In this lies an over abundance of trust that the data profile they've built of you, is actually a reflection of you, and not some random stranger, or family member, or simply incorrectly categorized and mislabeled data.
Humans are error prone, and imperfect. Subsequently, whatever they design and build is going to be error prone, and imperfect, though the goal is to achieve a lesser degree of error.
If privacy is "not important", then what is important is the validity of the data. (Or potentially the lack there of, if you want to throw big data off your scent,...).
Say a person commented on you saying "his pipes don't work". Now is that data going to reflect on your ability to procreate, or your being inconvenienced with a higher cost of living than one would normally assume. So what would big data prescribe, a doctor, or a plumber, or a gas heating repairman? And don't tell me that big data AI/analytics isn't prone to similar errors or isn't trained on bad data sets.
Web browsing is slightly slower? Who would even notice unless there was a national calling frenzy (All circuits are busy) after all Telcos switch to VoIP and kill copper POTS.
If your VoIP causes noticeably slower web browsing, then your connection isn't fast enough to begin with.
But any web browsing can cause noticeable hiccups in VoIP without prioritization, because it is a real-time protocol.
Prioritization doesn't necessarily imply prioritization based on purchasing power.
There is a cash grab, greedy mindset that wants to use it that way. A regulatory body, similar to the FCC should be in charge of determining what gets priority. Barring ISPs bribing this regulatory body, it should accomplish the job.
If you upgrade to 1gbps and we run the same routes to the same content, then yes, my 100mpbs slows down. Though, I likely will not notice. If we both upgrade to 1gbps then we both might notice instances where we're not getting the full 1gbps, but are having to share it.
That means higher costs for subscribers for better bandwidth. Costs tend to trickle down from peering agreements to ISPs to subscribers.
Or you just keep to a financial schedule and recoup the costs, instead of spending more money chasing perpetually bandwidth hungry users in a reckless drive towards poverty.
Seriously, the protocol is designed to allow the user to use as much bandwidth is available, and only runs slower when many users are online on the same pipe simultaneously. Nobody is allotted only their slice of the bandwidth pie.
How much does the population of the USA times 1 tbps each to Netflix, and Amazon Prime, and iTunes, and YouTube, and Facebook cost? Because you have to have the 1 tbps locally, and then enough tbps to meet the demand to each service over 2 peak hours of the day. Beyond that 90% of that bandwidth will be at 1-2% load for 22 hours a day. (The services are typically active, but a significant amount of cable wouldn't be).
Throttling is artificially slowing something down. Like if you have a project or task at work, and you refuse to do it. The bandwidth is there, but is being wasted.
Prioritization (QoS) is ensuring that the critical tasks that need the bandwidth or attention get it first. It matches the principles behind Steven Covey's 4 quadrant system for being effective. Very important when you have insufficient resources. When the bandwidth isn't there, and nobody wants to pay billions for better infrastructure.
In a perfect world, the internet would have a googolplex of bits, and never have any bandwidth congestion or contention, and everything would download/upload instantly. In our world, certain things need priority, like voice communication. Everything else needs to "wait in line" like we were taught in kindergarten. (Just a few months ago somebody asked why QoS gets brought up everytime, this topic would be why QoS gets brought up everytime.
Either the higher QoS for higher prices is anti-neutral, or it is net-zero as everybody will pay for the higher QoS putting us back at square one with VoIP/SIP not functioning but everything working fine, but with "artificially inflated" prices.
Unless everybody pays for higher QoS for VoIP alone, then it would be by unanimous vote. There would still be the matter of "artificially inflated prices" if everybody pays the toll in order to keep it neutral.
It gets brought up every time because he internet is built around the concept of "over-subscription", and VoIP/QoS is the most sensitive to over subscription.
Most of our society is built on waiting in lines. You may have noticed this at your local grocery store or department store. The internet functions on that same concept. The faster the pipeline and equipment, the shorter the lines. Bandwidth is simply the number of people you can get through a checkout in any given time.
Net Neutrality is about preventing the Walmart checkout situation. 32 checkouts (more bandwidth), and only 3 open (non-premium lanes when no NN)).
QoS would be the "20 items or less registers", or "12 items or less", etc.
But I do want them to discriminate based on protocol.
Most content on the internet is leisure or entertainment, and most of that content is not real-time. Streaming content is typically buffered to prevent disruption if brief bandwidth congestion occurs.
What is consumed in real time is VoIP/SIP traffic. I want VoIP/SIP traffic to be prioritized using QoS to ensure that voice packets are transmitted with as little delay as possible. We can argue about Facetime and the obscene amounts of bandwidth it may require at a later date.
This is especially important as ISPs are moving to eliminate legacy POTS copper phone service in favor of SIP/VoIP services. Voice used to be on its own separate network, and that worked well and was reliable. SIP was considered a lesser quality service, and it suffering from not being prioritized traffic was acceptable and expected. Now that it appears to be the way forward, we need higher quality and therefore higher prioritization for VoIp traffic.
Mozilla encountered this with Firefox. They didn't own the Firefox.com domain, but they arranged to share it for a while.
I seem to recall various laws on the books rendering cyber squating largely illegal. Squatters are legally required to surrender the domain, as squatters typically cannot justify ownership of a domain.
The question isn't whether they should give one of the alternate TLDs up. The question is whether your organization has been around for longer than the owner, to have a claim and prior art to back it up. The question is also whether the alternate domain suits your organization better than the holder.
Dot Coms were intended to be commercial entities. Apple.com would be either Apple Computer or Apple Records. While.org would be non-profits, Apple.org would be an agricultural or educational group.
These days.Com is a rather generic entity, similar to.net, and simply implies a web presence. The.biz tld implies a smaller company or startup, and shouldn't squatted by major entities, unless there is a significant profit to be made by spoofing their.com domain.
I have accessed as a result of your post "KB" is an Imperial measurement, and a derivative of "kB". There may be some confusion as to the valuation of "kB". Is it 1,000 Bytes, or 1,024 bytes? KB, the Imperial measurement, is also known as KiB, and is 1,024 bytes.
I'm not sure there is a difference between the Imperial "kb", and the metric (also "kb"?), as both are 1,000 bits.
Hacking is using exploits or otherwise bypassing the security mechanisms, typically to gain unauthorized access. Hacking can also be used to gain authorized access.
This isn't hacking, this is logging in, and unauthorized access.
Is it "breaking an entering" if you leave your front door open?
I think you may be confusing being subsidized with needing subsidies.
Have you considered that it is the mainland that requires the subsidies for Alaska, not Alaska's die hard citizens and "natives"? Would you refuse subsidies for any reason?
What is the true purpose of those subsidies? What vision got them approved?
Increased wages over time? When you have pressure from automation reducing the demand for labor and procreation increasing the supply of labor, it is hard to see how supply and demand would increase the value of labor.
Automation frees up limited resources to improve profits for an increasingly smaller number. The value of automation is seen by the wealthy more so than the poor. For the poor it is an added expense, an additional pressure towards a minimum level of capacity to be competitive and remain employed. Because there is a sufficient supply of optimal labor, inefficient sub-optimal labor is unnecessary. Inefficient sub-optimal labor has a lower return on investment, if it has one at all, and thus has no economic incentive to fund the life towards automation and optimization.
How much does it cost to automate your home? To replace appliances and devices with more energy efficient alternatives? To install double-paned or other more moder window types? To replace a vehicle with an energy efficient alternative, or one with greater capacity and accident mitigation technology to reduce the risk of damage. Can one afford to live within a city on the income provided by said city?
We are raising the cost of entry while simultaneously lowering the return on investment.
An Alaskan said it best when he said that he feels sorry for those of us on the mainland, because Alaskans can live off the land.
A precedent was set with Obama and his executive orders rather than congressional laws. This made a lot of people nervous. Trump is the extreme reaction. Rather than a "Tit for Tat" it is a nuclear response to a misdemeanor offense. It is an immediate escalation to the endgame. Start destabilizing things with executive orders that last only as long as a presidency, and you eventually end up with government shutdowns.
Lets go ahead and deal with the abuse of power now. End the shutdown, End Trump's presidency, and establish that governing by executive order is to be reserved for emergencies and such.
Pelosi/Democrats have declared the wall "immoral" - how do you back down from that position without being seen as "caving"?
Easy, you act like a mature adult.
What is mature and adult like to allowing Trump to win this shutdown? What is mature and adult in declaring a national emergency to fund a wall. Obama was overstepping his bounds when he handed out executive orders, Trump would be so far over those bounds that I don't see how he could have a career when he left, or even be allowed another day in the oval office.
This is just Google bragging about the insane quantities of data the get through their various platforms and services. Data is oil indicates that there is significant value in data. Data is sunshine means that you get so much data thrown at you, that you begin to notice clouds, rain clouds, and other weather patterns in the data. Sunshine also invokes shadows. At night a shadow is impenetrable, buried in the darkness of the unknown, you have to shine the light directly on the object your interested in. In the daylight a shadow conceals almost nothing. Like Facebook "shadow profiles" of people without accounts.
Data is sunshine also implies that there is a recurring pattern to the data, like an ebb and flow of the tide, or seasonal changes, or the rotation of the earth. The data refreshes, it doesn't change significantly.
This implies that data is still oil, and validates the usefulness of data. Sunshine is validation of the data. Oil is the data.
If you're in an IP block that is getting blacklisted, it sounds like you were running a mail server on dynamic client side IPs, rather than on a static IP server block. The glut of spam means we can't just allow everybody, and a lack of reverse DNS with your domain name, that is pointing to a static IP, is gonna get you blacklisted.
Your server might have existed before SPF, DEMARC, and other TXT strings to validate authenticity of a domain. A properly configured set of SPF and Demarc strings should prevent anybody else from spoofing your domain.
I found Debouncer.com and MXToolbox.com to be helpful when setting up a mail server, or migrating to a new domain or IP.
You make an interesting point about sensationalism in the media perpetuating sensationalism in online social media/network interactions. Monkey see, monkey do.
It may be that as we spend more time glued to our phones, sheltered in our own media bubbes and social cliques, that we learn our social skills from the hyperbolic and sensalitionist content we consume.
I would like to point out a contrast to this, that lynch mobs have been a thing long before the internet. Our social justice system was setup to solve a problem of rushing to judgement or overreacting, and such. It was prevalent enough that we needed to build a framework to prevent it.
In ye olden days people grew up together and faced the struggles of their own communities. This led to developing a rappor and understanding among a local toght knit group.
The internet has changed the game, and now our political differences are not miles away, but in each other's faces. In addition, there are more generations alive at the same time. We are being tasked with maintaining social etiquette across entirely incompatible demographics, and increasingly trying to govern diversity using a single national/federal framework. With each side fighting to be the top man on the totem pole, instead of working towards enabling local governments to cater to the needs of those within their domains.
The engines are horses, and the pod is the chariot. I wouldn't call it the worst idea. It fits Star Wars if not much else. "Science Fantasy", kinda of like Steam Punk. Its not meant to be realistic, its meant to be cool but thematic. Laser swords man, laser swords.
Standard? Luke got his hand chopped off by the bad guy at that point in his story arc/training, and was taking cover from blaster fire. Luke was lucky in Episode V, not skilled. Vader had the upper hand the entire fight, and he knew it. Vader was going easy on Luke. Luke wasn't a one man army until Episode III. And though Luke knew how to fly, that didn't make him the best pilot. He was a likely a better shot than Wedge or Biggs with all his practice against Womp rats. That is why they put him leading the approach in IV.
Rey was skilled with her staff combat, not lightsaber combat. She should have situational awareness, but she shouldn't have been so capable with a lightsaber. Kylo Ren had more training under Luke than Rey had at that point, and should have kept up his training, especially with the threat of Luke still out there. There isn't enough of a sense of a passing of time for Rey's training to be as extensive as Luke's. She's not only naturally better than her peers, she's magically better than everybody else, and from previous films "That's not how the force works!".
To be fair, the primary complaint of illogical character actions is Luke's story arc and "backstory" for Kylo Ren. Which is a followup to one of the most important threads, and some would say "THE" thread of the original movies, as opposed to some background element.
It is Luke betraying the very core of the moral of the original trilogy. And THEN he goes into Exile while the galaxy suffers from his mistake. He was the brash cocky farmhand who was reckless and always in over his head, but who had faith and conviction and perserverance to see him through. He also had faith in his friends. To see him as somebody who just stands by and does nothing out of fear of failure, is a stark contrast to who he was.
Slashdot Mirror
In this lies an over abundance of trust that the data profile they've built of you, is actually a reflection of you, and not some random stranger, or family member, or simply incorrectly categorized and mislabeled data.
Humans are error prone, and imperfect. Subsequently, whatever they design and build is going to be error prone, and imperfect, though the goal is to achieve a lesser degree of error.
If privacy is "not important", then what is important is the validity of the data. (Or potentially the lack there of, if you want to throw big data off your scent,...).
Say a person commented on you saying "his pipes don't work". Now is that data going to reflect on your ability to procreate, or your being inconvenienced with a higher cost of living than one would normally assume. So what would big data prescribe, a doctor, or a plumber, or a gas heating repairman? And don't tell me that big data AI/analytics isn't prone to similar errors or isn't trained on bad data sets.
Web browsing is slightly slower? Who would even notice unless there was a national calling frenzy (All circuits are busy) after all Telcos switch to VoIP and kill copper POTS.
If your VoIP causes noticeably slower web browsing, then your connection isn't fast enough to begin with.
But any web browsing can cause noticeable hiccups in VoIP without prioritization, because it is a real-time protocol.
Prioritization doesn't necessarily imply prioritization based on purchasing power.
There is a cash grab, greedy mindset that wants to use it that way. A regulatory body, similar to the FCC should be in charge of determining what gets priority. Barring ISPs bribing this regulatory body, it should accomplish the job.
If you upgrade to 1gbps and we run the same routes to the same content, then yes, my 100mpbs slows down. Though, I likely will not notice. If we both upgrade to 1gbps then we both might notice instances where we're not getting the full 1gbps, but are having to share it.
That means higher costs for subscribers for better bandwidth. Costs tend to trickle down from peering agreements to ISPs to subscribers.
Or you just keep to a financial schedule and recoup the costs, instead of spending more money chasing perpetually bandwidth hungry users in a reckless drive towards poverty.
Seriously, the protocol is designed to allow the user to use as much bandwidth is available, and only runs slower when many users are online on the same pipe simultaneously. Nobody is allotted only their slice of the bandwidth pie.
How much does the population of the USA times 1 tbps each to Netflix, and Amazon Prime, and iTunes, and YouTube, and Facebook cost? Because you have to have the 1 tbps locally, and then enough tbps to meet the demand to each service over 2 peak hours of the day. Beyond that 90% of that bandwidth will be at 1-2% load for 22 hours a day. (The services are typically active, but a significant amount of cable wouldn't be).
Throttling is artificially slowing something down. Like if you have a project or task at work, and you refuse to do it. The bandwidth is there, but is being wasted.
Prioritization (QoS) is ensuring that the critical tasks that need the bandwidth or attention get it first. It matches the principles behind Steven Covey's 4 quadrant system for being effective. Very important when you have insufficient resources. When the bandwidth isn't there, and nobody wants to pay billions for better infrastructure.
In a perfect world, the internet would have a googolplex of bits, and never have any bandwidth congestion or contention, and everything would download/upload instantly. In our world, certain things need priority, like voice communication. Everything else needs to "wait in line" like we were taught in kindergarten. (Just a few months ago somebody asked why QoS gets brought up everytime, this topic would be why QoS gets brought up everytime.
Voice is real-time two-way communication. Lag is very noticeable. Whether it is important or not doesn't matter.
Either the higher QoS for higher prices is anti-neutral, or it is net-zero as everybody will pay for the higher QoS putting us back at square one with VoIP/SIP not functioning but everything working fine, but with "artificially inflated" prices.
Unless everybody pays for higher QoS for VoIP alone, then it would be by unanimous vote. There would still be the matter of "artificially inflated prices" if everybody pays the toll in order to keep it neutral.
It gets brought up every time because he internet is built around the concept of "over-subscription", and VoIP/QoS is the most sensitive to over subscription.
Most of our society is built on waiting in lines. You may have noticed this at your local grocery store or department store. The internet functions on that same concept. The faster the pipeline and equipment, the shorter the lines. Bandwidth is simply the number of people you can get through a checkout in any given time.
Net Neutrality is about preventing the Walmart checkout situation. 32 checkouts (more bandwidth), and only 3 open (non-premium lanes when no NN)).
QoS would be the "20 items or less registers", or "12 items or less", etc.
But I do want them to discriminate based on protocol.
Most content on the internet is leisure or entertainment, and most of that content is not real-time. Streaming content is typically buffered to prevent disruption if brief bandwidth congestion occurs.
What is consumed in real time is VoIP/SIP traffic. I want VoIP/SIP traffic to be prioritized using QoS to ensure that voice packets are transmitted with as little delay as possible. We can argue about Facetime and the obscene amounts of bandwidth it may require at a later date.
This is especially important as ISPs are moving to eliminate legacy POTS copper phone service in favor of SIP/VoIP services. Voice used to be on its own separate network, and that worked well and was reliable. SIP was considered a lesser quality service, and it suffering from not being prioritized traffic was acceptable and expected. Now that it appears to be the way forward, we need higher quality and therefore higher prioritization for VoIp traffic.
Mozilla encountered this with Firefox. They didn't own the Firefox.com domain, but they arranged to share it for a while.
.org would be non-profits, Apple.org would be an agricultural or educational group.
.Com is a rather generic entity, similar to .net, and simply implies a web presence. The .biz tld implies a smaller company or startup, and shouldn't squatted by major entities, unless there is a significant profit to be made by spoofing their .com domain.
I seem to recall various laws on the books rendering cyber squating largely illegal. Squatters are legally required to surrender the domain, as squatters typically cannot justify ownership of a domain.
The question isn't whether they should give one of the alternate TLDs up. The question is whether your organization has been around for longer than the owner, to have a claim and prior art to back it up. The question is also whether the alternate domain suits your organization better than the holder.
Dot Coms were intended to be commercial entities. Apple.com would be either Apple Computer or Apple Records. While
These days
I have accessed as a result of your post "KB" is an Imperial measurement, and a derivative of "kB". There may be some confusion as to the valuation of "kB". Is it 1,000 Bytes, or 1,024 bytes? KB, the Imperial measurement, is also known as KiB, and is 1,024 bytes. I'm not sure there is a difference between the Imperial "kb", and the metric (also "kb"?), as both are 1,000 bits.
Hacking is using exploits or otherwise bypassing the security mechanisms, typically to gain unauthorized access. Hacking can also be used to gain authorized access.
This isn't hacking, this is logging in, and unauthorized access.
Is it "breaking an entering" if you leave your front door open?
I think you may be confusing being subsidized with needing subsidies.
Have you considered that it is the mainland that requires the subsidies for Alaska, not Alaska's die hard citizens and "natives"? Would you refuse subsidies for any reason?
What is the true purpose of those subsidies? What vision got them approved?
Increased wages over time? When you have pressure from automation reducing the demand for labor and procreation increasing the supply of labor, it is hard to see how supply and demand would increase the value of labor.
Automation frees up limited resources to improve profits for an increasingly smaller number. The value of automation is seen by the wealthy more so than the poor. For the poor it is an added expense, an additional pressure towards a minimum level of capacity to be competitive and remain employed. Because there is a sufficient supply of optimal labor, inefficient sub-optimal labor is unnecessary. Inefficient sub-optimal labor has a lower return on investment, if it has one at all, and thus has no economic incentive to fund the life towards automation and optimization.
How much does it cost to automate your home? To replace appliances and devices with more energy efficient alternatives? To install double-paned or other more moder window types? To replace a vehicle with an energy efficient alternative, or one with greater capacity and accident mitigation technology to reduce the risk of damage. Can one afford to live within a city on the income provided by said city?
We are raising the cost of entry while simultaneously lowering the return on investment.
An Alaskan said it best when he said that he feels sorry for those of us on the mainland, because Alaskans can live off the land.
A precedent was set with Obama and his executive orders rather than congressional laws. This made a lot of people nervous. Trump is the extreme reaction. Rather than a "Tit for Tat" it is a nuclear response to a misdemeanor offense. It is an immediate escalation to the endgame. Start destabilizing things with executive orders that last only as long as a presidency, and you eventually end up with government shutdowns.
Lets go ahead and deal with the abuse of power now. End the shutdown, End Trump's presidency, and establish that governing by executive order is to be reserved for emergencies and such.
Pelosi/Democrats have declared the wall "immoral" - how do you back down from that position without being seen as "caving"?
Easy, you act like a mature adult.
What is mature and adult like to allowing Trump to win this shutdown? What is mature and adult in declaring a national emergency to fund a wall. Obama was overstepping his bounds when he handed out executive orders, Trump would be so far over those bounds that I don't see how he could have a career when he left, or even be allowed another day in the oval office.
This is just Google bragging about the insane quantities of data the get through their various platforms and services. Data is oil indicates that there is significant value in data. Data is sunshine means that you get so much data thrown at you, that you begin to notice clouds, rain clouds, and other weather patterns in the data. Sunshine also invokes shadows. At night a shadow is impenetrable, buried in the darkness of the unknown, you have to shine the light directly on the object your interested in. In the daylight a shadow conceals almost nothing. Like Facebook "shadow profiles" of people without accounts.
Data is sunshine also implies that there is a recurring pattern to the data, like an ebb and flow of the tide, or seasonal changes, or the rotation of the earth. The data refreshes, it doesn't change significantly.
This implies that data is still oil, and validates the usefulness of data. Sunshine is validation of the data. Oil is the data.
This is Google. I can't fathom why anybody uses anything from Google unless you're a Linux user who upgraded and replaces stuff on a 6 month cycle...
Running a mail server is a pain to maintain.
If you're in an IP block that is getting blacklisted, it sounds like you were running a mail server on dynamic client side IPs, rather than on a static IP server block. The glut of spam means we can't just allow everybody, and a lack of reverse DNS with your domain name, that is pointing to a static IP, is gonna get you blacklisted.
Your server might have existed before SPF, DEMARC, and other TXT strings to validate authenticity of a domain. A properly configured set of SPF and Demarc strings should prevent anybody else from spoofing your domain.
I found Debouncer.com and MXToolbox.com to be helpful when setting up a mail server, or migrating to a new domain or IP.
You make an interesting point about sensationalism in the media perpetuating sensationalism in online social media/network interactions. Monkey see, monkey do.
It may be that as we spend more time glued to our phones, sheltered in our own media bubbes and social cliques, that we learn our social skills from the hyperbolic and sensalitionist content we consume.
I would like to point out a contrast to this, that lynch mobs have been a thing long before the internet. Our social justice system was setup to solve a problem of rushing to judgement or overreacting, and such. It was prevalent enough that we needed to build a framework to prevent it.
In ye olden days people grew up together and faced the struggles of their own communities. This led to developing a rappor and understanding among a local toght knit group.
The internet has changed the game, and now our political differences are not miles away, but in each other's faces. In addition, there are more generations alive at the same time. We are being tasked with maintaining social etiquette across entirely incompatible demographics, and increasingly trying to govern diversity using a single national/federal framework. With each side fighting to be the top man on the totem pole, instead of working towards enabling local governments to cater to the needs of those within their domains.
I thought the notion that Star Wars was sacred was why he sold it. He couldn't enjoy making movies in that universe because fanbois pitched a fit.
Its a chariot race, but in SPACE!!!
The engines are horses, and the pod is the chariot. I wouldn't call it the worst idea. It fits Star Wars if not much else. "Science Fantasy", kinda of like Steam Punk. Its not meant to be realistic, its meant to be cool but thematic. Laser swords man, laser swords.
Standard? Luke got his hand chopped off by the bad guy at that point in his story arc/training, and was taking cover from blaster fire. Luke was lucky in Episode V, not skilled. Vader had the upper hand the entire fight, and he knew it. Vader was going easy on Luke. Luke wasn't a one man army until Episode III. And though Luke knew how to fly, that didn't make him the best pilot. He was a likely a better shot than Wedge or Biggs with all his practice against Womp rats. That is why they put him leading the approach in IV.
Rey was skilled with her staff combat, not lightsaber combat. She should have situational awareness, but she shouldn't have been so capable with a lightsaber. Kylo Ren had more training under Luke than Rey had at that point, and should have kept up his training, especially with the threat of Luke still out there. There isn't enough of a sense of a passing of time for Rey's training to be as extensive as Luke's. She's not only naturally better than her peers, she's magically better than everybody else, and from previous films "That's not how the force works!".
To be fair, the primary complaint of illogical character actions is Luke's story arc and "backstory" for Kylo Ren. Which is a followup to one of the most important threads, and some would say "THE" thread of the original movies, as opposed to some background element.
It is Luke betraying the very core of the moral of the original trilogy. And THEN he goes into Exile while the galaxy suffers from his mistake. He was the brash cocky farmhand who was reckless and always in over his head, but who had faith and conviction and perserverance to see him through. He also had faith in his friends. To see him as somebody who just stands by and does nothing out of fear of failure, is a stark contrast to who he was.