here's your problem: your thoughts and ideas are bound by jargon
I'm guessing you are some kind of academic. That would fit best, here's why: You can't have a discussion on a topic you are interested in without trying to force everyone to use the same language and tone you use
Your mind *literally* can't function properly unless everyone around you is using academic langauge because academia, especially parts of physics, is just recursions of abstract jargon describing the **same phenomeon**
You know I'm right, but I won't engage you in the way you expect, yet I demonstrate a grasp of the concepts and it pisses you off...
See, if I linked to a source that says something as basic as "The EPR Paradox was validated when it was proven that Quantum Entanglement (non-local, no force carrier, teleportation) exists."
Your academic shit-talk routine would kick in, and you'd use all the rhetorical tricks that academics use to conversationally assert authority without **actually talking about the issue**
You can have the "last word"...I've exposed your failings in this conversation as fully as I feel is necessary, for posterity sake...I wont comment further
IMHO the whole methodology of hypothesis testing of taking a question of Physics (or w/e) and making some analogy to something humans physically interact with to contextualize it...then test the analogy as a hypothesis
analogies cannot be hypotheses
they actually test something in the lab, so the data is potentially useful...but for other researchers...not to prove/disprove their own hypothesis
An external, god-like observer always sees no difference between these particles compared to an external objective clock. But an observer who measures one of the pair
I like where these guys are going. Really do. Time needs to be wrestled down and pinned to a board like a butterfly, IMHO...so good for them for thinking outside of the box.
I can't give their ideas any serious creedence b/c they take a 'thought experiment' approach to testing a hypothesis.
since when is 'god-like observer' a scientific term???
that's just the start...the whole methodology of trying to solve a huge problem of physics by making a linguistic analogy then testing that analogy...it gives usable data but it's a broke version of the scientific method
again...I'm happy their work exists and it makes usable data...hope they get a big NSF grant...
time is our observation of change in the universe
as best we can tell, things change uniformly (time passes the same for everyone)...except the rare times when they don't;)
IMHO we need to get past our limitations of testing...like physical lab limitations like how CERN can do things FermiLab can't do b/c of size.
We are *always* going to have some limitation there...so lets make a theory that predicts by using other means *as well*
My idea: Time = Gravity
we only know both exist b/c we observe physical changes in the universe...we don't know the true nature of 'gravity' as a force b/c it has no particle to 'carry' the force
time also has similar characteristics...as I said above, time is the observed change in the universe...is there any change in the universe that gravity is not part of?
let me ask again: true or false: gravity as a force is present in every interaction in the universe
I *never* said that A. formal education is for everyone or B. self education is always invaluable
quite the contrary...read these sentences carefully:
> Formal education is not for everyone > Self education is a life necessity
I believe those strongly. They are true. The fact that they are true is in no way contradictory to my original point about the **false** narrative of the "tech innovator dropout"
you see that I'm criticizing false narratives, right?
can you teach yourself to understand wtf i'm saying?
I know of very few establishment Republicans who actually claim to be libertarians.
right...i kind of disagree, IMHO you could say "the GOP hasn't used coordinated libertarian talking points since the 2012 election" but ppl like Rand Paul & Paul Ryan are still pretty vocal
my comment was more directed at us, the people, and our flaming little internet forum here on/.
see, we run this country, if we choose to take the reigns...I see alot of standard-issue GOP policy gussied up as "libertarianism" and the/. commentariat (and techies in general) love to chose not to take a side by saying "both parties suck, i'm a libertarian, fuck you sheeple"
that attitude is not only harmful to democracy but it is a symptom of a problem that hurts our industry
we can't afford not to take sides...ex: Net Neutrality...there is only one party doing anything *policy* to protect Net Neutrality...if the GOP had its way you know what the internet would look like.
so my statement was directed at more than this one instance in Texas, but it is exemplary of the central concept
Digging a hole in the ground with a spoon is what the person doing it makes of it.
the good programs actually give you a **shovel**
sorry you didn't find a good program with a shovel...sorry the truth of my post elicits such cognitive dissonance for you...but fact is, good universities w/ good programs can give you all kinds of resources you cant get on the street
just accept that some university programs are valuable
the GOP in Texas is a criminal organization like the mafia....Tesla wouldn't pay the 'protection' fee...
any equivocation belies ignorance...if you are a "libertarian" you must criticize this and oppose the Republicans who did it
from TFA:
The current iron-clad Texas franchise law is the result of years of lobbying by the powerful and well-connected Texas Auto Dealers Association (TADA), founded and run for 30 years by legendary Texas lobbyist Gene Fondren.
In 2012, dealership interests "invested" more than $2.5 million in the Texas legislative elections, according to the the watchdog group Texans For Public Justice. Sixty percent of Texas lawmakers received checks from TADA in 2012.Two elderly billionaire car dealers, Tom Friedkin and Red McCombs--the latter is also chairman of the former Blackwater security firm--kicked in more than a million dollars between them.
what I meant by that is, 1. taking a general, greater point that you agree with and 2. finding one sentence that, when isolated from its context away from the rest of the post can be pedantically criticized, and then 3. making posts that seem to be making counterpoints to the general, greater point of the GP (which you agree with) but 4. only citing one isolated, contextless sentence is confusing and not adding value to the discussion
best post I've read in a month...gravity's rainbow...boy what a slog...skimming the novel with wikipedia and a few well written online analysis of the book however is an enlightening way to spend a rainy afternoon
The whole "tech innovators are dropouts" trope is extremely harmful to our industry, IMHO.
I'm not saying you, directly are as bad as the worst, but you def have some of the characteristics...it's an attitude:
Back then, the vast bulk of "nerds" loved this stuff as a hobby.....Then people started going to school to 'learn teh computerz' as it seemed like an easy way to make cash. Those are the folks who were dumped during the dot-bomb.
that dialectic is a false narrative trope of our industry...
before I continue, plz read these statements:
1. I agree that, "Fact is many of the best IT folks I know who also have excellent technical skill were self-taught." 2. college today is difficult to get eductional value from 3. i used to be a teacher and professor
about the false dialectic you disseminate...gotta cut it out...we the industry, maybe you...but our industry is screwing itself with this bullshit fantasy
Nothing Y Combinator does could not be done in an academic environment....in fact, it would be a sensation and a program featuring a tech entrepreneurship capstone class that is, essentially, Y Combinator, would be the toast of the university!
Blame academia and dumbass biz investors.
Our industry gets the big Billions b/c of hype. I wont deny it. If I was, say, twitter, i'd hype my company as the greatest tech innovation ever in the lead up to an IPO...i don't begrudge success...
I do object when a dishonest narrative is presented as the source of the success.
Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, on and on and on....same 'dropout' BS narrative...and each were successful for different reasons
Jobs used force of will (and a bit of assholishness) to push his singular vision of a user centered design forward (and steal ideas)....and get the RIAA on iTunes... Gates & his college buddies got an IBM/government contract fall in their lap after the first choice got dickish about a NDA and IBM got impatient Zuckerberg & his college buddies had the coding chops and the patience to make a free online social network that was not (at the time) horribly obnoxious b/c their rich parents could support them in the interim between the dorm room and Series A funding
we need to be honest about these things...not from jealously, but for the survival of our industry
about college degrees...fact: none of us knew what we were doing in college!
some knew more than others, but compared to what us college grads know now, its night and day...you autodidacts know what I mean b/c you lived it
college is what **THE STUDENT** makes of it...
I tell autodidact types all the time, a university is full of resources, and if they get the right program, the whole academic system is set up to help them succeed
tl:dr You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater
you are just being pedantic w/ language, and you are actively being dishonest in this conversation...my source cited, which you have never engaged with, says plainly what I paraphrased (while linking to the source, w/ the full source copied)
i absolutely will not have a conversation about pedantic definitions of 'fundamental' or 'at the core'...
my evidence is below, w/ source...you engage with my ideas here on this ground, the *content of my ideas not pedantic language disputes* or this conversation is over
from wikipedia, with wiki's citations included:
Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox[13] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[14][15] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, **eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,[16] and recognized as a valid, ***fundamental feature of quantum mechanics.*** The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.
[13] Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
right...i agreed w/ you when you said that 3 steps back up the tree
my GP point...waaay back up there...was that Obamacare website's problems are **routine problems** solved by IT engineers everyday
somehow, you think your point about their mistake in testing (which you yourself say is an "obvious error") is in conflict with, or a counterpoint to my point waaay back about Obamacare's problems being routine IT problems
you seem willing to continue to engage on the topic but i don't see how I can if all you do is say something similar to my point as if it is a counterpoint
so you're agreeing that the reports of 'Obamacare Failure' are based on faulty journalism, and that, further, what has been reported are simple IT Engineering solutions?
that's what I'm hearing...b/c you say this:
Beginning testing a week before going live may be unfortunately common, but it's also a recipe for disaster.
right...so you're saying that the contractor who was paid $1Billion to 'roll out' the site made a "common" mistake that most/. readers would catch?
Do you really think it's just a problem of adding more servers?
as some very helpful individual elucidated in a different post on this thread: "its not like building a hobby site"
if you notice, my original post assumed a level of IT knowledge on behalf of the reader (you)
i'm saying I havent heard any problems reported professionally whatsoever, and of the reports that **do** exist mention **only** problems that, at the core, are routine IT Engineering problems
I'm demanding better journalism (re: TFA) and smarter commentary from us,/., b/c we are the kind who know this stuff (hence my assumption that you know something of IT)
who else will explain things but us (experts)?
who ever has?
the real experts need to be heard...let's speak coherently!
TFA, and virtually everything I've seen on 'Obamacare' are not helpful
First, I've yet to see *one* legitamit (or even fringe) news organization film themselves without editing sit down at a computer and **attempt to enroll in ACA**...if this exits, please post a link
2nd, a major problem of this article (and again virtually every news or analysis on ACA I've seen) is the lack of necessary information distinguishing **STATE EXCHANGES** and the **NATIONAL EXCHANGE**
I hear it mentioned that the two exist, and are different, and I see a map that shows which states have their own ACA program and which do not, therefore defaulting to the Federal system....however I absolutely have not heard any distinction made when any blog/news report/etc mentions 'Obamacare's failures'
3rd, The problems of "Obamacare" are myriad to be sure, but in the coverage of the "rollout of the website" no IT workers are interviews...no one with any expertise actually explains what the problems are...
We can easily understand (if you visit the website) & read a few news reports that the website's "failure" is a timeout when people try to sign up. Again, we don't know if this is the *state* or *federal* exchange, but the point is that the website breaks b/c of too many hits.
Server over capacity.
A few news articles to explain this much, but not any more.
what does/. call 'server over capacity' type problems???
ROUTINE IT WORK
I used to have my CCNA, it has lapsed. I'm not pretending rolling out a functional site like ACA is easy, but it's **well known** how to make a system like that, from a web coding perspective, work.
It's routine IT work done daily all over the world.
So, the real analysis is that the ACA needs more servers.
It's that simple....note 'simple' does not in any way mean "easy"....but the concept is well understood by many IT engineers.
"an open-source approach" is usually helpful in any system experiencing major problems...but this is routine IT work....not in any way a massive failure
if you want to assign blame: blame the contractor that got the 1$billion to develop the ACA site
I'm not playing anymore...you misquoted my quotation here:
"feature of QM" (as your source accurately states)
No, actually, **one part** of the wikipedia portion copied (with the actual source below) **correctly** states the following (emphasis added)
recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics
And, i'm definitely not going to get into the difference between being **AT** the core of something (which I said) and being **THE ONE AND ONLY** core of something (what you're trolling me to have said)...
and being "at the core of QM" as you incorrectly state.
I'm letting the community handle this from here (cant mod on my own discussion of course)
Slashdot Mirror
here's your problem: your thoughts and ideas are bound by jargon
I'm guessing you are some kind of academic. That would fit best, here's why: You can't have a discussion on a topic you are interested in without trying to force everyone to use the same language and tone you use
Your mind *literally* can't function properly unless everyone around you is using academic langauge because academia, especially parts of physics, is just recursions of abstract jargon describing the **same phenomeon**
You know I'm right, but I won't engage you in the way you expect, yet I demonstrate a grasp of the concepts and it pisses you off...
See, if I linked to a source that says something as basic as "The EPR Paradox was validated when it was proven that Quantum Entanglement (non-local, no force carrier, teleportation) exists."
Your academic shit-talk routine would kick in, and you'd use all the rhetorical tricks that academics use to conversationally assert authority without **actually talking about the issue**
You can have the "last word"...I've exposed your failings in this conversation as fully as I feel is necessary, for posterity sake...I wont comment further
exactly...hilarious...i lol'ed
IMHO the whole methodology of hypothesis testing of taking a question of Physics (or w/e) and making some analogy to something humans physically interact with to contextualize it...then test the analogy as a hypothesis
analogies cannot be hypotheses
they actually test something in the lab, so the data is potentially useful...but for other researchers...not to prove/disprove their own hypothesis
I like where these guys are going. Really do. Time needs to be wrestled down and pinned to a board like a butterfly, IMHO...so good for them for thinking outside of the box.
I can't give their ideas any serious creedence b/c they take a 'thought experiment' approach to testing a hypothesis.
since when is 'god-like observer' a scientific term???
that's just the start...the whole methodology of trying to solve a huge problem of physics by making a linguistic analogy then testing that analogy...it gives usable data but it's a broke version of the scientific method
again...I'm happy their work exists and it makes usable data...hope they get a big NSF grant...
time is our observation of change in the universe
as best we can tell, things change uniformly (time passes the same for everyone)...except the rare times when they don't ;)
IMHO we need to get past our limitations of testing...like physical lab limitations like how CERN can do things FermiLab can't do b/c of size.
We are *always* going to have some limitation there...so lets make a theory that predicts by using other means *as well*
My idea: Time = Gravity
we only know both exist b/c we observe physical changes in the universe...we don't know the true nature of 'gravity' as a force b/c it has no particle to 'carry' the force
time also has similar characteristics...as I said above, time is the observed change in the universe...is there any change in the universe that gravity is not part of?
let me ask again: true or false: gravity as a force is present in every interaction in the universe
what do you think?
n/t
can be != always
facts can be **conditionally true**
I'll teach you the difference:
> "programs can be valuable"
is different than
> "programs are always the most valuable"
see how those two statements are **not the same**?
another example
> "sl4shd0rk's comments can be moronic"
vs
> "sl4d0rk's comments are always the most moronic"
see you're putting words in my mouth
I *never* said that A. formal education is for everyone or B. self education is always invaluable
quite the contrary...read these sentences carefully:
> Formal education is not for everyone
> Self education is a life necessity
I believe those strongly. They are true. The fact that they are true is in no way contradictory to my original point about the **false** narrative of the "tech innovator dropout"
you see that I'm criticizing false narratives, right?
can you teach yourself to understand wtf i'm saying?
you are simply perturbed i am right
b/c i'm "some random internet person" and you are either A) some academic w/ an ivory tower up your ass or B) 40 year old in mom's basement
the EPR Paradox was a criticism of a **factual inaccuracy** which was proven right via the sources cited...
Einstien et al first identified it...Hawking & the Cambridge Cabal did their whole "we destroyed Newton" parade...then...lo and behold...
the EPR Paradox criticism was rooted in the proper understanding of QM
you cant engage further b/c my original point...about how 'quantum computing' is hype pisses you off
deal with it...i know my shit...i'm right about the EPR paradox and you can't change that
I kind of feel bad for Jimmy Wales...it seems like he's been in waaay over his head ever since I first read an interview....
He was the lesser tech of the two who started wikipedia, and he kind of screwed his partner a bit...
But...what major online company doesn't have a story like that in its history? Not an excuse but puts it in context...
Wikipedia is awesome. The internet would suck without it.
Wikipedia has never had ads or attempted to become a pay service in any way...in that way Jimmy Wales is a saint
I know Jimmy Wales seems like a cheesey step-dad used-car-salesman type but he's capable of learning and improving...
Credit him for keeping wikipedia open...
yeah...that's kind of my whole point this whole time..."libertarians" are usually just "conservatives" using libertarian rhetoric
you agree?
why does your tone indicate that you feel our ideas clash somehow?
right...i kind of disagree, IMHO you could say "the GOP hasn't used coordinated libertarian talking points since the 2012 election" but ppl like Rand Paul & Paul Ryan are still pretty vocal
my comment was more directed at us, the people, and our flaming little internet forum here on /.
see, we run this country, if we choose to take the reigns...I see alot of standard-issue GOP policy gussied up as "libertarianism" and the /. commentariat (and techies in general) love to chose not to take a side by saying "both parties suck, i'm a libertarian, fuck you sheeple"
that attitude is not only harmful to democracy but it is a symptom of a problem that hurts our industry
we can't afford not to take sides...ex: Net Neutrality...there is only one party doing anything *policy* to protect Net Neutrality...if the GOP had its way you know what the internet would look like.
so my statement was directed at more than this one instance in Texas, but it is exemplary of the central concept
the good programs actually give you a **shovel**
sorry you didn't find a good program with a shovel...sorry the truth of my post elicits such cognitive dissonance for you...but fact is, good universities w/ good programs can give you all kinds of resources you cant get on the street
just accept that some university programs are valuable
the GOP in Texas is a criminal organization like the mafia....Tesla wouldn't pay the 'protection' fee...
any equivocation belies ignorance...if you are a "libertarian" you must criticize this and oppose the Republicans who did it
from TFA:
what I meant by that is, 1. taking a general, greater point that you agree with and 2. finding one sentence that, when isolated from its context away from the rest of the post can be pedantically criticized, and then 3. making posts that seem to be making counterpoints to the general, greater point of the GP (which you agree with) but 4. only citing one isolated, contextless sentence is confusing and not adding value to the discussion
best post I've read in a month...gravity's rainbow...boy what a slog...skimming the novel with wikipedia and a few well written online analysis of the book however is an enlightening way to spend a rainy afternoon
that was the headline of the GP post to which you refer...
but indeed, I agree you probably just misread it
The whole "tech innovators are dropouts" trope is extremely harmful to our industry, IMHO.
I'm not saying you, directly are as bad as the worst, but you def have some of the characteristics...it's an attitude:
that dialectic is a false narrative trope of our industry...
before I continue, plz read these statements:
1. I agree that, "Fact is many of the best IT folks I know who also have excellent technical skill were self-taught."
2. college today is difficult to get eductional value from
3. i used to be a teacher and professor
about the false dialectic you disseminate...gotta cut it out...we the industry, maybe you...but our industry is screwing itself with this bullshit fantasy
My evidence: Y Combinator
Nothing Y Combinator does could not be done in an academic environment....in fact, it would be a sensation and a program featuring a tech entrepreneurship capstone class that is, essentially, Y Combinator, would be the toast of the university!
Blame academia and dumbass biz investors.
Our industry gets the big Billions b/c of hype. I wont deny it. If I was, say, twitter, i'd hype my company as the greatest tech innovation ever in the lead up to an IPO...i don't begrudge success...
I do object when a dishonest narrative is presented as the source of the success.
Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, on and on and on....same 'dropout' BS narrative...and each were successful for different reasons
Jobs used force of will (and a bit of assholishness) to push his singular vision of a user centered design forward (and steal ideas)....and get the RIAA on iTunes...
Gates & his college buddies got an IBM/government contract fall in their lap after the first choice got dickish about a NDA and IBM got impatient
Zuckerberg & his college buddies had the coding chops and the patience to make a free online social network that was not (at the time) horribly obnoxious b/c their rich parents could support them in the interim between the dorm room and Series A funding
we need to be honest about these things...not from jealously, but for the survival of our industry
about college degrees...fact: none of us knew what we were doing in college!
some knew more than others, but compared to what us college grads know now, its night and day...you autodidacts know what I mean b/c you lived it
college is what **THE STUDENT** makes of it...
I tell autodidact types all the time, a university is full of resources, and if they get the right program, the whole academic system is set up to help them succeed
tl:dr You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater
you are just being pedantic w/ language, and you are actively being dishonest in this conversation...my source cited, which you have never engaged with, says plainly what I paraphrased (while linking to the source, w/ the full source copied)
i absolutely will not have a conversation about pedantic definitions of 'fundamental' or 'at the core'...
my evidence is below, w/ source...you engage with my ideas here on this ground, the *content of my ideas not pedantic language disputes* or this conversation is over
from wikipedia, with wiki's citations included:
Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox[13] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[14][15] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, **eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,[16] and recognized as a valid, ***fundamental feature of quantum mechanics.*** The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.
right...i agreed w/ you when you said that 3 steps back up the tree
my GP point...waaay back up there...was that Obamacare website's problems are **routine problems** solved by IT engineers everyday
somehow, you think your point about their mistake in testing (which you yourself say is an "obvious error") is in conflict with, or a counterpoint to my point waaay back about Obamacare's problems being routine IT problems
you seem willing to continue to engage on the topic but i don't see how I can if all you do is say something similar to my point as if it is a counterpoint
n/t
"
I'll let Lisa Loeb take it from here ;)
so you're agreeing that the reports of 'Obamacare Failure' are based on faulty journalism, and that, further, what has been reported are simple IT Engineering solutions?
that's what I'm hearing...b/c you say this:
right...so you're saying that the contractor who was paid $1Billion to 'roll out' the site made a "common" mistake that most /. readers would catch?
glad you agree?
as some very helpful individual elucidated in a different post on this thread: "its not like building a hobby site"
if you notice, my original post assumed a level of IT knowledge on behalf of the reader (you)
i'm saying I havent heard any problems reported professionally whatsoever, and of the reports that **do** exist mention **only** problems that, at the core, are routine IT Engineering problems
I'm demanding better journalism (re: TFA) and smarter commentary from us, /., b/c we are the kind who know this stuff (hence my assumption that you know something of IT)
who else will explain things but us (experts)?
who ever has?
the real experts need to be heard...let's speak coherently!
n/t
TFA, and virtually everything I've seen on 'Obamacare' are not helpful
First, I've yet to see *one* legitamit (or even fringe) news organization film themselves without editing sit down at a computer and **attempt to enroll in ACA**...if this exits, please post a link
2nd, a major problem of this article (and again virtually every news or analysis on ACA I've seen) is the lack of necessary information distinguishing **STATE EXCHANGES** and the **NATIONAL EXCHANGE**
I hear it mentioned that the two exist, and are different, and I see a map that shows which states have their own ACA program and which do not, therefore defaulting to the Federal system....however I absolutely have not heard any distinction made when any blog/news report/etc mentions 'Obamacare's failures'
3rd, The problems of "Obamacare" are myriad to be sure, but in the coverage of the "rollout of the website" no IT workers are interviews...no one with any expertise actually explains what the problems are...
We can easily understand (if you visit the website) & read a few news reports that the website's "failure" is a timeout when people try to sign up. Again, we don't know if this is the *state* or *federal* exchange, but the point is that the website breaks b/c of too many hits.
Server over capacity.
A few news articles to explain this much, but not any more.
what does /. call 'server over capacity' type problems???
ROUTINE IT WORK
I used to have my CCNA, it has lapsed. I'm not pretending rolling out a functional site like ACA is easy, but it's **well known** how to make a system like that, from a web coding perspective, work.
It's routine IT work done daily all over the world.
So, the real analysis is that the ACA needs more servers.
It's that simple....note 'simple' does not in any way mean "easy"....but the concept is well understood by many IT engineers.
"an open-source approach" is usually helpful in any system experiencing major problems...but this is routine IT work....not in any way a massive failure
if you want to assign blame: blame the contractor that got the 1$billion to develop the ACA site
I'm not playing anymore...you misquoted my quotation here:
No, actually, **one part** of the wikipedia portion copied (with the actual source below) **correctly** states the following (emphasis added)
And, i'm definitely not going to get into the difference between being **AT** the core of something (which I said) and being **THE ONE AND ONLY** core of something (what you're trolling me to have said)...
I'm letting the community handle this from here (cant mod on my own discussion of course)