all of those implementations is that, like Grumpy, they don't have native, thread-safe libraries, foremost Numpy and Scipy.
Grumpy sounds like an attempt to migrate Python users to Go. That's probably the right idea, because Python seems to be going nowhere fast. Go, however, is probably not the right language to migrate to, despite its moderate adoption in some systems applications, mostly because Go just gives the finger to existing programming practice for no other reason than FYTW.
IPCs should be just as fast as cross-thread data travell (because neither requires a context switch -- the biggest slow down).
Well, and that's what threads are: something like multiple UNIX processes sharing all their memory via shared memory and a few other niceties. Unfortunately, Python doesn't support that kind of fast, consistent IPC. What it supports is either a limited form of shared memory, or slow IPC that involves copying.
So, you can look at the Python runtime either as lacking thread support or at lacking good IPC support, but it is lacking something that many other runtimes have.
Please draw me a supply&demand graph illustrating how everyone gets their organ in a timely manner AND people still get $100,000 per dead family member, keeping in mind that there are millions of poor people who would be very happy with a mere $1000 and also plenty of poor people who need a heart and can't afford $100k.
The $100k was a rough magnitude for what they are currently worth. If the price for the totality of organs of a dead donor settles at $1000, all the better. Whatever the supply and demand curve is, and wherever its optimum ends up being, it ends up in a better place than with the current set of price controls; that's the point of matching supply and demand in a free market. Or are you seriously suggesting that we get more organs through fixing their price at zero?
You didn't answer my question about what you thought of the government funded employment agency that was turning away [...] What do you think of a breach of contract like that? Do you think that is OK as well?
I did answer your question: I think it is fine for a government funded employment agency to discriminate against whoever they like for whatever reason they like. Government contractors should be selected only on the cost/benefit tradeoffs they bring to the contract.
You correctly point out that that means that your tax dollars may go to people who behave in ways you don't like. Join the club. We address that by minimizing government spending, not by turning our society into a surveillance state, as you are suggesting.
Do you consider that breach of contract acceptable or not?
I already answered that question: yes, it is. Contracts aren't divine law or moral statements, they are simply documentations of business agreements, and breaking them is a simple cost/benefit tradeoff.
In this case, Google may break the contract and enjoy the benefit of opposing a racist and privacy-invading government policy, but they would have to pay for it through loss of business and penalties.
What do you think of that government funded "Christian" employment agency that was breaking the rules by not offering jobs to Catholics, Mormons, Jews etc? Should they be free to illegally discriminate with your taxes?
Non-discrimination in government contracting is unachievable for the same reason that efficiency is unachievable for government: the information necessary to achieve it is simply not available. So, it's pointless to argue about what "should" happen, the only thing one can argue about is what the best tradeoffs are.
What are the best tradeoffs? As far as I'm concerned, government should reduce spending to a bare minimum, and the spending it does engage in should be based only on economic criteria. That is, government shouldn't select a business because it is all-Christian/all-gay/all-female, but should select a business only because it offers the best bang for the buck, being blind to all other considerations. (I have confidence that diverse, non-discriminatory businesses will generally win.)
On the other hand, for government to collect data on the race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. of the US workforce in order to attempt to reduce discrimination is the wrong tradeoff: it is a huge privacy intrusion, creates databases that have enormous potential for abuse, and is not likely to be effective.
I highlighted the bit that applies in this case. Why have you been pretending that something so obvious is not there?
As I was saying: "nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be". That is, there is no rational basis on deciding what racial statistics amount to "equal treatment". Your response was effectively that the government can just make something up ("set policy") and I pointed out that under 14A, they can't: they need to be able to justify those numbers.
It looks very much like the answer to my question way above you have been evading all this time is that you consider it acceptable for someone to not stick to the terms of a contract if the other party is the government. Is that the case? Yes or no.
Breaking a contract is always an option, and whether that is "acceptable" depends on the details of the contract and how you are breaking it; who the contract is with is immaterial. Parts of contracts can be unenforceable because they are invalid or unconscionable and it is common practice for people to agree to contracts that contain unenforceable terms; you have doubtlessly done that yourself many times.
In this case, the answer for me is quite simple: I consider governmental data collection of race, sexual orientation, etc. both morally wrong and dangerous, and I encourage Google to challenge the validity of these terms in court. Trump might simply drop the case, a new SCOTUS might invalidate those portions of the contract, or Congress might simply get rid of these requirements by law.
In addition, regardless of what Google does, I'd like to remind you that you and I are perfectly free to refuse to answer or even lie about our race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. I encourage everybody to do that to undermine this racist system.
Despite it being a very imperfect tool it's all we've got when people are discriminated against, such as the story here a few weeks ago about the company that was only accepting people from India.
I think all-minority companies are a great thing, as are all female companies, all gay companies, etc.
Your perfect world where it is not required does not exist.
Quite the opposite: in the real world, discrimination exists, and the best way to deal with it is to let companies engage in it freely. Sometimes the discrimination is beneficial (such as when minorities create "safe spaces" for themselves), and the rest of the time, it is far preferable for it to be overt. Maybe you don't recognize that because you have never been subject to serious discrimination; take it from someone who has.
Except prices obviously won't stay that high for long. Equilibrium will most likely be at a price point that still guarantees a shortage.
That statement makes no sense.
There's no reason to dismantle a nationalized (dare I say socialized) waiting list system as well.
There is every reason to; it's not a fair or transparent system.
Keep that checkbox there when you get your driver's license, but add a little bit in bold about how if you're not an organ donor, you're at the back of the line. That simple change might obliterate most of the shortages right there.
Ah, the usual progressive approach: simply deny reality and facts and double down on stupid policies.
Revealing dishonest stuff from politicians is a good thing, but revealing it selectively is not.
There is no evidence that revelations were selective.
but they were not hacked and exposed
The RNC was target of the same hacking attempts directed against the DNC, but unlike the DNC, they defended against it. The DNC's utter incompetence alone is reason enough the Democrats should have lost, even more so in combination with Hillary Clinton's long term disregard for information security.
I have no doubt that the RNC has just as much dirty internal political strife going on inside
True; and unlike the DNC, which killed Sanders' candidacy, the outside candidate got nominated against the wishes of the RNC.
and just as much borderline-corrupt money-grabbing from speaking fees
Where did Trump use government connections to give speeches for large amounts of money?
If they had been, it's very likely the election would have gone the other way, as the margins in several states were very slim.
Your analysis makes no sense. Democrats screwed up big time, in sabotaging Sanders, in collusion with the media, in corruption, and in poor security; none of those applied to the Republicans.
nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be
Of course they can. It is called setting policy.
The US government certainly cannot arbitrarily "set policy" when it comes to racial quotas. The only policy it could legally set under the 14th Amendment is a policy that amounts to non-discrimination, but nobody can determine what those percentages ought to be.
The ridiculous equating to fascism above was almost to the point of being retarded.
.. "absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election".
You're right, and I disagree with Trump there. I think it had an effect on the outcome of the election: revealing the kind of dishonest stuff Democrats were doing was a good thing.
Fuck you, you,spoiled little lying rich sexual sexual predator.
When Hillary was talking about a "basket of deplorables", she was obviously talking about people like you. Gosh, I'm glad that I left the Democratic party a couple of years ago.
Another government expressed a clear preference for a presidential candidate? For example, like Merkel and most other European leaders expressed a clear preference for Hillary? Like the Norwegian Nobel Prize committee interfered in US politics by awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? Like those kinds of "clear preferences"?
Or, for that matter, like the US government has not just expressed "clear preferences" for candidates in various democratic elections around the world, it has supplied money, secret information, and even weapons in order to influence foreign elections.
Folks, this sort of thing is what countries do. And what Russia did in this election, which is to let people know their viewpoints and leak some stupid stuff Democrats did, is pretty benign stuff. In fact, I'm quite happy we got to see the kind of crap the DNC was pulling behind the scenes; it certainly did influence me, and I'm not apologetic about that.
But then you make a huge jump without justification
I do indeed. And I'm not going to provide the justification. I suggest you read a bit of economics and history and educate yourself. You might read, for example, about the history of progressivism, eugenics and scientific racism in the US; you might read about how racism and government racial categorizations were used in Nazi Germany.
I'm looking for the more conventional definitions of government oppression
Any law is ultimately backed by government force, including deadly force, even in the US.
In any case, even though the evidence exists (see above), that's even the wrong question to ask. The questions you should be asking are the following. (1) The US government is one of enumerated powers; which of those powers justifies interfering in who I choose to hire? (2) Given that anti-discrimination laws for private employers clearly do infringe on liberty, where is the evidence that they are actually effective (or even just that they are not harmful)?
That is, the burden of proof when limiting people's liberty ought to be on the people proposing such limits, in particular when proposing something as stupid as laws against private discrimination.
whether a government acted or not. It appears that it did act.
Yes, government acted after society had already changed. That is, government wasn't the cause of liberalization and tolerance and government didn't reduce racism and homophobia. To the contrary, government tried to perpetuate it even after society had already moved on.
You "raised details" the same way people who build perpetual motion machines or argue for intelligent design "raise details".
The contract clauses are to stop actions like Google or others sacking entire departments and filling them full of illegal immigrants at low wages. It's kind of useless without gathering information to see if the contract has been adhered to.
These clauses have nothing to do with enforcing illegal immigration; they supposedly have to do with ensuring non-discrimination in hiring based on categories like race. But they are utterly meaningless for that purpose because nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be.
It's irrelevant whether it's two different posters. The discussion was about homosexuality and you casually switched to race. In any case, my statements are true for both homosexuality and race, they are just a little easier to see for homosexuality.
Personally, I think the Civil Rights Act had a good deal to do with the change in society. I don't have all that much evidence, but I'm not making a claim.
Notice how you casually switched from gay liberation to race? That's because for race, you can at least plausibly entertain this delusion by not looking at the facts too carefully. For homosexuality, it is crystal clear: legal changes occurred long after societal changes had taken place, not just in the US but also in Europe. So, that alone invalidates your view that government action generally precedes social liberalization.
Now, you might still try to argue that for race in particular it did. I'm not going to argue that with you here in detail because the history of race is complicated. I think the literature on that is crystal clear as well: government was the major cause of race-based oppression and poverty in the US, and minorities have always succeeded despite progressive policies, not because of them. For the details, you really need to read a lot more history and economics.
Just one point...
The government actions included using force to desegregate Southern schools against threats of violence. In some states, their laws were invalidated by Federal action.
Segregation was a creation of government at all levels in the first place. The federal government was one of the main causes behind racial injustice, embracing and promoting segregation, scientific racism, and eugenics; it was particularly Democrats and progressives that were responsible for this, across the country, at all levels. Woodrow Wilson is an example.
The key to secure computing is to add your own trusted processors for specific tasks. You can't trust the CPU, but that doesn't matter if you move all the critical key management and encryption functions to a USB device you have full control over.
That's not correct, because the main computer also handles I/O; that is, even if your key management is secure, an attacker can still get at all your encrypted communications when you type them in and when they appear on your screen.
Even disregarding that issue, trusted processors, crypto processors, and key stores are not, in fact, trustworthy because they are big and obvious targets for backdoors. Combined with a general purpose, networked machine, they can be attacked by an attacker first getting code onto the general purpose machine, and that code then taking advantage of the backdoors in the "trusted" hardware.
My point was simply this, though: no matter how you use your "trusted processor", you can only really trust it if both the software and the hardware are open source and you can verify that what you are running corresponds to the source code.
Logic now? If you had applied logic at the start this thread wouldn't exist. Also opinions are not facts.
I stated facts and I stated my disapproval. I didn't state a lengthy justification of it because that's pointless with you.
A third thing, if you cannot get the irony of you suggesting that all opinions other than yours should not be heard
Well, I didn't "suggest" any such thing. I believe that even people with hateful, racist, or authoritarian beliefs (like you) should be heard. I simply point out what they are and express my disapproval.
Since you are a narrow-minded bigot unwilling to listen to reason, I don't bother giving you the facts and references every time you bring up your b.s., I simply express my disagreement and disapproval.
It appears that the fact is that you do not live in a "free country" then, indeed it's a "racist" one.
Indeed.
Perhaps you should consider that fact and you will understand why people encourage governments with their votes to pay attention to race issues.
I understand perfectly well why many people (not just young ones) vote to pay attention to race issues. My point is that whether that works isn't a question of "philosophy", it's an empirical question, and the answer is that it clearly isn't working.
Yes, in a perfect world they would not have to and your "philosophy" of "I've got mine, you can just go hang" would be perfectly acceptable
I'm a gay man, an immigrant, and not even a native speaker. My parents started from literally nothing after WWII. Please tell me where I can "get mine" because so far, I havn't gotten it.
Shit happens and needs to be dealt with instead of just shouting at people who are paying attention to the shit that happens.
I'm shouting at the people who are causing the shit to happen: who are causing black kids to rot in ghettos and projects without hope and with a 1:3 chance of ending up in prison. I'm shouting at the same kind of people who used to put these kids in chains, and later denied them jobs and segregated them. I find it reprehensible that you and others defend these racist people and policies, because that's exactly what you are doing.
In what way is changing homosexuality from being a criminal offence with a sentence of imprisonment to not being one a lack of government action?
You argued that "discrimination is way down from the 1960s" due to government action, and I pointed out that you got your causality backwards. It was discrimination that went way down first, and then government removed some of its draconian laws.
In different words, it wasn't government that caused an improvement in tolerance and acceptance, it was an improvement in tolerance and acceptance that forced government to finally act. We shouldn't be grateful for government to finally decriminalize homosexuality, we should be pissed off that it took so long and that it was criminalized in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
There have already been several excellent implementations of Python that compile to native code, either via JIT or directly, including IronPython. But Python's performance problems aren't in Python code, since anything compute intensive is done in native libraries. The real problem with all of those implementations is that, like Grumpy, they don't have native, thread-safe libraries, foremost Numpy and Scipy.
Grumpy sounds like an attempt to migrate Python users to Go. That's probably the right idea, because Python seems to be going nowhere fast. Go, however, is probably not the right language to migrate to, despite its moderate adoption in some systems applications, mostly because Go just gives the finger to existing programming practice for no other reason than FYTW.
Well, and that's what threads are: something like multiple UNIX processes sharing all their memory via shared memory and a few other niceties. Unfortunately, Python doesn't support that kind of fast, consistent IPC. What it supports is either a limited form of shared memory, or slow IPC that involves copying.
So, you can look at the Python runtime either as lacking thread support or at lacking good IPC support, but it is lacking something that many other runtimes have.
The $100k was a rough magnitude for what they are currently worth. If the price for the totality of organs of a dead donor settles at $1000, all the better. Whatever the supply and demand curve is, and wherever its optimum ends up being, it ends up in a better place than with the current set of price controls; that's the point of matching supply and demand in a free market. Or are you seriously suggesting that we get more organs through fixing their price at zero?
I did answer your question: I think it is fine for a government funded employment agency to discriminate against whoever they like for whatever reason they like. Government contractors should be selected only on the cost/benefit tradeoffs they bring to the contract.
You correctly point out that that means that your tax dollars may go to people who behave in ways you don't like. Join the club. We address that by minimizing government spending, not by turning our society into a surveillance state, as you are suggesting.
I already answered that question: yes, it is. Contracts aren't divine law or moral statements, they are simply documentations of business agreements, and breaking them is a simple cost/benefit tradeoff.
In this case, Google may break the contract and enjoy the benefit of opposing a racist and privacy-invading government policy, but they would have to pay for it through loss of business and penalties.
Non-discrimination in government contracting is unachievable for the same reason that efficiency is unachievable for government: the information necessary to achieve it is simply not available. So, it's pointless to argue about what "should" happen, the only thing one can argue about is what the best tradeoffs are.
What are the best tradeoffs? As far as I'm concerned, government should reduce spending to a bare minimum, and the spending it does engage in should be based only on economic criteria. That is, government shouldn't select a business because it is all-Christian/all-gay/all-female, but should select a business only because it offers the best bang for the buck, being blind to all other considerations. (I have confidence that diverse, non-discriminatory businesses will generally win.)
On the other hand, for government to collect data on the race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. of the US workforce in order to attempt to reduce discrimination is the wrong tradeoff: it is a huge privacy intrusion, creates databases that have enormous potential for abuse, and is not likely to be effective.
As I was saying: "nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be". That is, there is no rational basis on deciding what racial statistics amount to "equal treatment". Your response was effectively that the government can just make something up ("set policy") and I pointed out that under 14A, they can't: they need to be able to justify those numbers.
Breaking a contract is always an option, and whether that is "acceptable" depends on the details of the contract and how you are breaking it; who the contract is with is immaterial. Parts of contracts can be unenforceable because they are invalid or unconscionable and it is common practice for people to agree to contracts that contain unenforceable terms; you have doubtlessly done that yourself many times.
In this case, the answer for me is quite simple: I consider governmental data collection of race, sexual orientation, etc. both morally wrong and dangerous, and I encourage Google to challenge the validity of these terms in court. Trump might simply drop the case, a new SCOTUS might invalidate those portions of the contract, or Congress might simply get rid of these requirements by law.
In addition, regardless of what Google does, I'd like to remind you that you and I are perfectly free to refuse to answer or even lie about our race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. I encourage everybody to do that to undermine this racist system.
I think all-minority companies are a great thing, as are all female companies, all gay companies, etc.
Quite the opposite: in the real world, discrimination exists, and the best way to deal with it is to let companies engage in it freely. Sometimes the discrimination is beneficial (such as when minorities create "safe spaces" for themselves), and the rest of the time, it is far preferable for it to be overt. Maybe you don't recognize that because you have never been subject to serious discrimination; take it from someone who has.
That statement makes no sense.
There is every reason to; it's not a fair or transparent system.
Ah, the usual progressive approach: simply deny reality and facts and double down on stupid policies.
There is no evidence that revelations were selective.
The RNC was target of the same hacking attempts directed against the DNC, but unlike the DNC, they defended against it. The DNC's utter incompetence alone is reason enough the Democrats should have lost, even more so in combination with Hillary Clinton's long term disregard for information security.
True; and unlike the DNC, which killed Sanders' candidacy, the outside candidate got nominated against the wishes of the RNC.
Where did Trump use government connections to give speeches for large amounts of money?
Your analysis makes no sense. Democrats screwed up big time, in sabotaging Sanders, in collusion with the media, in corruption, and in poor security; none of those applied to the Republicans.
Laws can't override the Constitution, and 14A prohibits any other racial quotas besides those justifiable by ensuring equal treatment.
The US government certainly cannot arbitrarily "set policy" when it comes to racial quotas. The only policy it could legally set under the 14th Amendment is a policy that amounts to non-discrimination, but nobody can determine what those percentages ought to be.
You're deplorable.
That was never in question anywhere in this thread. I questioned whether such contractual requirements are moral or politically desirable.
Are you saying that you disagree with the collection of race data in principle, but you are defending it because... well, because why?
You're right, and I disagree with Trump there. I think it had an effect on the outcome of the election: revealing the kind of dishonest stuff Democrats were doing was a good thing.
When Hillary was talking about a "basket of deplorables", she was obviously talking about people like you. Gosh, I'm glad that I left the Democratic party a couple of years ago.
Another government expressed a clear preference for a presidential candidate? For example, like Merkel and most other European leaders expressed a clear preference for Hillary? Like the Norwegian Nobel Prize committee interfered in US politics by awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? Like those kinds of "clear preferences"?
Or, for that matter, like the US government has not just expressed "clear preferences" for candidates in various democratic elections around the world, it has supplied money, secret information, and even weapons in order to influence foreign elections.
Folks, this sort of thing is what countries do. And what Russia did in this election, which is to let people know their viewpoints and leak some stupid stuff Democrats did, is pretty benign stuff. In fact, I'm quite happy we got to see the kind of crap the DNC was pulling behind the scenes; it certainly did influence me, and I'm not apologetic about that.
I do indeed. And I'm not going to provide the justification. I suggest you read a bit of economics and history and educate yourself. You might read, for example, about the history of progressivism, eugenics and scientific racism in the US; you might read about how racism and government racial categorizations were used in Nazi Germany.
Any law is ultimately backed by government force, including deadly force, even in the US.
In any case, even though the evidence exists (see above), that's even the wrong question to ask. The questions you should be asking are the following. (1) The US government is one of enumerated powers; which of those powers justifies interfering in who I choose to hire? (2) Given that anti-discrimination laws for private employers clearly do infringe on liberty, where is the evidence that they are actually effective (or even just that they are not harmful)?
That is, the burden of proof when limiting people's liberty ought to be on the people proposing such limits, in particular when proposing something as stupid as laws against private discrimination.
You are defending collecting race data? You are defending the enforcement action by the US government?
If you do, that makes you a racist because you believe that there are racial differences that require government intervention to remedy.
Yes, government acted after society had already changed. That is, government wasn't the cause of liberalization and tolerance and government didn't reduce racism and homophobia. To the contrary, government tried to perpetuate it even after society had already moved on.
You "raised details" the same way people who build perpetual motion machines or argue for intelligent design "raise details".
These clauses have nothing to do with enforcing illegal immigration; they supposedly have to do with ensuring non-discrimination in hiring based on categories like race. But they are utterly meaningless for that purpose because nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be.
It's irrelevant whether it's two different posters. The discussion was about homosexuality and you casually switched to race. In any case, my statements are true for both homosexuality and race, they are just a little easier to see for homosexuality.
Notice how you casually switched from gay liberation to race? That's because for race, you can at least plausibly entertain this delusion by not looking at the facts too carefully. For homosexuality, it is crystal clear: legal changes occurred long after societal changes had taken place, not just in the US but also in Europe. So, that alone invalidates your view that government action generally precedes social liberalization.
Now, you might still try to argue that for race in particular it did. I'm not going to argue that with you here in detail because the history of race is complicated. I think the literature on that is crystal clear as well: government was the major cause of race-based oppression and poverty in the US, and minorities have always succeeded despite progressive policies, not because of them. For the details, you really need to read a lot more history and economics.
Just one point...
Segregation was a creation of government at all levels in the first place. The federal government was one of the main causes behind racial injustice, embracing and promoting segregation, scientific racism, and eugenics; it was particularly Democrats and progressives that were responsible for this, across the country, at all levels. Woodrow Wilson is an example.
That's not correct, because the main computer also handles I/O; that is, even if your key management is secure, an attacker can still get at all your encrypted communications when you type them in and when they appear on your screen.
Even disregarding that issue, trusted processors, crypto processors, and key stores are not, in fact, trustworthy because they are big and obvious targets for backdoors. Combined with a general purpose, networked machine, they can be attacked by an attacker first getting code onto the general purpose machine, and that code then taking advantage of the backdoors in the "trusted" hardware.
My point was simply this, though: no matter how you use your "trusted processor", you can only really trust it if both the software and the hardware are open source and you can verify that what you are running corresponds to the source code.
I stated facts and I stated my disapproval. I didn't state a lengthy justification of it because that's pointless with you.
Well, I didn't "suggest" any such thing. I believe that even people with hateful, racist, or authoritarian beliefs (like you) should be heard. I simply point out what they are and express my disapproval.
Since you are a narrow-minded bigot unwilling to listen to reason, I don't bother giving you the facts and references every time you bring up your b.s., I simply express my disagreement and disapproval.
Indeed.
I understand perfectly well why many people (not just young ones) vote to pay attention to race issues. My point is that whether that works isn't a question of "philosophy", it's an empirical question, and the answer is that it clearly isn't working.
I'm a gay man, an immigrant, and not even a native speaker. My parents started from literally nothing after WWII. Please tell me where I can "get mine" because so far, I havn't gotten it.
I'm shouting at the people who are causing the shit to happen: who are causing black kids to rot in ghettos and projects without hope and with a 1:3 chance of ending up in prison. I'm shouting at the same kind of people who used to put these kids in chains, and later denied them jobs and segregated them. I find it reprehensible that you and others defend these racist people and policies, because that's exactly what you are doing.
You argued that "discrimination is way down from the 1960s" due to government action, and I pointed out that you got your causality backwards. It was discrimination that went way down first, and then government removed some of its draconian laws.
In different words, it wasn't government that caused an improvement in tolerance and acceptance, it was an improvement in tolerance and acceptance that forced government to finally act. We shouldn't be grateful for government to finally decriminalize homosexuality, we should be pissed off that it took so long and that it was criminalized in the first place.