1) Locate their trac where all the open issue tickets are listed. 2) Find an issue that looks like it might be (relatively) easy to solve. 3) Fix it. 4) Create a patch containing your fixes. 5) Submit it to the trac or to the devel list. If it does it what it says it does without introducing any more issues then it will most likely be accepted by the committers and brought into the project. 6) Repeat.
7)....
8) Don't expect any profit.
Fixing issues like this will accomplish so many things for you. It will force you to become familiar with the source tree, which is about 99% of the work of becoming involved, in my experience, esp. with a large source tree of a large project. It will force you to figure out how to solve problems without much help. It will make you better at solving and thinking about problems. It will improve your knowledge of your language.
On the right most lane, put smart cars. Then in the middle lane put "smart" cars, motorcyclists, and anyone who drives while talking on the cell phone, or texting, or drunk between me and them. I'll be all the way on the left-most lane, thank you very much.
More people should take a longer and more precise view of history, such as yours.People should realize that religion and science are two sides of the same nature, our inquisitive mind, which evolved along with millions of neocortical columns relatively quickly such that we became able to ask such questions as "What the fuck is that?" and "Why am I here?" The same impulse that drives science drives religion . That doesn't make science and religion equivalent as modes of explanation, but it does connect them.
Religion may seem like a silly vestige of prehistorical and ancient mythologizing. It may seem like a leftover piece of our brains that we should have learned to think around by now. But science is no less hardwired into our brains than religion. It's all about explaining experience. Some of us do it more with our left hemisphere than our right hemisphere, and situations where it's not lateralized so neatly blur the line between complete and incomplete explanations even more.
I'll modify my position to say this: you are correct that I have no idea whether or not the Pentagon is secretly conspiring to ruin Julian Assange. They might very well be. But I do not think that *this* particular instance is the result of the aforementioned plan. At least one of the accusers in question is allied with Assange politically, and their grievances, while not amounting to rape or the American definition of sexual assault, clearly reveal a certain degree of genuine douchebaggery on the part of Assange.
Remember "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you?" Well, just because powerful interests are trying to ruin your reputation doesn't mean that you can't ruin it yourself and just as efficiently.
Like I said, I think Assange's mission is important, and I respect what he has done in his professional life. However, that doesn't mean that he isn't a front-running douche in his private life. Indeed, as we are seeing more and more, it looks like this is the case. And, sadly for a cause I believe in, it looks like this might do some damage to his public life. Whether he likes it or not he's has been and will continue to be under much, much higher scrutiny than your average subversive - so it's up to him to curb the douchebaggery.
Honestly, the guy sounds like an arrogant prick from all of the WikiLeakiLeaks (should be called WikiLeaksLeaks).
You would have to be somewhat arrogant to make an enemy of so many governments. But I think that this world-wide conspiracy to bring down Assange is more fancy than fact. The Pentagon really doesn't have to conspire to bring Assange down; he is clearly capable of doing that himself. So I'm not sure that his nomadic lifestyle and overly cautious aversion to leaving footprints is warranted. It seems like just another aspect of his narcissism, as well as a means to seduce women.
I still think that Assange is on an important mission, and it would be sad to see that mission fail because Assange was so stupid. Bottom line, this is all so fucking amateurish it's unbelievable. Assange is going to defeat his own purpose merely by being himself.
In the era of the internet, nobody is going to wait 40 years for something to take off.
Ok, then just wait 5 years. Less than a year and a half is still no time at all considering how much people have to change their preconceptions about digital communication to begin to really use it. 40,000 people have signed a petition to keep it around - that's a nice tidy little base of users who think highly enough of it to sign their name, and could no doubt evangelize the product to their friends in the years to come.
It didn't have time to fail. The article correctly points to the fact that e-mail took 40 years to become as widespread as it is today. When it began it was an unrecognizable form of communication, a huge sea-change if it were to ever be adopted. People didn't even really know what computers were, let alone understand networks. Yes, it provided a nice electronic metaphor for the regular mail letter, which let people grasp it more easily. But everything else about it was still fundamentally alien.
But something happened. First people began to get used to email, and then people began to prefer email to communicate. Over the next few decades it spread like wildfire, to the point where now over a billion people use it every day.
Wave didn't even have time to begin such a process. It was announced as a collaboration tool on May 27, 2009. On August 4, 2010 it was canceled. A little more than a year and a half. Compared to 40 years for e-mail?
Give it time to breath. It seems stupid to invest so much money and effort into a product and then drop it if it doesn't acquire a million users right away. I think Google, structurally speaking, might have ADD - it is so used to overnight success that it's not willing to accept a slower rate of adoption, even if the pay off could be huge.
After you posted this , I found a different account of Chris Langton's hang-gliding incident, where he mentions that he observed his own brain repairing itself. Well, this is exactly how I felt as I was getting better. My experience of the world which was incoherent and my thoughts which would hit mental "walls" sort of slowly became more coherent. Thanks for the link.
Yes, it is fascinating. He is a very difficult writer. I am a philosophy student so I have encountered A Critique of Pure Reason many times. He asks the same question, and actually comes up with a form of idealism which provides for the existence of an objective reality and at the same time the forms of experience. What you lose in the exact same movement is a permanent self, or the possibility of knowledge of a permanent self. Since I have trouble locating such a self in my own experience, I find this philosophy very compelling.
I don't doubt that it's possible for a computer to perform the same intelligent tasks a human can. However, no matter how perfectly it performs them, you can still ask, but not answer, the question: Does this machine have subjective experience? If it reports on its own internal states and experiences, and does things which strongly suggest it has those things, then I think you have to treat it, at least ethically, as a conscious being. But knowing for certain is impossible.
"I don't deny there are levels of consciousness, they're just all physical. "
I've had a neurogical disease that affected my level of consciousness, and I can still tell you this question is not nearly as clear cut as you think. I quite certainly believe that all my thoughts and experience originate in my brain, because those were the things that were compromised, or went away, with the disease process, which is physical.
But beyond that, I'm stumped. I can't account for how *I* come to experience my thoughts and sensations. Yes, my brain represents the world in a 3 dimensional mental map - but represents it *to* whom? That sky appears blue. But it appears blue to what?
Furthermore I can't decide whether, when I "woke up" from the illness, I popped back into existence out of nowhere *or* the possibility of my experience was present the entire time, even though my brain wasn't functioning correctly.
There are no certain answers to this question. Anyone who claims they have answered it with any certainty on any side of the issue is mistaken or worse.
This is the hard problem of consciousness, the fundamental problem of consciousness. To repeat: how is subjective awareness, or experience, possible at all? You haven't answered this question.I suspect its out of our epistemological reach because we can never 100% verify that a physical machine which speaks and acts like us is actually conscious, actually has subjective experience. If the machine insists he has experience of pain, or pleasure, do we believe him? From an ethical standpoint, I think we have to. But from an epistemological standpoint we can never really know for sure. Because our qualia are non-substitutable. There is no way to get your experience into my brain - as soon as it enters my brain it becomes my experience.
So if you reduce awareness to a set of physical propositions, you lose the experience of "what it is like." and "what is it like to be me" - That's the other side of the coin, the subjective side. The best we can come up as far as how this is possible - physically or spiritually - is at most a hypothesis and at worst a religious assumption, even if we believe in materialism. If we want to be truly scientific we should begin to view this fundamental question as fundamentally undecidable.
Freedom of expression as a legal right doesn't free you from the social consequences of your expression. If you say something ridiculously offensive to someone in real life, they have just as much right to dislike you - and to tell you they dislike you - for saying what you say. That's on top of their right to criticize you extensively.
This is not a form of government censorship. It is the way we enforce social responsibility. It should never be legislated, but that doesn't mean its wrong.
As for this case, the people who are criticizing the game have just as much right to do so as the people who make the game. I disagree with them, because I think its important for people to see both sides of the war as human beings. But they certainly have a right to feel what they feel and say what they say.
'Because that's going to make far less money in the long run.'
Is it? Microsoft has already basically conceded that Apple has won this round. As Apple very well knows from the early desktop days, once a competitor has a solid lead in the market share it is very, very difficult to get the market back. It seems like whatever Microsoft's offering for this market is, it's probably never going to be as popular as the iPad.
Software is supposed to be Microsoft's main business, not hardware. Producing quality apps for the iPad as well as for various other portable devices that hopefully *other* people make, but which run Windows, would be their best bet, money wise. I haven't been able to see why, for some time now, Microsoft won't just focus on producing good products in one area (software) rather than producing shitty products in lots of areas.
I didn't realize that Jefferson was the only person who took part in the founding.
It seems like there was a deliberate effort, by way of such things as the interstate commerce clause, to leave the exact role of the Federal Government versus the states somewhat elastic. This reflects the differing points of view of those who founded the country.
Jefferson also didn't take into account the effect an illegal secession and resulting civil war would inevitably have on the distribution of power.
I'm not saying one side was right versus the other side was wrong, I'm just saying there's room for interpretation left in the Constitution just in virtue of its collaborative authorship. Obviously, or we wouldn't have nearly as much disagreement.
Well, I certainly think that they will have to follow through now that media coverage has brought them hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it's not going to be vaporware. On the other hand, I've met a couple people who swear they have had a Duke Nukem Forever prototype that was running on their machine for months.
What I don't understand is why everyone was so encouraged to contribute to this project despite the complete lack of experience of its creators and complete lack of a substantive evidence that they are decent programmers on top of the the complete availability of other, similar, more fully conceived projects. These guys are doing everything backwards. At least with that folk musician she already proved she was capable of writing good music on account of having written it before. And while I don't completely doubt these guys' ability to follow through, I do doubt their ability to follow through well. I doubt the wisdom of handing thousands, er, hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who haven't produced squat
This is how the web should be structured in the future. "Pages" can still be written declaratively, just like our interfaces for desktop software can be designed and stored declaratively. However, they can be compiled into bytecode classes that get sent back and forth in serialized form over "HTTP" (or whatever new, stateful protocol someone comes up with.) The browser will become this: A Virtual Machine and a Layout Engine/Server - The VM will "run" the site as bytecode and directly manipulate the site's layout. . This can still look and feel very much like the web today.
But under this paradigm, you can write your apps all in one language, be it Java or any other language. After all, there's no reason VM bytecode couldn't be generated from any number of languages, just like Java bytecode today. If you want you can, as I said, still declare your user interface in HTML and "connect" them to actions on the client or server side or as outlets to Java classes. This will also allow transparent server-client interaction - methods can be moved from the server to the client at will, also making offline browsing more flexible.
People might point out that you can already write your application in one language using GWT. Yes, GWT might be a good candidate for a layout toolkit to run purely from bytecode on the client side. However it cross-compiles Java to Javascript. I don't want things getting cross-compiled from a bytecode compiled language to an interpreted language. They should be written in a compiled language and stay there. The point is to jettison Javascript and to allow a fully featured object-oriented language or language(s) to run inside a secure VM sandbox.
A lot of people will probably tell me they don't want this. One objection(out of possible thousands): They might say it would a lot of people who currently doing web design would be prevented from doing so because of the high barrier to entry of learning a new programming language. My reply would be - in order to develop modern web sites, these people already program, badly, using two or more programming languages. What would be lost in switching them to a good language for the benefits of greater security, more powerful applications, and being able to write solid web applications rather than barely standing constructions made out of the digital equivalent of wood glue and toothpicks.
I'm sure Cappucino is great, and no offense to you, but it seems every time I point out that Javascript is horrible, someone tells me that no, it's not horrible, and all the features that are implemented or emulated by X Y and Z new frameworks, and I go back to Javascript and try those things, it still strikes me as still crufty and horrible. Why did I have to go out and get a framework to implement features that I should already have?
Underdog? Not exactly, anymore. They're competing in different markets, but Microsoft and Apple are now the 2nd and 3rd, or vice versa depending on how you measure it, largest corporations in the world by market cap.
Shuttleworth, as far as i can tell, never planned to make money with Canonical and Ubuntu. He's rich enough to subsidize the two indefinitely. So the fact that Ubuntu might now actually start to generate self-sustaining or even profitable revenues is extra credit, and always was. I think any future changes in the companies are still going to reflect the culture of emphasizing a good, widely deployed Desktop Linux rather than necessarily turning a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Locate their trac where all the open issue tickets are listed.
2) Find an issue that looks like it might be (relatively) easy to solve.
3) Fix it.
4) Create a patch containing your fixes.
5) Submit it to the trac or to the devel list. If it does it what it says it does without introducing any more issues then it will most likely be accepted by the committers and brought into the project.
6) Repeat.
7) ....
8) Don't expect any profit.
Fixing issues like this will accomplish so many things for you. It will force you to become familiar with the source tree, which is about 99% of the work of becoming involved, in my experience, esp. with a large source tree of a large project. It will force you to figure out how to solve problems without much help. It will make you better at solving and thinking about problems. It will improve your knowledge of your language.
On the right most lane, put smart cars. Then in the middle lane put "smart" cars, motorcyclists, and anyone who drives while talking on the cell phone, or texting, or drunk between me and them. I'll be all the way on the left-most lane, thank you very much.
I've been suing my friends because they wouldn't accept my friend requests.
Now, I can expect that the judge will rule that they are legally obligated to friend me, giving me legal access to their profiles.
Rejecting friend requests causes appreciable stress and harm!
Very good. Thank you.
More people should take a longer and more precise view of history, such as yours.People should realize that religion and science are two sides of the same nature, our inquisitive mind, which evolved along with millions of neocortical columns relatively quickly such that we became able to ask such questions as "What the fuck is that?" and "Why am I here?" The same impulse that drives science drives religion . That doesn't make science and religion equivalent as modes of explanation, but it does connect them.
Religion may seem like a silly vestige of prehistorical and ancient mythologizing. It may seem like a leftover piece of our brains that we should have learned to think around by now. But science is no less hardwired into our brains than religion. It's all about explaining experience. Some of us do it more with our left hemisphere than our right hemisphere, and situations where it's not lateralized so neatly blur the line between complete and incomplete explanations even more.
So.....the simpler way doesn't exist, and therefore P != NP
DONE and DONE
God.
I'll modify my position to say this: you are correct that I have no idea whether or not the Pentagon is secretly conspiring to ruin Julian Assange. They might very well be. But I do not think that *this* particular instance is the result of the aforementioned plan. At least one of the accusers in question is allied with Assange politically, and their grievances, while not amounting to rape or the American definition of sexual assault, clearly reveal a certain degree of genuine douchebaggery on the part of Assange.
Remember "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you?" Well, just because powerful interests are trying to ruin your reputation doesn't mean that you can't ruin it yourself and just as efficiently.
Like I said, I think Assange's mission is important, and I respect what he has done in his professional life. However, that doesn't mean that he isn't a front-running douche in his private life. Indeed, as we are seeing more and more, it looks like this is the case. And, sadly for a cause I believe in, it looks like this might do some damage to his public life. Whether he likes it or not he's has been and will continue to be under much, much higher scrutiny than your average subversive - so it's up to him to curb the douchebaggery.
Honestly, the guy sounds like an arrogant prick from all of the WikiLeakiLeaks (should be called WikiLeaksLeaks).
You would have to be somewhat arrogant to make an enemy of so many governments. But I think that this world-wide conspiracy to bring down Assange is more fancy than fact. The Pentagon really doesn't have to conspire to bring Assange down; he is clearly capable of doing that himself. So I'm not sure that his nomadic lifestyle and overly cautious aversion to leaving footprints is warranted. It seems like just another aspect of his narcissism, as well as a means to seduce women.
I still think that Assange is on an important mission, and it would be sad to see that mission fail because Assange was so stupid. Bottom line, this is all so fucking amateurish it's unbelievable. Assange is going to defeat his own purpose merely by being himself.
Ok, then just wait 5 years. Less than a year and a half is still no time at all considering how much people have to change their preconceptions about digital communication to begin to really use it. 40,000 people have signed a petition to keep it around - that's a nice tidy little base of users who think highly enough of it to sign their name, and could no doubt evangelize the product to their friends in the years to come.
It didn't have time to fail. The article correctly points to the fact that e-mail took 40 years to become as widespread as it is today. When it began it was an unrecognizable form of communication, a huge sea-change if it were to ever be adopted. People didn't even really know what computers were, let alone understand networks. Yes, it provided a nice electronic metaphor for the regular mail letter, which let people grasp it more easily. But everything else about it was still fundamentally alien.
But something happened. First people began to get used to email, and then people began to prefer email to communicate. Over the next few decades it spread like wildfire, to the point where now over a billion people use it every day.
Wave didn't even have time to begin such a process. It was announced as a collaboration tool on May 27, 2009. On August 4, 2010 it was canceled. A little more than a year and a half. Compared to 40 years for e-mail?
Give it time to breath. It seems stupid to invest so much money and effort into a product and then drop it if it doesn't acquire a million users right away. I think Google, structurally speaking, might have ADD - it is so used to overnight success that it's not willing to accept a slower rate of adoption, even if the pay off could be huge.
After you posted this , I found a different account of Chris Langton's hang-gliding incident, where he mentions that he observed his own brain repairing itself. Well, this is exactly how I felt as I was getting better. My experience of the world which was incoherent and my thoughts which would hit mental "walls" sort of slowly became more coherent. Thanks for the link.
Yes, it is fascinating. He is a very difficult writer. I am a philosophy student so I have encountered A Critique of Pure Reason many times. He asks the same question, and actually comes up with a form of idealism which provides for the existence of an objective reality and at the same time the forms of experience. What you lose in the exact same movement is a permanent self, or the possibility of knowledge of a permanent self. Since I have trouble locating such a self in my own experience, I find this philosophy very compelling.
I don't doubt that it's possible for a computer to perform the same intelligent tasks a human can. However, no matter how perfectly it performs them, you can still ask, but not answer, the question: Does this machine have subjective experience? If it reports on its own internal states and experiences, and does things which strongly suggest it has those things, then I think you have to treat it, at least ethically, as a conscious being. But knowing for certain is impossible.
"I don't deny there are levels of consciousness, they're just all physical. "
I've had a neurogical disease that affected my level of consciousness, and I can still tell you this question is not nearly as clear cut as you think. I quite certainly believe that all my thoughts and experience originate in my brain, because those were the things that were compromised, or went away, with the disease process, which is physical.
But beyond that, I'm stumped. I can't account for how *I* come to experience my thoughts and sensations. Yes, my brain represents the world in a 3 dimensional mental map - but represents it *to* whom? That sky appears blue. But it appears blue to what?
Furthermore I can't decide whether, when I "woke up" from the illness, I popped back into existence out of nowhere *or* the possibility of my experience was present the entire time, even though my brain wasn't functioning correctly.
There are no certain answers to this question. Anyone who claims they have answered it with any certainty on any side of the issue is mistaken or worse.
This is the hard problem of consciousness, the fundamental problem of consciousness. To repeat: how is subjective awareness, or experience, possible at all? You haven't answered this question.I suspect its out of our epistemological reach because we can never 100% verify that a physical machine which speaks and acts like us is actually conscious, actually has subjective experience. If the machine insists he has experience of pain, or pleasure, do we believe him? From an ethical standpoint, I think we have to. But from an epistemological standpoint we can never really know for sure. Because our qualia are non-substitutable. There is no way to get your experience into my brain - as soon as it enters my brain it becomes my experience.
So if you reduce awareness to a set of physical propositions, you lose the experience of "what it is like." and "what is it like to be me" - That's the other side of the coin, the subjective side. The best we can come up as far as how this is possible - physically or spiritually - is at most a hypothesis and at worst a religious assumption, even if we believe in materialism. If we want to be truly scientific we should begin to view this fundamental question as fundamentally undecidable.
Freedom of expression as a legal right doesn't free you from the social consequences of your expression. If you say something ridiculously offensive to someone in real life, they have just as much right to dislike you - and to tell you they dislike you - for saying what you say. That's on top of their right to criticize you extensively.
This is not a form of government censorship. It is the way we enforce social responsibility. It should never be legislated, but that doesn't mean its wrong.
As for this case, the people who are criticizing the game have just as much right to do so as the people who make the game. I disagree with them, because I think its important for people to see both sides of the war as human beings. But they certainly have a right to feel what they feel and say what they say.
'Because that's going to make far less money in the long run.'
Is it? Microsoft has already basically conceded that Apple has won this round. As Apple very well knows from the early desktop days, once a competitor has a solid lead in the market share it is very, very difficult to get the market back. It seems like whatever Microsoft's offering for this market is, it's probably never going to be as popular as the iPad.
Software is supposed to be Microsoft's main business, not hardware. Producing quality apps for the iPad as well as for various other portable devices that hopefully *other* people make, but which run Windows, would be their best bet, money wise. I haven't been able to see why, for some time now, Microsoft won't just focus on producing good products in one area (software) rather than producing shitty products in lots of areas.
I didn't realize that Jefferson was the only person who took part in the founding.
It seems like there was a deliberate effort, by way of such things as the interstate commerce clause, to leave the exact role of the Federal Government versus the states somewhat elastic. This reflects the differing points of view of those who founded the country.
Jefferson also didn't take into account the effect an illegal secession and resulting civil war would inevitably have on the distribution of power.
I'm not saying one side was right versus the other side was wrong, I'm just saying there's room for interpretation left in the Constitution just in virtue of its collaborative authorship. Obviously, or we wouldn't have nearly as much disagreement.
Well, I certainly think that they will have to follow through now that media coverage has brought them hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it's not going to be vaporware. On the other hand, I've met a couple people who swear they have had a Duke Nukem Forever prototype that was running on their machine for months.
What I don't understand is why everyone was so encouraged to contribute to this project despite the complete lack of experience of its creators and complete lack of a substantive evidence that they are decent programmers on top of the the complete availability of other, similar, more fully conceived projects. These guys are doing everything backwards. At least with that folk musician she already proved she was capable of writing good music on account of having written it before. And while I don't completely doubt these guys' ability to follow through, I do doubt their ability to follow through well. I doubt the wisdom of handing thousands, er, hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who haven't produced squat
If they have and I just missed it, let me know.
This is how the web should be structured in the future. "Pages" can still be written declaratively, just like our interfaces for desktop software can be designed and stored declaratively. However, they can be compiled into bytecode classes that get sent back and forth in serialized form over "HTTP" (or whatever new, stateful protocol someone comes up with.) The browser will become this: A Virtual Machine and a Layout Engine/Server - The VM will "run" the site as bytecode and directly manipulate the site's layout. . This can still look and feel very much like the web today.
But under this paradigm, you can write your apps all in one language, be it Java or any other language. After all, there's no reason VM bytecode couldn't be generated from any number of languages, just like Java bytecode today. If you want you can, as I said, still declare your user interface in HTML and "connect" them to actions on the client or server side or as outlets to Java classes. This will also allow transparent server-client interaction - methods can be moved from the server to the client at will, also making offline browsing more flexible.
People might point out that you can already write your application in one language using GWT. Yes, GWT might be a good candidate for a layout toolkit to run purely from bytecode on the client side. However it cross-compiles Java to Javascript. I don't want things getting cross-compiled from a bytecode compiled language to an interpreted language. They should be written in a compiled language and stay there. The point is to jettison Javascript and to allow a fully featured object-oriented language or language(s) to run inside a secure VM sandbox.
A lot of people will probably tell me they don't want this. One objection(out of possible thousands): They might say it would a lot of people who currently doing web design would be prevented from doing so because of the high barrier to entry of learning a new programming language. My reply would be - in order to develop modern web sites, these people already program, badly, using two or more programming languages. What would be lost in switching them to a good language for the benefits of greater security, more powerful applications, and being able to write solid web applications rather than barely standing constructions made out of the digital equivalent of wood glue and toothpicks.
I'm sure Cappucino is great, and no offense to you, but it seems every time I point out that Javascript is horrible, someone tells me that no, it's not horrible, and all the features that are implemented or emulated by X Y and Z new frameworks, and I go back to Javascript and try those things, it still strikes me as still crufty and horrible. Why did I have to go out and get a framework to implement features that I should already have?
Underdog? Not exactly, anymore. They're competing in different markets, but Microsoft and Apple are now the 2nd and 3rd, or vice versa depending on how you measure it, largest corporations in the world by market cap.
On the other points, I agree.
It's amazing the effect that one creepy girl can have on a share price.
Seriously. That last one is the worst. Using a phone is like the transmigration of souls?
Boo. In fairness, it's not the girl's fault at all.
I usually like to have evidence before I suspect the worst in someone.
Shuttleworth, as far as i can tell, never planned to make money with Canonical and Ubuntu. He's rich enough to subsidize the two indefinitely. So the fact that Ubuntu might now actually start to generate self-sustaining or even profitable revenues is extra credit, and always was. I think any future changes in the companies are still going to reflect the culture of emphasizing a good, widely deployed Desktop Linux rather than necessarily turning a profit.