I think the actual mathematics are pretty much unaffected by all the cruft. I know that experts did the math on the HP calculators (I've met some of those people, I think I worked with some of those people). Experts also did fdlibm, also did gdtoa, and they've been extensively tested. If you go open source, gcc is pretty good on arithmetic (because it is used and tested by many people, including math weenies).
Interesting thing is, this does not argue for hacking your calculator at all, because "hacking" is at least as bad as "cruft" in terms of introducing unreliability. If you fear the cruft, you should fear the hacking, too. The testing required to get this stuff right is non-intuitive, and I actually am an expert.
Just FYI, I am pretty sure they make specialized calculators for surveyors, even tougher than HP equipment. A friend of mine worked on them, one of the amusing problems he described was waking the device up from 40 below. (Wake up with a slow clock, figure out the temperature, based on that, slowly boost the clock rate as the batteries warm up from the current draw).
And though I have never worked as a surveyor, I HAVE been paid to hack through a swamp with a machete, so that my parents would not need to pay the surveyors 5x what they were paying me for the very same work. I would also use an HP calculator for that, which does affirm the usefulness and durability of HP calculators, but doesn't exactly support complaints of "I can't hack my TI calculator".
My "dumb phone" includes a calculator. It's clunky, but it's there, and it's already paid for. It's possible to own a dumber phone (Moto F1, e.g.) but you don't get a discount for extra stupid phones.
This is the same logic that has the TSA harassing people who complain too much about their crotch feel and nudie photos -- because everyone knows, that's how we catch all the terrorists.
Rule #1: be sure to leave your job (apparently) graciously, if you leave any backdoors for later (am)use.
Which is why it should get a +5 Funny, because it's win-win -- either it's funny and deserves the accolades, or seriously crazed, and deserves to be mocked.
Keeping in mind that all this discussion is in the context of that high-performance language, JavaScript:-). People are willing to trade away performance for other things, including fewer unpleasant surprises.
In addition, I recall from my very checkered past, real live numerical analyst types seriously considering the possibility of using constructive reals to calculate error bounds after a floating point matrix calculation. The reason is that the number of "cheap" FP operations is O(N-cubed), but the error computation is O(N-squared), and calculating exactly buys you some additional precision. We had, I recall, a Fortran interpreter, running on a Sun-2, connecting over ethernet (the original ethernet, with terminators and vampire taps) to a constructive reals engine running on a Vax 11/750 (because it was written in a language not yet ported to the Sun).
How sure are you that you really do need to know that? 1/3 and 2/3 are rational numbers, we can represent them exactly, and make the identity work. That's one way around the problem. Another way around the problem is to always emit a warning when the = and != operations are seen applied to floats (this won't solve all problems -- is 1/3+2/3 less than 1?).
People get extraordinarily comfortable with their status quo, and assume not only that that is how the world works, but that is how the world MUST work. It ain't necessarily so.
Yeah, but if you're designing a language, people like that are going to be using it. If your language design can help confused people (i.e., most people) avoid "stupid" (i.e., human, common) errors, that's a win.
Because otherwise, it devolves down to one of those stupid "real men spray III's and V's onto Si" pissing contests.
Yes, but (speaking as a language designer and implementer, and this problem is a big one) you more or less admit that the program doesn't stand on its own ("Good old pointer diagrams make it clear"). One problem with programming languages is that they are often designed by compiler writers or interpreter writers, for whom such pointy data structures are ever-so-useful, but in the so-called real world, by-value is much more often the case. "Value" is also much more useful when you set out to do things in non-micro-managed parallel; anything shared and mutable gives you the ability to observe Before and After, and sometimes your program depends on that.
I note that the time you spend driving to work is worth nothing, so you should have no problems with the time it takes to ride a bike 7 miles to the shopping area:-).
Seriously, it's not just the cost of gasoline. You ought to be able to get a reduction on your auto insurance for the lower miles. It's not linear in distance, but it's not complete chickenfeed. If you made the effort to ride a bike whenever possible (and "possible" will expand as you spend more time on the bike) you will get a minor collateral benefit of much-improved health and physical fitness. Surely, that is worth something. Not even starting your truck some days each week, will do a lot to prolong its life, especially if you can avoid driving the little crappy trips that bikes do best.
It is probably a bit of a stretch, but a bike with an E-assist, should make those 7 miles pretty tolerable. A good cargo bike with e-assist is expensive for a bike, but really really cheap compared to a Prius, and if it takes you from 20% of trips by bike, to 80% of trips by bike, it might be worth it (it helps a lot that you're driving a truck; my car is a 18-year-old Honda Civic with busted power steering, speedometer, and AC).
How far, what city? Seriously, people are awfully quick to dismiss bikes ("are you kidding?") -- I can't tell if you're talking about a 10-mile commute, or a 30-mile commute. And yes, past a point, your only option is car.
References for your claims, please. What I've read suggests that gas taxes do not cover the expenses of maintaining and operating the roads (Road Work, Brookings Institution). In addition, the mass transit where I live not only runs full, when they plan to work on the Longfellow Bridge, they will close car lanes to keep the subway line running, because it has higher capacity and carries more people. Where mass transit works, if it were not for mass transit, we would need far more roads (expensive eminent domain) or have worse traffic jams (Boston, famous for its smooth and polite traffic) or perhaps all switch to bicycles, Chinese style (works for me, but not for most people).
I am told, also, by a colleague, eminent computer scientist, MIT grad, and long-time area resident, that the T in Boston appears to be carrying as many people as it can at rush hour -- the trains are as long as the platforms, and they appear to be running on minimum headway. Acela between Boston and NYC appears to cover its operating costs (not sure about debt service), charges a relatively high price for a ticket (there are busses that are much cheaper), and on the days that I have taken it, runs full or nearly so.
And you know, if everyone decided to try as hard as they could, for one month, to not burn much gasoline, those speculators would probably lose their shirts. Car pool, ride a bike, hypermile, check your tire inflation, do whatever it takes. Even, try to run your gas tank always less than half full (we store a lot of gasoline in our tanks and drive it around). The success of their speculation depends on continuing levels of consumption, they are heavily leveraged. Talk is cheap.
Where do you get these crazy ideas about "cities"? I live in a place that is not-quite-urban, that has adequate density for mass transit, walking, and cycling (the area matches Dutch towns and cities with about 50% bike ride share). Not a lot of shooting.
And as it happens, the correlation between lack of exercise and early death is huge, and it is actually more dangerous (as near as I can tell, looking at the numbers) to not get enough exercise (i.e., driving everywhere) than it is to not just live in a city, but to live in a the US cities with the highest murder rates. You might die from a non-violent heart attack instead of a stray bullet, but dead is dead, and truckloads of people die from heart disease (and stroke, and complications of diabetes, and cancers that are negatively correlated with exercise) than from violent causes.
You can do whatever works for you. For a population, the health benefits of riding a bike are solidly positive, and you want a bunch of bike commuters in your insurance pool (it's correlated with 28% lower mortality; who knows, maybe exercise IS good for you after all). Based on an unscientific survey of my friends with bad knees, bike riding is usually, but not always, good for your knees.
You also miss my point -- it's not necessarily you, personally, with your 2 kids, crap knees, and horrible commute, that should be encouraged to ride a bike; it is people in general. The median commute is far shorter than yours. Driving has external costs that biking does not, and demanding that cyclists also be taxed a $1.50 per year to account for road wear is insane, given transaction costs, and all the external non-costs (relative to driving, that are not taxed as a part of driving) of riding a bike.
As to your specific "how do I X on a bike", well, YOU don't, because you have crap knees. If you didn't have bad knees, I would recommend a cargo bike; you can easily carry two small kids, you can easily carry a pile of groceries. For groceries, I might recommend a long-John design like a Metrofiets or a CETMAcargo. My bike is a longtail (Big Dummy) and I do most of the grocery shopping on it, but I shop several times per week, usually on the way home from work.
Where do you ride busses? Cop-less busses do fine in the Boston area. My kids have taken mass transit (busses and subway) into Boston, not a problem. Just this morning I read that T ridership is up 5%, year-on-year.
Mass transit won't work everyone, I'll give you that, but lots of people live in places where it will work (density works that way, after all). But for me, I usually prefer a bike; more flexible, more exercise, often faster. If I had a longer commute, I would just add an electric assist.
Of course, over the years we've had varying tax rates, and varying rates of (inflation-adjusted) economic growth. Plot the data from 1950-2009, and you see that highest-marginal tax rates are not a large factor in economic growth (in fact, you see a weak positive correlation between tax rates and economic growth).
It is surely complicated, I will grant you that, which is why I always like to check theory, with data.
By-the-way, what makes you think you know how other people think? I can't speak for other people, but I don't think that's a good way to start a civil discussion.
Almost. Ideally, you'd want heavier vehicles to pay a substantially higher fuel tax. Damage-to-road increases much more quickly than weight of vehicle. This avoids the GPS tracking, but does add to the opportunities for gaming the system. And the tax should go up fast, because it's sum-of-cubic in wheel weights (so a 6000lb car, does 27x the damage of a 2000lb car).
This cannot be right. The excise tax is proportional to the value of the car, which has nothing to do with the miles that I drive it. I suppose I should track down the chapter-and-verse from the MGLs, but when we bought a newer nicer car for my wife, I was really surprised at how much higher the tax was.
The taxes should be the product of miles times the sum of the cubes of the per-wheel loads, with some minor adjustments for speed. If you compare, say, a Honda Civic (4 wheels x 250kg/wheel) with a typical bicycle (2 wheels x 50kg/wheel), you get 250x less damage per mile traveled, and bikes are typically not ridden as much as cars are driven. This is not going to be a large number. Furthermore, there are other externalities to consider, that either need to be charged to the car, or rewarded to the bicycle. Relative to a car, a bike gets you:
Lower CO2 emissions (even including cost of producing food, for typical diets).
Less noise pollution.
Reduced danger to other road users and abutters.
No wars fought to ensure fuel supply.
Reduced need for parking spaces.
The health benefits of riding a bike are not exactly external, but they are underappreciated, and they are large (much larger than the risk from crashing). To the extent that we are all share insurance pools, you want other people in your pool to ride a bike, because it ought to save you money.
I've looked at this also, one apparently scholarly source Road Work mentions the 4th-power rules, but then asserts that it is really only the cube. Either way, it's a big number. Road Work is all about setting an appropriate tax policy for maintaining roads; they advocate taxing trucks more, but spending that money to build more durable roads (that minimizes the total based-on-damage tax).
Spoof IP by breaking in to your "secure" wireless, and then going out through the router and broadband connection that is "yours". Incriminating bits are seen on "your" connection. The point, made several times above, is that secure wireless, isn't very secure.
Whether illegal content fiends (ICFs) are really going to go to all the trouble of signal-boosting and WEP/WPA-cracking and MAC spoofing, I do not know. etc, I do not know. I think there are several probabilities in play. There are two situations to consider. In one, you have a "secured" wireless. There's a small set of ICFs savvy enough to break in anyway. In the event that they do, in the event that "they" (their probes, your broadband connection) are caught, your defense is much more difficult. There's a larger set merely looking for an open network. There's a higher chance they'll use your open net, but your defense should be somewhat easier, though your ISP may later yank your account for TOS violations.
There's a subset of the open-net crowd, those who are also willing to use a net named "All Connections Logged to Law Enforcement", instead of thinking "maybe I'll look elsewhere". You can make that set smaller by interposing a "welcome" splash page, that forces interaction, and lets them know all the information from their browser that you have ALREADY recorded (which, as we know, is considerable) -- that should cause a fair number of people to decide that this is not worth the trouble, and look elsewhere.
Friend of mine (who studies this in rats) is a super-duper fan of aerobic exercise AND weight training; says it makes your muscles better at burning sugar, less likely to become insulin resistant.
Keep in mind, there's imbalance, and imbalance. You get a little low, you just feel crappy and don't do as well -- not compatible with peak athletic performance. I remember the very place and time I decided that gatorade was not the piss that it resembled -- 40 miles into a century, the sag van pulled up, said "you look a little parched, would you like a drink". "Sure, I hate that stuff, but I'm thirsty", and I drained the bottle, and it felt wonderful. This was a ride where we would drink from whatever exterior faucet we might find, where we would seek out the candy at the 7-11 with the most sugar per dollar, and where when you peed, it was almost syrupy (thus the motivation to drink from whatever faucet you could find).
If you get much more low, you feel terrible. I *think* once, I got specifically very low on sodium, after a bicycle race, in Florida (i.e., a sweat-fest). Riding home in the backseat of a car, I started to have an incredible headache. Tried resting, tried closing eyes, tried aspirin, eventually another guy in the car said "maybe you need some salt, here, have a [potato] chip". And the chip hit my tongue, and NaCl is not a large complex molecule, and I remember that I felt better before it was even in my stomach. Hard to believe it was really that fast, but it fixed it fast. If that correlation wasn't causation, and I don't know what is.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the actual mathematics are pretty much unaffected by all the cruft. I know that experts did the math on the HP calculators (I've met some of those people, I think I worked with some of those people). Experts also did fdlibm, also did gdtoa, and they've been extensively tested. If you go open source, gcc is pretty good on arithmetic (because it is used and tested by many people, including math weenies).
Interesting thing is, this does not argue for hacking your calculator at all, because "hacking" is at least as bad as "cruft" in terms of introducing unreliability. If you fear the cruft, you should fear the hacking, too. The testing required to get this stuff right is non-intuitive, and I actually am an expert.
The OS designed-or-not for mathematics is not compelling. fdlibm, good stuff.
Just FYI, I am pretty sure they make specialized calculators for surveyors, even tougher than HP equipment. A friend of mine worked on them, one of the amusing problems he described was waking the device up from 40 below. (Wake up with a slow clock, figure out the temperature, based on that, slowly boost the clock rate as the batteries warm up from the current draw).
And though I have never worked as a surveyor, I HAVE been paid to hack through a swamp with a machete, so that my parents would not need to pay the surveyors 5x what they were paying me for the very same work. I would also use an HP calculator for that, which does affirm the usefulness and durability of HP calculators, but doesn't exactly support complaints of "I can't hack my TI calculator".
My "dumb phone" includes a calculator. It's clunky, but it's there, and it's already paid for. It's possible to own a dumber phone (Moto F1, e.g.) but you don't get a discount for extra stupid phones.
This is the same logic that has the TSA harassing people who complain too much about their crotch feel and nudie photos -- because everyone knows, that's how we catch all the terrorists.
Rule #1: be sure to leave your job (apparently) graciously, if you leave any backdoors for later (am)use.
Which is why it should get a +5 Funny, because it's win-win -- either it's funny and deserves the accolades, or seriously crazed, and deserves to be mocked.
Keeping in mind that all this discussion is in the context of that high-performance language, JavaScript :-). People are willing to trade away performance for other things, including fewer unpleasant surprises.
In addition, I recall from my very checkered past, real live numerical analyst types seriously considering the possibility of using constructive reals to calculate error bounds after a floating point matrix calculation. The reason is that the number of "cheap" FP operations is O(N-cubed), but the error computation is O(N-squared), and calculating exactly buys you some additional precision. We had, I recall, a Fortran interpreter, running on a Sun-2, connecting over ethernet (the original ethernet, with terminators and vampire taps) to a constructive reals engine running on a Vax 11/750 (because it was written in a language not yet ported to the Sun).
How sure are you that you really do need to know that? 1/3 and 2/3 are rational numbers, we can represent them exactly, and make the identity work. That's one way around the problem. Another way around the problem is to always emit a warning when the = and != operations are seen applied to floats (this won't solve all problems -- is 1/3+2/3 less than 1?).
People get extraordinarily comfortable with their status quo, and assume not only that that is how the world works, but that is how the world MUST work. It ain't necessarily so.
Yeah, but if you're designing a language, people like that are going to be using it. If your language design can help confused people (i.e., most people) avoid "stupid" (i.e., human, common) errors, that's a win.
Because otherwise, it devolves down to one of those stupid "real men spray III's and V's onto Si" pissing contests.
Yes, but (speaking as a language designer and implementer, and this problem is a big one) you more or less admit that the program doesn't stand on its own ("Good old pointer diagrams make it clear"). One problem with programming languages is that they are often designed by compiler writers or interpreter writers, for whom such pointy data structures are ever-so-useful, but in the so-called real world, by-value is much more often the case. "Value" is also much more useful when you set out to do things in non-micro-managed parallel; anything shared and mutable gives you the ability to observe Before and After, and sometimes your program depends on that.
I note that the time you spend driving to work is worth nothing, so you should have no problems with the time it takes to ride a bike 7 miles to the shopping area :-).
Seriously, it's not just the cost of gasoline. You ought to be able to get a reduction on your auto insurance for the lower miles. It's not linear in distance, but it's not complete chickenfeed. If you made the effort to ride a bike whenever possible (and "possible" will expand as you spend more time on the bike) you will get a minor collateral benefit of much-improved health and physical fitness. Surely, that is worth something. Not even starting your truck some days each week, will do a lot to prolong its life, especially if you can avoid driving the little crappy trips that bikes do best.
It is probably a bit of a stretch, but a bike with an E-assist, should make those 7 miles pretty tolerable. A good cargo bike with e-assist is expensive for a bike, but really really cheap compared to a Prius, and if it takes you from 20% of trips by bike, to 80% of trips by bike, it might be worth it (it helps a lot that you're driving a truck; my car is a 18-year-old Honda Civic with busted power steering, speedometer, and AC).
How far, what city? Seriously, people are awfully quick to dismiss bikes ("are you kidding?") -- I can't tell if you're talking about a 10-mile commute, or a 30-mile commute. And yes, past a point, your only option is car.
References for your claims, please. What I've read suggests that gas taxes do not cover the expenses of maintaining and operating the roads (Road Work, Brookings Institution). In addition, the mass transit where I live not only runs full, when they plan to work on the Longfellow Bridge, they will close car lanes to keep the subway line running, because it has higher capacity and carries more people. Where mass transit works, if it were not for mass transit, we would need far more roads (expensive eminent domain) or have worse traffic jams (Boston, famous for its smooth and polite traffic) or perhaps all switch to bicycles, Chinese style (works for me, but not for most people).
I am told, also, by a colleague, eminent computer scientist, MIT grad, and long-time area resident, that the T in Boston appears to be carrying as many people as it can at rush hour -- the trains are as long as the platforms, and they appear to be running on minimum headway. Acela between Boston and NYC appears to cover its operating costs (not sure about debt service), charges a relatively high price for a ticket (there are busses that are much cheaper), and on the days that I have taken it, runs full or nearly so.
And you know, if everyone decided to try as hard as they could, for one month, to not burn much gasoline, those speculators would probably lose their shirts. Car pool, ride a bike, hypermile, check your tire inflation, do whatever it takes. Even, try to run your gas tank always less than half full (we store a lot of gasoline in our tanks and drive it around). The success of their speculation depends on continuing levels of consumption, they are heavily leveraged. Talk is cheap.
Where do you get these crazy ideas about "cities"? I live in a place that is not-quite-urban, that has adequate density for mass transit, walking, and cycling (the area matches Dutch towns and cities with about 50% bike ride share). Not a lot of shooting.
And as it happens, the correlation between lack of exercise and early death is huge, and it is actually more dangerous (as near as I can tell, looking at the numbers) to not get enough exercise (i.e., driving everywhere) than it is to not just live in a city, but to live in a the US cities with the highest murder rates. You might die from a non-violent heart attack instead of a stray bullet, but dead is dead, and truckloads of people die from heart disease (and stroke, and complications of diabetes, and cancers that are negatively correlated with exercise) than from violent causes.
You can do whatever works for you. For a population, the health benefits of riding a bike are solidly positive, and you want a bunch of bike commuters in your insurance pool (it's correlated with 28% lower mortality; who knows, maybe exercise IS good for you after all). Based on an unscientific survey of my friends with bad knees, bike riding is usually, but not always, good for your knees.
You also miss my point -- it's not necessarily you, personally, with your 2 kids, crap knees, and horrible commute, that should be encouraged to ride a bike; it is people in general. The median commute is far shorter than yours. Driving has external costs that biking does not, and demanding that cyclists also be taxed a $1.50 per year to account for road wear is insane, given transaction costs, and all the external non-costs (relative to driving, that are not taxed as a part of driving) of riding a bike.
As to your specific "how do I X on a bike", well, YOU don't, because you have crap knees. If you didn't have bad knees, I would recommend a cargo bike; you can easily carry two small kids, you can easily carry a pile of groceries. For groceries, I might recommend a long-John design like a Metrofiets or a CETMAcargo. My bike is a longtail (Big Dummy) and I do most of the grocery shopping on it, but I shop several times per week, usually on the way home from work.
Where do you ride busses? Cop-less busses do fine in the Boston area. My kids have taken mass transit (busses and subway) into Boston, not a problem. Just this morning I read that T ridership is up 5%, year-on-year.
Mass transit won't work everyone, I'll give you that, but lots of people live in places where it will work (density works that way, after all). But for me, I usually prefer a bike; more flexible, more exercise, often faster. If I had a longer commute, I would just add an electric assist.
Of course, over the years we've had varying tax rates, and varying rates of (inflation-adjusted) economic growth. Plot the data from 1950-2009, and you see that highest-marginal tax rates are not a large factor in economic growth (in fact, you see a weak positive correlation between tax rates and economic growth).
It is surely complicated, I will grant you that, which is why I always like to check theory, with data.
By-the-way, what makes you think you know how other people think? I can't speak for other people, but I don't think that's a good way to start a civil discussion.
Almost. Ideally, you'd want heavier vehicles to pay a substantially higher fuel tax. Damage-to-road increases much more quickly than weight of vehicle. This avoids the GPS tracking, but does add to the opportunities for gaming the system. And the tax should go up fast, because it's sum-of-cubic in wheel weights (so a 6000lb car, does 27x the damage of a 2000lb car).
This cannot be right. The excise tax is proportional to the value of the car, which has nothing to do with the miles that I drive it. I suppose I should track down the chapter-and-verse from the MGLs, but when we bought a newer nicer car for my wife, I was really surprised at how much higher the tax was.
The health benefits of riding a bike are not exactly external, but they are underappreciated, and they are large (much larger than the risk from crashing). To the extent that we are all share insurance pools, you want other people in your pool to ride a bike, because it ought to save you money.
I've looked at this also, one apparently scholarly source Road Work mentions the 4th-power rules, but then asserts that it is really only the cube. Either way, it's a big number. Road Work is all about setting an appropriate tax policy for maintaining roads; they advocate taxing trucks more, but spending that money to build more durable roads (that minimizes the total based-on-damage tax).
Spoof IP by breaking in to your "secure" wireless, and then going out through the router and broadband connection that is "yours". Incriminating bits are seen on "your" connection. The point, made several times above, is that secure wireless, isn't very secure.
Whether illegal content fiends (ICFs) are really going to go to all the trouble of signal-boosting and WEP/WPA-cracking and MAC spoofing, I do not know. etc, I do not know. I think there are several probabilities in play. There are two situations to consider. In one, you have a "secured" wireless. There's a small set of ICFs savvy enough to break in anyway. In the event that they do, in the event that "they" (their probes, your broadband connection) are caught, your defense is much more difficult. There's a larger set merely looking for an open network. There's a higher chance they'll use your open net, but your defense should be somewhat easier, though your ISP may later yank your account for TOS violations.
There's a subset of the open-net crowd, those who are also willing to use a net named "All Connections Logged to Law Enforcement", instead of thinking "maybe I'll look elsewhere". You can make that set smaller by interposing a "welcome" splash page, that forces interaction, and lets them know all the information from their browser that you have ALREADY recorded (which, as we know, is considerable) -- that should cause a fair number of people to decide that this is not worth the trouble, and look elsewhere.
Friend of mine (who studies this in rats) is a super-duper fan of aerobic exercise AND weight training; says it makes your muscles better at burning sugar, less likely to become insulin resistant.
Keep in mind, there's imbalance, and imbalance. You get a little low, you just feel crappy and don't do as well -- not compatible with peak athletic performance. I remember the very place and time I decided that gatorade was not the piss that it resembled -- 40 miles into a century, the sag van pulled up, said "you look a little parched, would you like a drink". "Sure, I hate that stuff, but I'm thirsty", and I drained the bottle, and it felt wonderful. This was a ride where we would drink from whatever exterior faucet we might find, where we would seek out the candy at the 7-11 with the most sugar per dollar, and where when you peed, it was almost syrupy (thus the motivation to drink from whatever faucet you could find).
If you get much more low, you feel terrible. I *think* once, I got specifically very low on sodium, after a bicycle race, in Florida (i.e., a sweat-fest). Riding home in the backseat of a car, I started to have an incredible headache. Tried resting, tried closing eyes, tried aspirin, eventually another guy in the car said "maybe you need some salt, here, have a [potato] chip". And the chip hit my tongue, and NaCl is not a large complex molecule, and I remember that I felt better before it was even in my stomach. Hard to believe it was really that fast, but it fixed it fast. If that correlation wasn't causation, and I don't know what is.