It speaks to the perceived servility of hungry people in the stories I've read. It also speaks to this being a political move to placate accusations of balance of trade deficits, US labor problems, placating Chinese relationships, and much more.
For better or worse, Apple (at least to me) ends up looking both stupid and not in control of their supply chain, while placating politicos in the US. They're not usually this stupid, although the perceived hubris is par.
Then they should've been direct about Flextronics. They took low-hanging fruit, didn't have a backup plan, and failed to keep production moving.
Due diligence requires making everything the salesperson utters is true. Other industry segments have highly skilled purchasing and industrial engineering, acquisition, and failsafes built into their DNA.
This isn't about labor cost. This is about diligence and tenacity. Apple is used to the luxury of the hungry Chinese market who was enraptured about a big deal with an emblematic US company. In the US, it's a different turf. If they hadn't realized that, it's just another in a series of reality distortion fields: They work both ways.
I'm thinking the same thing. If Apple hasn't mastered supply chain qualifications, JIT, and the recipe of doing business in North America, then they should've had backup suppliers from China to fill the gap. 1000pc FedEx is expensive from Shenzen, sure, but you don't see other organizations opening up for business without being able to produce their product from a supply chain that's both ready but also able.
I'm pretty shocked that they would respond in this media piece in the way that they did. Pretty junior.
Why, you don't mean that Microsoft would steal all of those ideas, do you? You mean, after buying GitHub, they want everyone's secret sauces because they believe the FOSS communities don't know WTF they're doing?
Oh.
Beware the bait, my friends. Once they sink the hook, you're in a boat to a market.
Emasculation isn't necessary. Non-provoking civility is. Macho is tawdry. Real men don't need to diminish the dignity of others for their amusement and ego gratification. Most grow out of that stage. I did.
These two polar ends do not cancel each other out.
There are also plainly decent individuals that are strongly and rightly repelled by either end of those poles. I didn't see a predominance of the over-estrogened, rather people trying to learn, do knowledge transfer, converse, and learn.
The ruination came from attitudes just like yours. There are socially malevolent individuals that reek of testosterone.... rampant dominant assholes, full of themselves, fingers in their ears, that can't tolerate the very presence of others unlike themselves.
The organizers did give up, even though borderline behavior wasn't prosecuted. They DID stop them. Misplaced criticism of "SJW"s blinds you to the values of embracing diverse viewpoints, including the loud ones, to the point where the loud ones just overwhelm the resources and credulity of those attending.
The professionalism of the event spawned lots of positive action. And there were those whose unprofessional, pointedly sexist and misogynistic attitudes finally screwed it up for everyone.... unable to keep their minds away from their gonads.
I'm perfectly happy with an identified bot. Then I know how to deal with what the bot is imparting. In my case, I'll ignore the bot, no matter the message, any message. In a way, a bot is an advertisement.
The API doesn't know what is, and what is not a bot. It can be inferred from its behavior. There are APIs that also track dissemination of info, e.g. bot relay networks. Truthy.indiana.edu is one such tracker.
Add an observer like that to a browser extension, and life gets better by the ability to do lookups and discern for the casual browser, who is human, and who is not. I'd be satisfied with just that, paltry as that is.
Let's say I'm a spaghetti sauce maker. I put peanut meal in as a filler but don't tell anyone. Someone with the peanut allergy dies. Oh dear.
No one here will disagree that there's perjury by stating anything you've said. Advancing a cause where a false indication of size is made through the amplification of speech, however, is persuasive. It creates an illusion. It makes a mass larger than the part of the individual.
You can have one vote in this country (although others content some vote more). In political speech, great emphasis is put on groupings like caucuses and other entities of either affinity, or contrasting affinity, opposition.
If your group is tiny, that's fine. The David and Goliath meme wants to give people hope. Reality means that it's touch to fight big money and lots of ads. Bringing this back to bots, bots appear to be actual people. Their mass becomes amplified by the # and placement of bots into discussions. Some are trolls. Some have been showed to seed fear and anger as in the numerous Russian trolls that permeate discussions, even here on Slashdot.
It's my contention that such amplification is deceitful and a manner of fraud. Buy as many clearly labeled advertisements as you want, and I'll know you're moneyed. Tell me there's 20,000 people in league with you and it's just you, and you're a fraud, not to mention, a liar.
You, human, have totally free speech as it was intended.
You, human, when you deceptively multiply yourself to make your size and quantity of humans larger than it actually is, is deceit and fraud.
You, singular human, say anything you want in protected speech. Anything. Anytime. If you multiply yourself into bots to make others perceive a greater number of humans than just yourself or the group you represent, you are a fraud, and fraud isn't legal.
Say anything. Multiply it by 1000s of bots, and you're a fraud. I care little about what the executive branch says except that I respect their constitutional obligations and rights to carry them out as the US Constitution permits.
This isn't about them. This is about amplifying speech in such a way as to make others believe that it's more than the stated number of people saying the speech, or representing it through a leader.
I can't say that I represent 300million voters. I do not, and you don't either. This is reality. To make myself appear bigger, I can launch lots of scripts-- it's cheap to do-- and what's then represented, bots in agreement, is deception and fraud. Instead of a pecuniary loss, it's the loss of size or the misrepresented belief that another thought or group is larger than I/mine. That makes my asset look smaller, the comfort of my friends having the same ideology. Fraud isn't just about monetary deception.
Fraud and deception haven't ever been legal. To posit that an app is a human is fraudulent and deceitful. Amplifying your message as though it represents a mass of people more than the singularity of the sender is deceitful. The First Amendment right should not be abridged at all. But it should represent your size, and not that you are many when you are not many. This isn't Citizens United, which is a different theory of law. This is about fraud, and bots are fraud.
That's the (w)hole point. What are due diligence and best practices against an unknown zero-day? Companies DO demand more secure software, operating platforms, monitoring, intrusion detection, and more.
They're up against an obscene number of known uncorrected problems as well as unknown, uncorrected problems. Stuff happens.
The car analogy is you hit black ice, which you couldn't see, and you spin out of control and hit something. In that case, your insurance pays anyway. You did your best, and there are minimum speed limits on most roads and you watched as well as you could and you hit the ice and spun out anyway.
I do not believe, however, than "expensive and complicated" has to be the rule. Although there may be the rare exception, everyone using a computer in the US, where I live, has been a victim of an authorized disclosure.
And no one says, gimme that insecure software stuff, 'cause it looks juicy. Instead, they click on a phish that loads them with a dose of malware, and wittingly or not, become an infection vector.
Admit that almost every platform has unknown zero-day cracks in existence today. If it's not a local three-letter agency, "state actors", various organized entities, clever coders, or others, most all platforms have cracks. Employing risk mitigation and asset protection schemes doesn't seem to be working.
Look at any summary of 2018 cracks, and the list is long. Billions of records were spilled into someone's bit bucket, or ransomed.
So one insures one's assets. The devil of the policy details dictates what should be settled. Even if there wasn't strict due diligence, there is often liability recourse on the part of the policy holder. The insurance company may have liability.
This is where the lawyers get rich, the insurance company gets mad and starts bribing the legislatures/pols to get laws changed in their favors, the process of getting the gendarmes involved, etc. It's a well-known process, now eventually coming to code near you.
I think Jensen's an outstanding engineering team manager.
As a marketer, not so much.
Technical excellence is a wonderful aspiration, as is employee value recognition. All this notwithstanding, Wall Street will punish him mercilessly, and for good reasons (by their standards). They've cut his stock price into less than half of its peak, and NVIDIA isn't out of the woods.
Tuns out, yes, you have to sell something, and that something eventually needs to have margins somehow, and just being best doesn't count unless that recognition means a visible future, blue sky as that might be.
CUDA and other cores are lovely. Attaching them to cloud VMs and containers is lovely. Lots of cool science and HPC is lovely. Fabulous Disney is lovely. Underneath the surface, however, is a one-trick pony. The same market conditions that made Intel/AMD/ARM successful haven't opened up for NVIDIA, and so NVIDIA shouldn't play by silicon maker rules, IMHO. Brilliance is wonderful, but economics often elude the best engineers. Were Andy Grove around, he'd tell Jensen to be really paranoid.... and with good reason. Just my 2c worth.
No doubt people have bills. I'm not criticizing the funding method, but speed/functionality is not support. Tor believes themselves somehow a "holy" work, and although I believe in distributed anonymity (such as it is), this seems not so much hypocritical, but an element of what FOSS principles revile.
But they're making money on privacy so long as you believe the hoax, and others won't refute, only complain about it, because they're as equally guilty.
Slowly, the reality distortion field evaporated, the stock slid, and having nothing interesting, no new market to beachhead (as the marketing folks talk, having seen watches flop mightily as well) slowly slid back to oblivion with one of the largest offshore cash hoards ever assembled in the history of the planet.
It seems respondents/reactors to the post want to hijack it for their own political agendas. I'll take the pure open source agenda for my standard, and using that, react by saying that using speed as a funding model is a harbinger of the ugly stuff that is closed-model.
Yes, I understand they need a funding source for innovation. It's my hope that if Tor is still FOSS, someone just hacks the speed differential and we move on.
In my book, it's a valid criticism against the project for creating fast lanes when net neutrality is important to both their project, and so many others.
"I'm sorry about your confusion with the government, Dave. Here, let me fix that for you."
Ok, I know enough walking wounded that I look at this endeavor with exceedingly cautious optimism. The chances that it could be misused, hacked, or lead to nefarious endings scares the crap out of me.
The tech empire is full of not-invented-here-so-it-sucks. For the money paid, most tech orgs want to keep focus and productivity on the task at hand, and so distractions must be evil.. especially when the dukes and earls of VC funding are breathing down the necks of startups.
San Francisco/Bay Area and Bangalore are exceptions, not the rule. Tech loves to flatter itself and think that all of its problems are brand new.
And no narcissistic corporation has a heart or soul. Wintel is now LoseTel because they couldn't tell that their oil well in the basement would start to run dry with ARM, SoCs, and good RF designs. Now their competitor is QC, but also Softbank.
Intel: There are no tears for you, and your PR line is BS and sounds plainly stupid coming from the ex-king of CPU monopolies.
Hop on I-80. Goes coast to coast. Sure, the limits go up and down. Even my lousy TomTom GPS knows what they are. Put your car on cruise, and you can steer only for hundreds and hundreds of miles. Straight stretches across Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, and especially parts of Utah and Nevada..... cruise.
I've done stretches of it with a truck and trailer, diesel & TT. Same answer. Cruise. Faster where possible, some braking where not. Cities, merge lanes, pretty easy. Yeah, some occasional movements, always paying attention. Not an obstacle course save for a few grades, curves, and other-driver interference. Comparatively benign compared to The Dan Ryan on a Friday at 6pm, or I-10 on a late Sunday afternoon, etc. There are clearly awful and dangerous places to drive in the US. They're well-known.
Real tests? Bad weather, heavy diagonal/lateral traffic, density at speed, high speed differentials, random variables like bad drivers/drunks/over-the-hill/dealing-with-children/texters, low vision halt obstacles (school buses, crossing guards, construction traffic), and more--- with mixes of these.
Add in points for slick pavement (including black ice, snow, fresh rain after droughts bringing oil to the surface, wet leaves, gravel, mixtures of these), darting dogs, pavement irregularities (including flats and anomalous breakdowns), children, food trucks, postal vehicles, delivery trucks (human-controlled and not), and it's an evil brew.
I personally remain very unconvinced that the margin of error would pass a driver's test, or the ability to be insured as a driver-- which an autonomous vehicle ought to meet (or even a higher bar) to be on the public roads.
There is also the problem of people who dislike autonomous vehicles, kick them, stand in front of them, shoot random slugs at them, and other illegal if protesting acts of defiance. Although I don't believe such protests are moral or useful, that fact won't likely stop them. Amusingly, most of the perps get caught.
This was a PR stunt, however, someone trying to juice their fortunes rather than evolve a public service or technology. It's grandstanding in good weather, IMHO.
Having drive across the USA on probably similar roads, I can tell you that this isn't really a test, even if he did do it.
In that 3000 miles, everyone was going the same direction with multiple lanes for most all of the way. There were no pedestrians, no animals, no left turns, no stop lights, no school buses, no varying speeds in lanes for most of the distance, probably good weather and no random variations. Were there interesting obstacles, I'm sure they'd be pointed out in the video for their points-value.
So is this a real trial, or just PR? I say: PR. Nothing to see here, move along, sort of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
It speaks to the perceived servility of hungry people in the stories I've read. It also speaks to this being a political move to placate accusations of balance of trade deficits, US labor problems, placating Chinese relationships, and much more.
For better or worse, Apple (at least to me) ends up looking both stupid and not in control of their supply chain, while placating politicos in the US. They're not usually this stupid, although the perceived hubris is par.
Then they should've been direct about Flextronics. They took low-hanging fruit, didn't have a backup plan, and failed to keep production moving.
Due diligence requires making everything the salesperson utters is true. Other industry segments have highly skilled purchasing and industrial engineering, acquisition, and failsafes built into their DNA.
This isn't about labor cost. This is about diligence and tenacity. Apple is used to the luxury of the hungry Chinese market who was enraptured about a big deal with an emblematic US company. In the US, it's a different turf. If they hadn't realized that, it's just another in a series of reality distortion fields: They work both ways.
I'm thinking the same thing. If Apple hasn't mastered supply chain qualifications, JIT, and the recipe of doing business in North America, then they should've had backup suppliers from China to fill the gap. 1000pc FedEx is expensive from Shenzen, sure, but you don't see other organizations opening up for business without being able to produce their product from a supply chain that's both ready but also able.
I'm pretty shocked that they would respond in this media piece in the way that they did. Pretty junior.
Why, you don't mean that Microsoft would steal all of those ideas, do you? You mean, after buying GitHub, they want everyone's secret sauces because they believe the FOSS communities don't know WTF they're doing?
Oh.
Beware the bait, my friends. Once they sink the hook, you're in a boat to a market.
Emasculation isn't necessary. Non-provoking civility is. Macho is tawdry. Real men don't need to diminish the dignity of others for their amusement and ego gratification. Most grow out of that stage. I did.
I don't watch tv, and so have no concept of what you're implying.
Didn't say that at all. I prefer an egalitarian, non-hostile event.
These two polar ends do not cancel each other out.
There are also plainly decent individuals that are strongly and rightly repelled by either end of those poles. I didn't see a predominance of the over-estrogened, rather people trying to learn, do knowledge transfer, converse, and learn.
The ruination came from attitudes just like yours. There are socially malevolent individuals that reek of testosterone.... rampant dominant assholes, full of themselves, fingers in their ears, that can't tolerate the very presence of others unlike themselves.
The organizers did give up, even though borderline behavior wasn't prosecuted. They DID stop them. Misplaced criticism of "SJW"s blinds you to the values of embracing diverse viewpoints, including the loud ones, to the point where the loud ones just overwhelm the resources and credulity of those attending.
The professionalism of the event spawned lots of positive action. And there were those whose unprofessional, pointedly sexist and misogynistic attitudes finally screwed it up for everyone.... unable to keep their minds away from their gonads.
I'm perfectly happy with an identified bot. Then I know how to deal with what the bot is imparting. In my case, I'll ignore the bot, no matter the message, any message. In a way, a bot is an advertisement.
The API doesn't know what is, and what is not a bot. It can be inferred from its behavior. There are APIs that also track dissemination of info, e.g. bot relay networks. Truthy.indiana.edu is one such tracker.
Add an observer like that to a browser extension, and life gets better by the ability to do lookups and discern for the casual browser, who is human, and who is not. I'd be satisfied with just that, paltry as that is.
Let's say I'm a spaghetti sauce maker. I put peanut meal in as a filler but don't tell anyone. Someone with the peanut allergy dies. Oh dear.
No one here will disagree that there's perjury by stating anything you've said. Advancing a cause where a false indication of size is made through the amplification of speech, however, is persuasive. It creates an illusion. It makes a mass larger than the part of the individual.
You can have one vote in this country (although others content some vote more). In political speech, great emphasis is put on groupings like caucuses and other entities of either affinity, or contrasting affinity, opposition.
If your group is tiny, that's fine. The David and Goliath meme wants to give people hope. Reality means that it's touch to fight big money and lots of ads. Bringing this back to bots, bots appear to be actual people. Their mass becomes amplified by the # and placement of bots into discussions. Some are trolls. Some have been showed to seed fear and anger as in the numerous Russian trolls that permeate discussions, even here on Slashdot.
It's my contention that such amplification is deceitful and a manner of fraud. Buy as many clearly labeled advertisements as you want, and I'll know you're moneyed. Tell me there's 20,000 people in league with you and it's just you, and you're a fraud, not to mention, a liar.
You, human, have totally free speech as it was intended.
You, human, when you deceptively multiply yourself to make your size and quantity of humans larger than it actually is, is deceit and fraud.
You, singular human, say anything you want in protected speech. Anything. Anytime. If you multiply yourself into bots to make others perceive a greater number of humans than just yourself or the group you represent, you are a fraud, and fraud isn't legal.
Say anything. Multiply it by 1000s of bots, and you're a fraud. I care little about what the executive branch says except that I respect their constitutional obligations and rights to carry them out as the US Constitution permits.
This isn't about them. This is about amplifying speech in such a way as to make others believe that it's more than the stated number of people saying the speech, or representing it through a leader.
I can't say that I represent 300million voters. I do not, and you don't either. This is reality. To make myself appear bigger, I can launch lots of scripts-- it's cheap to do-- and what's then represented, bots in agreement, is deception and fraud. Instead of a pecuniary loss, it's the loss of size or the misrepresented belief that another thought or group is larger than I/mine. That makes my asset look smaller, the comfort of my friends having the same ideology. Fraud isn't just about monetary deception.
Fraud and deception haven't ever been legal. To posit that an app is a human is fraudulent and deceitful. Amplifying your message as though it represents a mass of people more than the singularity of the sender is deceitful. The First Amendment right should not be abridged at all. But it should represent your size, and not that you are many when you are not many. This isn't Citizens United, which is a different theory of law. This is about fraud, and bots are fraud.
That's the (w)hole point. What are due diligence and best practices against an unknown zero-day? Companies DO demand more secure software, operating platforms, monitoring, intrusion detection, and more.
They're up against an obscene number of known uncorrected problems as well as unknown, uncorrected problems. Stuff happens.
The car analogy is you hit black ice, which you couldn't see, and you spin out of control and hit something. In that case, your insurance pays anyway. You did your best, and there are minimum speed limits on most roads and you watched as well as you could and you hit the ice and spun out anyway.
I do not believe, however, than "expensive and complicated" has to be the rule. Although there may be the rare exception, everyone using a computer in the US, where I live, has been a victim of an authorized disclosure.
And no one says, gimme that insecure software stuff, 'cause it looks juicy. Instead, they click on a phish that loads them with a dose of malware, and wittingly or not, become an infection vector.
Oh, were things that simple.
Admit that almost every platform has unknown zero-day cracks in existence today. If it's not a local three-letter agency, "state actors", various organized entities, clever coders, or others, most all platforms have cracks. Employing risk mitigation and asset protection schemes doesn't seem to be working.
Look at any summary of 2018 cracks, and the list is long. Billions of records were spilled into someone's bit bucket, or ransomed.
So one insures one's assets. The devil of the policy details dictates what should be settled. Even if there wasn't strict due diligence, there is often liability recourse on the part of the policy holder. The insurance company may have liability.
This is where the lawyers get rich, the insurance company gets mad and starts bribing the legislatures/pols to get laws changed in their favors, the process of getting the gendarmes involved, etc. It's a well-known process, now eventually coming to code near you.
I think Jensen's an outstanding engineering team manager.
As a marketer, not so much.
Technical excellence is a wonderful aspiration, as is employee value recognition. All this notwithstanding, Wall Street will punish him mercilessly, and for good reasons (by their standards). They've cut his stock price into less than half of its peak, and NVIDIA isn't out of the woods.
Tuns out, yes, you have to sell something, and that something eventually needs to have margins somehow, and just being best doesn't count unless that recognition means a visible future, blue sky as that might be.
CUDA and other cores are lovely. Attaching them to cloud VMs and containers is lovely. Lots of cool science and HPC is lovely. Fabulous Disney is lovely. Underneath the surface, however, is a one-trick pony. The same market conditions that made Intel/AMD/ARM successful haven't opened up for NVIDIA, and so NVIDIA shouldn't play by silicon maker rules, IMHO. Brilliance is wonderful, but economics often elude the best engineers. Were Andy Grove around, he'd tell Jensen to be really paranoid.... and with good reason. Just my 2c worth.
No doubt people have bills. I'm not criticizing the funding method, but speed/functionality is not support. Tor believes themselves somehow a "holy" work, and although I believe in distributed anonymity (such as it is), this seems not so much hypocritical, but an element of what FOSS principles revile.
Apple says they don't make any money on repairs.
But they're making money on privacy so long as you believe the hoax, and others won't refute, only complain about it, because they're as equally guilty.
Slowly, the reality distortion field evaporated, the stock slid, and having nothing interesting, no new market to beachhead (as the marketing folks talk, having seen watches flop mightily as well) slowly slid back to oblivion with one of the largest offshore cash hoards ever assembled in the history of the planet.
It seems respondents/reactors to the post want to hijack it for their own political agendas. I'll take the pure open source agenda for my standard, and using that, react by saying that using speed as a funding model is a harbinger of the ugly stuff that is closed-model.
Yes, I understand they need a funding source for innovation. It's my hope that if Tor is still FOSS, someone just hacks the speed differential and we move on.
In my book, it's a valid criticism against the project for creating fast lanes when net neutrality is important to both their project, and so many others.
Or Arthur C Clarke:
"I'm sorry about your confusion with the government, Dave. Here, let me fix that for you."
Ok, I know enough walking wounded that I look at this endeavor with exceedingly cautious optimism. The chances that it could be misused, hacked, or lead to nefarious endings scares the crap out of me.
The tech empire is full of not-invented-here-so-it-sucks. For the money paid, most tech orgs want to keep focus and productivity on the task at hand, and so distractions must be evil.. especially when the dukes and earls of VC funding are breathing down the necks of startups.
San Francisco/Bay Area and Bangalore are exceptions, not the rule. Tech loves to flatter itself and think that all of its problems are brand new.
And no narcissistic corporation has a heart or soul. Wintel is now LoseTel because they couldn't tell that their oil well in the basement would start to run dry with ARM, SoCs, and good RF designs. Now their competitor is QC, but also Softbank.
Intel: There are no tears for you, and your PR line is BS and sounds plainly stupid coming from the ex-king of CPU monopolies.
Hop on I-80. Goes coast to coast. Sure, the limits go up and down. Even my lousy TomTom GPS knows what they are. Put your car on cruise, and you can steer only for hundreds and hundreds of miles. Straight stretches across Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, and especially parts of Utah and Nevada..... cruise.
I've done stretches of it with a truck and trailer, diesel & TT. Same answer. Cruise. Faster where possible, some braking where not. Cities, merge lanes, pretty easy. Yeah, some occasional movements, always paying attention. Not an obstacle course save for a few grades, curves, and other-driver interference. Comparatively benign compared to The Dan Ryan on a Friday at 6pm, or I-10 on a late Sunday afternoon, etc. There are clearly awful and dangerous places to drive in the US. They're well-known.
Real tests? Bad weather, heavy diagonal/lateral traffic, density at speed, high speed differentials, random variables like bad drivers/drunks/over-the-hill/dealing-with-children/texters, low vision halt obstacles (school buses, crossing guards, construction traffic), and more--- with mixes of these.
Add in points for slick pavement (including black ice, snow, fresh rain after droughts bringing oil to the surface, wet leaves, gravel, mixtures of these), darting dogs, pavement irregularities (including flats and anomalous breakdowns), children, food trucks, postal vehicles, delivery trucks (human-controlled and not), and it's an evil brew.
I personally remain very unconvinced that the margin of error would pass a driver's test, or the ability to be insured as a driver-- which an autonomous vehicle ought to meet (or even a higher bar) to be on the public roads.
There is also the problem of people who dislike autonomous vehicles, kick them, stand in front of them, shoot random slugs at them, and other illegal if protesting acts of defiance. Although I don't believe such protests are moral or useful, that fact won't likely stop them. Amusingly, most of the perps get caught.
This was a PR stunt, however, someone trying to juice their fortunes rather than evolve a public service or technology. It's grandstanding in good weather, IMHO.
Having drive across the USA on probably similar roads, I can tell you that this isn't really a test, even if he did do it.
In that 3000 miles, everyone was going the same direction with multiple lanes for most all of the way. There were no pedestrians, no animals, no left turns, no stop lights, no school buses, no varying speeds in lanes for most of the distance, probably good weather and no random variations. Were there interesting obstacles, I'm sure they'd be pointed out in the video for their points-value.
So is this a real trial, or just PR? I say: PR. Nothing to see here, move along, sort of stuff.