This is a profoundly incorrect assertion. Maybe, sure, techgeeks and other people who are allergic to this kind of stuff would use it, but everyone else? No way. And would you really use a browser that blocked gmail? Do you really think everyone else would?
You raise a really good point that gets ignored often.
As a startup, you're fighting not just for money and customers, but also talent. Speaking as your typical tech person in the bay area, I'll say that the place is lousy with startups doing interesting tech work where I could solve interesting problems, and it's full with a plethora of places that will pay me well. One thing that I consider in companies is their moral and ethical profile. I work where I work because, irrespective of the crazy wages and the problems, I feel like it leads the way in ethical and humane management of high-performance engineers, and its approach to its customers is transparent and ethical. I wouldn't work for a company I considered evil, or whose execs I had serious ethical problems with -- and Uber falls into that category.
Summary: Not appearing like you're ethical will noticeably impact your ability to compete for talent.
Sadly, I suspect that what will happen if this becomes real is that the difference in hassle will be eliminated by implementing TSA-like processes for boarding trains.
It's worth noting that this isn't always the manager's fault. A bunch of companies look for their managers to do both the classic people management stuff and the technical leadership stuff. I interviewed at Facebook some time ago, for example; FB tries to create heterogeneous engineering teams with widely disparate levels of technical expertise. While the more experienced engineers are expected to provide some technical mentoring to the engineers, most of the responsibility seems to be expected to fall to the manager, so the manager has to provide technical leadership to the team, in various degrees based on which team member they're dealing with. Once you open the door to "the manager knows best sometimes," I think it makes it much harder to know where to draw the line.
My company seems to have gotten to the point of doing this reasonably well -- in the last 18 months or so, I saw three individual contributors (IC) get promoted to manager, and then within 3-6 months decide the job wasn't for them. In all cases, the general perception from around them was admiration they were introspective enough to realize this, and happiness they'd decide to go back to IC instead of leaving (I've also seen at least one case of someone promoted to management, who didn't realize he wasn't into management until another company offered him an IC position, at which point he jumped ship. I was sad about that).
It helps to work in an environment where there are no formalized payscales that are affected by the mgmt/IC choice -- typical managers here get paid somewhere around the average for their team's salaries, so it's not like you're going to get an automatic raise if you go to management, nor get a pay cut if you go back to being an IC.
(That said, an important distinction here is that this was driven by the new managers' own decisions. I suspect that if they were terrible, but decided they were happy being managers and clawed onto the role with all their might, the only way we'd have dislodged them would have been through more... traditional means).
I manage a group of engineers; I've spent about half of my career being an IC engineer and half managing engineers, and it's been intertwined -- in this company, I started off as an IC, then became a manager, moved to another group as an IC, then became a manager. When my boss proposed to me that I manage the group I manage today, I declined because I didn't think I was technically competent enough -- I'd never actually built the huge, scalable, systems they built, and I knew they could run laps around me.
Eventually, he persuaded me to take the position, with my team's consent. On my first day with my team I sat down with each person in the team and literally my first question to each of them was "What's my job around here?" And they told me they didn't need or want someone to review or approve their technical decisions -- when they had doubt, they talked with each other. They wanted someone to help them understand our customers a little better, and that's why they wanted me.
Generally speaking, I figure my job is to act as a retention aid (my presence around should make my engineers want to stick around more than if I wasn't around) and doing whatever the hell my team needs done that engineers don't want to do. I have technical opinions, sure, and sometimes I even disagree with my engineers. And they do whatever they think is the right thing to do. I think about 80% of the time we disagree, they're right.
I'm good at some things; I'm bad at others. I wonder if the issue is not whether or not a manager is technically competent, but whether or not a manager is competent in the area in which that manager actually spends their time, and their team expects them to spend their time.
I'm not doubting or challenging you, but I'm interested in knowing about your 1U 136TB SSD servers. Can you suggest some specs?
The highest-density boxes I get to have some familiarity with are Netflix's OpenConnect caches, described at https://openconnect.itp.netfli... -- where it's mentioned that they fit 36 6TB drives in a 2U chassis, for a total of 216TB, or 108TB/U. You're beating that, and with SSDs, which is... impressive.
I have about nine engineers working for me. I appreciate the work they do, and -- as someone who's a vastly less qualified engineer than they are -- deeply respect and admire their skills.
At my company, my job as a manager is defined to be all about attracting and retaining great engineers, and giving them context (and then they figure out what they're going to do with that context). So retaining them is, quite simply, my job.
That said, these engineers don't _belong_ to me or my company. They're human beings, and if I want them to work for me I should be willing and able to compete for them every. single. day. And that means that I don't win by making it harder for them to know what's out there in the job market that's better than the job they've got here -- I win by making this job the bast damned job they could want.
Trying to keep recruiters away from my engineers as a way to have a lock on them feels oddly similar to Apple suing Samsung to not have their competing product on the market.
What I love about this is that when people on this thread post about the crappy quality of content produced by the entertainment industry -- as a way to explain why it's obscene that they're trying to charge for it -- they get modded up. And when people describe that content as something that sharing of which creates a "huge benefit to soceity by allowing information to... inspire and educate" they get modded up.
"Guardians of the Galaxy is Grade-B superhero trash! That will inspire and educate future generations!"
The abstract case, of course, is "comments critical of the entertainment industry and efforts to control unpaid distribution of their work get modded up."
Of course, given what we're talking about here, the truth is that he DOES want to see the latest obscure Marvel comic book character get regurgitated into some shitty action movie, followed by a dozen sequels and reboots.
It's just that, because he thinks it's in that magic sweet spot of "shitty enough I don't want to pay for it," and "good enough I want to see it," he thinks it's OK for him to see it for free.
I work for a tech company that, for exactly this reason, tends to hire people who've never recruited before into its recruiting group -- that way, they're less likely to be broken (we also consider hiring managers responsible for recruiting, and recruiters don't have any technical conversations with candidates).
That said, I'm not all that opposed to blacklists, and I know that we use them ourselves. If you interview with us and make profoundly idiotic statements (I was once in a hiring loop where the candidate told the recruiter, an Asian-American woman, that he'd never hire an Asian woman because they're too diffident. After a moment's pause, he then amended to note that it wasn't that he was sexist -- he wouldn't hire an Asian-American man, either) I don't see a huge reason why we'd want to bring you in, ever again, for another position.
Reductively, you could argue the same about hiring managers (their goal in life is to increase company profits) and candidates (their goal in life is to get paid so they can do whatever the hell else they actually want to do in life they enjoy).
In general, though, it seems like people -- at least the lucky ones -- end up gravitating toward doing something for their job that they feel some sort of calling for, and I've worked with enough recruiters who actually enjoyed and found fulfillment in what they saw as the higher calling of finding people the perfect job that I wouldn't discount this actually happens and, further, that the very best ones are the very best because they are passionate about it.
I give a lot of presentations, both internal to my company and at conferences. Writing presentations is easy, and results in the issues you raised (and many others). Writing GOOD presentations is much harder, and takes a lot more effort.
For me, I find the key to making a presentation that my audience will value is exactly that -- the audience. I try to figure out what it is my audience wants to learn and hear about. I'm not there to talk about whatever the hell it is I want to talk about -- I'm there to communicate something that's going to make a difference for the people in the audience (and, given audience focus, I also make sure I practice my presentations well enough that I know how long they'll take and I MAKE SURE to leave time for questions. Presenters who run out of time are just lazy).
I think presentations are like writing code -- in the end, it's really up to the author, most of the material out there is bad, and the editor (whether vim, emacs, Sublime Text, Atom, IntelliJ, or pick your favorite IDE) has little to do with the quality of the product. At most, and at best, the presentation software makes the mechanical effort a little easier.
Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye
on
Dell Demos 5K Display
·
· Score: 1
I got this display -- Asus PB287Q -- for work. It's been absolutely delightful.
That said, I found that at the distance I'm sitting -- about 24" from the display -- The full 4K resolution was way too high and made me have to upscale things pretty regularly. I downgraded to the second-highest resolution (~3200 instead of ~3800 on the horizontal) and it's delightfully usable, and gives me SO MUCH more real estate than the previous monitor (27" Apple Cinema Display -- the standard for my workplace).
One word of warning: On a MacBook Pro Retina, I found that powering via HDMI got me the resolution, but only 30Hz (which for programming I don't care about in the last); my MBPR was a circa-2012 model. when I upgraded to a 2014 model I found that going directly via the DP port (via a mini-DP-to-fullsize-DP cable) let me get 60Hz. Which, still, I don't care about all that much:)
It's an artifact of how Netflix does OSS: If you're the engineer who open-sources a product, you're the person who names the product. Sometimes that works better than others:)
I work at Netflix (and manage a software development group).
The general approach to OSS can generally be summarized as "if it's not core product (algorithms, recommendations, etc), why haven't you open-sourced it yet?"
It's one of the (very many) nice parts of the job.
He's really not. Right now, for example, he mostly works on a Chromebook. At least that's what he's usually on when I see him working in the kitchen*.
(I work at Netflix)
* Reed doesn't have an office / cubicle / set location, so he tends to work either in a common area or in a random conference room until you kick him out because you reserved the room
1. Their internal motto was, in fact, "go fast and break stuff"; I know this first-hand because I talked with them about that at my interview back in February, where they mentioned that they've changed to "go fast and be bold" because, in fact, they were trying to lower incidents of availability hits;
2. 20+ years of tech industry experience here, and I was totally ready to be interviewed by some snot-nosed kid. What I got instead was an interview panel whose average tech industry tenure was around 17 years. I was, uniformly, impressed with the caliber of the people I met with there -- they verged from "pretty decent" in one case, to "pretty great" in all but two other cases, to "I'd take a $10K pay cut to work with this person" for the last two people. I was pretty surprised, and delighted.
How does confirming the domain's identity automatically solve this problem?
If someone from the gxail.com domain sends me email (let's assume here the 'x' is some weird Cyrillic character that looks just like an 'm'), any automated confirmation of the domain's validity would not do some sort of eyeball check "Oh, that looks like gmail.com, let's confirm if it is, oops it isn't..." but rather an automated "did that email come from gxail.com? Yup, sure did."
Even if you popped up a notice that said "hey, I don't know about that domain," the typical user -- heck, I'd argue even the typical Slashdot user -- would go "weird, looks like it lost creds for it" and click whatever the equivalent of "Oh well" button the notice had.
Probably because, we expect, that Slashdot readers are generally comfortable enough with elementary math to be able to either multiply $1300 by 3 ($3900) or 4 ($5200), or has easy access to a calculator.
Netflix raised prices back in May; existing customers are grandfathered in for a while (when prices went up in Ireland, customers were grandfathered for two years). More at http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthe...
Given that this was done in Q2, and the earnings call was about Q2, I believe Reed was talking about that particular raise (which, again, happened two months ago), not a new raise. There's no new raise.
(I work at Netflix, but I just play with computers).
I have a Pebble -- until recently, a Kickstarter-edition one, though it malfunctioned and the company quite helpfully replaced it.
I originally got it as a geek toy, a whim, but it turned out to be hugely useful for me, given my constraints and work circumstances. Largely, this came down to three factors:
I manage people, and at least at my current company that means that the vast majority of my time is spent in meetings. Having a Pebble on which to see what messages I'm receiving (just for text messages, not FB or email) means I can know when someone's texted me (a rare, but potentially important, occasion) and be able to see what I got without having to reach for my phone in my pocket; it also means that because being able to see the message doesn't necessitate using the tool with which I respond, that I'm less likely to respond immediately, which makes the process less disruptive to the people I'm in meetings with;
I used to miss meetings often because I'd get in the middle of something (or another meeting) and forget to check where I next need to go. My phone quickly vibrating in my pocket was easy to miss. But my watch vibrating? For me, it's unmissable, and it makes me much more aware of where I need to go next.
The other factor that's made a huge difference is not work-related. Being able to control music on my phone via my watch is a trivial improvement when I work out, but it's made another issue basically go away: The "What the hell did I do with my phone?" problem. If I can't find my phone these days, calling it doesn't necessarily work -- it's typically in quiet mode -- but using my Pebble to get some music playing on it, and increasing the volume, is usually immediately helpful in figuring out where the phone is.
You could, of course, argue that these three factors are not, or should not, be relevant to the average geek -- maybe you don't have as many meetings, or are more disciplined about checking your calendar. And God knows we all found our phones before we could remotely start them playing music. But it's been very helpful to me.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a profoundly incorrect assertion. Maybe, sure, techgeeks and other people who are allergic to this kind of stuff would use it, but everyone else? No way. And would you really use a browser that blocked gmail? Do you really think everyone else would?
You raise a really good point that gets ignored often.
As a startup, you're fighting not just for money and customers, but also talent. Speaking as your typical tech person in the bay area, I'll say that the place is lousy with startups doing interesting tech work where I could solve interesting problems, and it's full with a plethora of places that will pay me well. One thing that I consider in companies is their moral and ethical profile. I work where I work because, irrespective of the crazy wages and the problems, I feel like it leads the way in ethical and humane management of high-performance engineers, and its approach to its customers is transparent and ethical. I wouldn't work for a company I considered evil, or whose execs I had serious ethical problems with -- and Uber falls into that category.
Summary: Not appearing like you're ethical will noticeably impact your ability to compete for talent.
Sadly, I suspect that what will happen if this becomes real is that the difference in hassle will be eliminated by implementing TSA-like processes for boarding trains.
It's worth noting that this isn't always the manager's fault. A bunch of companies look for their managers to do both the classic people management stuff and the technical leadership stuff. I interviewed at Facebook some time ago, for example; FB tries to create heterogeneous engineering teams with widely disparate levels of technical expertise. While the more experienced engineers are expected to provide some technical mentoring to the engineers, most of the responsibility seems to be expected to fall to the manager, so the manager has to provide technical leadership to the team, in various degrees based on which team member they're dealing with. Once you open the door to "the manager knows best sometimes," I think it makes it much harder to know where to draw the line.
My company seems to have gotten to the point of doing this reasonably well -- in the last 18 months or so, I saw three individual contributors (IC) get promoted to manager, and then within 3-6 months decide the job wasn't for them. In all cases, the general perception from around them was admiration they were introspective enough to realize this, and happiness they'd decide to go back to IC instead of leaving (I've also seen at least one case of someone promoted to management, who didn't realize he wasn't into management until another company offered him an IC position, at which point he jumped ship. I was sad about that).
It helps to work in an environment where there are no formalized payscales that are affected by the mgmt/IC choice -- typical managers here get paid somewhere around the average for their team's salaries, so it's not like you're going to get an automatic raise if you go to management, nor get a pay cut if you go back to being an IC.
(That said, an important distinction here is that this was driven by the new managers' own decisions. I suspect that if they were terrible, but decided they were happy being managers and clawed onto the role with all their might, the only way we'd have dislodged them would have been through more ... traditional means).
I manage a group of engineers; I've spent about half of my career being an IC engineer and half managing engineers, and it's been intertwined -- in this company, I started off as an IC, then became a manager, moved to another group as an IC, then became a manager. When my boss proposed to me that I manage the group I manage today, I declined because I didn't think I was technically competent enough -- I'd never actually built the huge, scalable, systems they built, and I knew they could run laps around me.
Eventually, he persuaded me to take the position, with my team's consent. On my first day with my team I sat down with each person in the team and literally my first question to each of them was "What's my job around here?" And they told me they didn't need or want someone to review or approve their technical decisions -- when they had doubt, they talked with each other. They wanted someone to help them understand our customers a little better, and that's why they wanted me.
Generally speaking, I figure my job is to act as a retention aid (my presence around should make my engineers want to stick around more than if I wasn't around) and doing whatever the hell my team needs done that engineers don't want to do. I have technical opinions, sure, and sometimes I even disagree with my engineers. And they do whatever they think is the right thing to do. I think about 80% of the time we disagree, they're right.
I'm good at some things; I'm bad at others. I wonder if the issue is not whether or not a manager is technically competent, but whether or not a manager is competent in the area in which that manager actually spends their time, and their team expects them to spend their time.
Magma at ANY temperature will not be dark.
One of those times I wish we had the "true, but still disgusting" moderation options.
I'm not doubting or challenging you, but I'm interested in knowing about your 1U 136TB SSD servers. Can you suggest some specs?
The highest-density boxes I get to have some familiarity with are Netflix's OpenConnect caches, described at https://openconnect.itp.netfli... -- where it's mentioned that they fit 36 6TB drives in a 2U chassis, for a total of 216TB, or 108TB/U. You're beating that, and with SSDs, which is ... impressive.
I have to admit that I still disagree with you.
I have about nine engineers working for me. I appreciate the work they do, and -- as someone who's a vastly less qualified engineer than they are -- deeply respect and admire their skills.
At my company, my job as a manager is defined to be all about attracting and retaining great engineers, and giving them context (and then they figure out what they're going to do with that context). So retaining them is, quite simply, my job.
That said, these engineers don't _belong_ to me or my company. They're human beings, and if I want them to work for me I should be willing and able to compete for them every. single. day. And that means that I don't win by making it harder for them to know what's out there in the job market that's better than the job they've got here -- I win by making this job the bast damned job they could want.
Trying to keep recruiters away from my engineers as a way to have a lock on them feels oddly similar to Apple suing Samsung to not have their competing product on the market.
What I love about this is that when people on this thread post about the crappy quality of content produced by the entertainment industry -- as a way to explain why it's obscene that they're trying to charge for it -- they get modded up. And when people describe that content as something that sharing of which creates a "huge benefit to soceity by allowing information to ... inspire and educate" they get modded up.
"Guardians of the Galaxy is Grade-B superhero trash! That will inspire and educate future generations!"
The abstract case, of course, is "comments critical of the entertainment industry and efforts to control unpaid distribution of their work get modded up."
Of course, given what we're talking about here, the truth is that he DOES want to see the latest obscure Marvel comic book character get regurgitated into some shitty action movie, followed by a dozen sequels and reboots.
It's just that, because he thinks it's in that magic sweet spot of "shitty enough I don't want to pay for it," and "good enough I want to see it," he thinks it's OK for him to see it for free.
I work for a tech company that, for exactly this reason, tends to hire people who've never recruited before into its recruiting group -- that way, they're less likely to be broken (we also consider hiring managers responsible for recruiting, and recruiters don't have any technical conversations with candidates).
That said, I'm not all that opposed to blacklists, and I know that we use them ourselves. If you interview with us and make profoundly idiotic statements (I was once in a hiring loop where the candidate told the recruiter, an Asian-American woman, that he'd never hire an Asian woman because they're too diffident. After a moment's pause, he then amended to note that it wasn't that he was sexist -- he wouldn't hire an Asian-American man, either) I don't see a huge reason why we'd want to bring you in, ever again, for another position.
(Anti-poaching agreements, though, are just evil)
Reductively, you could argue the same about hiring managers (their goal in life is to increase company profits) and candidates (their goal in life is to get paid so they can do whatever the hell else they actually want to do in life they enjoy).
In general, though, it seems like people -- at least the lucky ones -- end up gravitating toward doing something for their job that they feel some sort of calling for, and I've worked with enough recruiters who actually enjoyed and found fulfillment in what they saw as the higher calling of finding people the perfect job that I wouldn't discount this actually happens and, further, that the very best ones are the very best because they are passionate about it.
Strawman. At least some of the reports of bending were from people claiming they put the phones in their front pockets.
I give a lot of presentations, both internal to my company and at conferences. Writing presentations is easy, and results in the issues you raised (and many others). Writing GOOD presentations is much harder, and takes a lot more effort.
For me, I find the key to making a presentation that my audience will value is exactly that -- the audience. I try to figure out what it is my audience wants to learn and hear about. I'm not there to talk about whatever the hell it is I want to talk about -- I'm there to communicate something that's going to make a difference for the people in the audience (and, given audience focus, I also make sure I practice my presentations well enough that I know how long they'll take and I MAKE SURE to leave time for questions. Presenters who run out of time are just lazy).
I think presentations are like writing code -- in the end, it's really up to the author, most of the material out there is bad, and the editor (whether vim, emacs, Sublime Text, Atom, IntelliJ, or pick your favorite IDE) has little to do with the quality of the product. At most, and at best, the presentation software makes the mechanical effort a little easier.
I got this display -- Asus PB287Q -- for work. It's been absolutely delightful.
That said, I found that at the distance I'm sitting -- about 24" from the display -- The full 4K resolution was way too high and made me have to upscale things pretty regularly. I downgraded to the second-highest resolution (~3200 instead of ~3800 on the horizontal) and it's delightfully usable, and gives me SO MUCH more real estate than the previous monitor (27" Apple Cinema Display -- the standard for my workplace).
One word of warning: On a MacBook Pro Retina, I found that powering via HDMI got me the resolution, but only 30Hz (which for programming I don't care about in the last); my MBPR was a circa-2012 model. when I upgraded to a 2014 model I found that going directly via the DP port (via a mini-DP-to-fullsize-DP cable) let me get 60Hz. Which, still, I don't care about all that much :)
It's an artifact of how Netflix does OSS: If you're the engineer who open-sources a product, you're the person who names the product. Sometimes that works better than others :)
I work at Netflix (and manage a software development group).
The general approach to OSS can generally be summarized as "if it's not core product (algorithms, recommendations, etc), why haven't you open-sourced it yet?"
It's one of the (very many) nice parts of the job.
He's really not. Right now, for example, he mostly works on a Chromebook. At least that's what he's usually on when I see him working in the kitchen*.
(I work at Netflix)
* Reed doesn't have an office / cubicle / set location, so he tends to work either in a common area or in a random conference room until you kick him out because you reserved the room
Two comments:
1. Their internal motto was, in fact, "go fast and break stuff"; I know this first-hand because I talked with them about that at my interview back in February, where they mentioned that they've changed to "go fast and be bold" because, in fact, they were trying to lower incidents of availability hits;
2. 20+ years of tech industry experience here, and I was totally ready to be interviewed by some snot-nosed kid. What I got instead was an interview panel whose average tech industry tenure was around 17 years. I was, uniformly, impressed with the caliber of the people I met with there -- they verged from "pretty decent" in one case, to "pretty great" in all but two other cases, to "I'd take a $10K pay cut to work with this person" for the last two people. I was pretty surprised, and delighted.
How does confirming the domain's identity automatically solve this problem?
If someone from the gxail.com domain sends me email (let's assume here the 'x' is some weird Cyrillic character that looks just like an 'm'), any automated confirmation of the domain's validity would not do some sort of eyeball check "Oh, that looks like gmail.com, let's confirm if it is, oops it isn't..." but rather an automated "did that email come from gxail.com? Yup, sure did."
Even if you popped up a notice that said "hey, I don't know about that domain," the typical user -- heck, I'd argue even the typical Slashdot user -- would go "weird, looks like it lost creds for it" and click whatever the equivalent of "Oh well" button the notice had.
Probably because, we expect, that Slashdot readers are generally comfortable enough with elementary math to be able to either multiply $1300 by 3 ($3900) or 4 ($5200), or has easy access to a calculator.
Netflix raised prices back in May; existing customers are grandfathered in for a while (when prices went up in Ireland, customers were grandfathered for two years). More at http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthe...
Given that this was done in Q2, and the earnings call was about Q2, I believe Reed was talking about that particular raise (which, again, happened two months ago), not a new raise. There's no new raise.
(I work at Netflix, but I just play with computers).
I have a Pebble -- until recently, a Kickstarter-edition one, though it malfunctioned and the company quite helpfully replaced it.
I originally got it as a geek toy, a whim, but it turned out to be hugely useful for me, given my constraints and work circumstances. Largely, this came down to three factors:
I manage people, and at least at my current company that means that the vast majority of my time is spent in meetings. Having a Pebble on which to see what messages I'm receiving (just for text messages, not FB or email) means I can know when someone's texted me (a rare, but potentially important, occasion) and be able to see what I got without having to reach for my phone in my pocket; it also means that because being able to see the message doesn't necessitate using the tool with which I respond, that I'm less likely to respond immediately, which makes the process less disruptive to the people I'm in meetings with;
I used to miss meetings often because I'd get in the middle of something (or another meeting) and forget to check where I next need to go. My phone quickly vibrating in my pocket was easy to miss. But my watch vibrating? For me, it's unmissable, and it makes me much more aware of where I need to go next.
The other factor that's made a huge difference is not work-related. Being able to control music on my phone via my watch is a trivial improvement when I work out, but it's made another issue basically go away: The "What the hell did I do with my phone?" problem. If I can't find my phone these days, calling it doesn't necessarily work -- it's typically in quiet mode -- but using my Pebble to get some music playing on it, and increasing the volume, is usually immediately helpful in figuring out where the phone is.
You could, of course, argue that these three factors are not, or should not, be relevant to the average geek -- maybe you don't have as many meetings, or are more disciplined about checking your calendar. And God knows we all found our phones before we could remotely start them playing music. But it's been very helpful to me.