I'd suggest that you consider what it would take to implement any of the following of your ideas:
1) Ban theaters (I'm sure everyone will take this like the rational people we expect them to be, right?) 2) Pass new legislation (Yay! More regulations!) requiring that every theater in the country be retrofitted per your specifications. 3) Develop "consumer safe" ejection seat - must work flawlessly for infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, the elderly, the infirm, the deaf, those twits necking in the back row, the mentally handicapped, etc... 4) Pay for said regulations/retrofitting/inspections (How do you feel about taxes and/or movie ticket prices?)
All of these to save a couple people a year on average, maybe. Read up on the statistical value of a human life before you propose extravagant solutions.
Or we could just make a habit of smacking the hell out of people who cry wolf with the intent to cause injuries. Cheaper. Faster. Deters future idiocy.
We recognize that, with almost every activity, there is risk involved and there's the chance that people will die. We put up with deaths in theater fires because they are very rare and preventing them costs so much as to be prohibitive. (It's the same reason you don't see seat belts on school buses, or see a car recall after every accident.) We don't put up with people who think that "free speech" is a justified reason (or defense) for needlessly endangering others.
And besides, if the government can ban theaters for "your own protection", they might just as easily replace your house with a padded room, and take over management of your diet and exercise, and otherwise deprive you of ways to harm yourself.
There are probably other reasons, but the way I heard it explained was this: Lots of doors open inward to restrict access to the hinge pins. Unless you have security hings, someone can pull the hinge pins and simply push the door open.
Good job. You are right. We can't legally prosecute you for being a douchbag, but even if we can't prosecute you for the speech itself, If you yell fire in a crowded theater with the intent of harming others, you can still be tried for reckless endangerment and, should the worst happen, voluntary manslaughter or murder.
You've managed to completely overlook what a fire in a crowded theater actually meant at the time that the phrase was coined. Let's just say that we have these things called "fire exits" in theaters now because theater fires used to be so gruesome. Holmes' 1919 opinion was written a mere 16 year after 600 people died in the Iroquis theater fire, and six years after 73 people died in Calumet, Michigan due to exactly the conduct you advocate. At the time, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater was a guaranteed way play on popular fears and to ensure that large numbers of people died. Congrats on holding the moral low ground.
In addition, you've utter neglected the fact that people packed in tightly do not behave in the same way as people packed loosely, irrespective of their intentions. If you have a hundred tightly packed people in a narrow hallway so much as casually lean forward all at one time, the people in the front are going to be under immense force. (If you think that the inevitable trampling someone to death is any one person's fault, you are an idiot and a bastard.) That this principle is still true today is evident in the 2003 Station Nightclub Fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
You have as much as admitted that people are predictable, and if you think that hurting people to emphasize that fact is acceptable, you deserve no better.
The FTC requires that country-of-origin claims be assessed by portioning the manufacturing costs of the final product. A couple of dollars worth of foreign components/costs in an otherwise domestically sourced product that costs $300 is not considered to be an issue. If, on the other hand, the final product cost $5, then it's not acceptable to make a "Made in the USA" claim.
In short, not every part of the device needs to be from the US for the device to be "Made in the USA". Here is a relevent exerpt for people who are interested, but not THAT interested: ------------------- What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.?
The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U.S. parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.
Example: A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product.
Example: A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product.
Go spend some time in Europe. My experience in Germany and Austria has been that that the government produces regulations that assume you can make your own decisions and be responsible for your own actions. If you screw up, you pay the price. Slip on a puddle and hit your head at the water park? Your fault - everyone knows water parks have slippery spots. Be more careful next time. A lawsuit is out of the question.
My experience was that day-to-day rules and regulations are mostly self-enforced: Occasionally an inspector will come around and if you are caught in violation, you will be fined. And you know what? It works. The government doesn't want to pay someone to poke into your life all the time, so they don't.
In comparison, the US (and England, in my experience) is practically a surveillance state. Every level of government assumes that you won't possibly comply unless someone is actually watching you. The government assumes you are an idiot and can't be trusted to walk onto a subway car without someone watching you. If you could make the US police and security industries as efficient as the ones I say in Europe, you'd make a good start on cutting the cost of government. Let's not even get started about the US policies about air travel.
The reason people in the US hate regulation is because the federal, state, and local governments have proved so bad at implementing them.
It sounds like you are taking most of the right steps already. Writing up projects, one last round of cleaning. . .
The rest really depends on how big of a job you are handing over. If you were a full time admin, then a single day of training is probably not going to be sufficient. If it was a part time position, then perhaps one day is sufficient. That said, I still wouldn't assume that the new guy is incompetent if he has questions after the first day.
I'd suggest that you tell the guy up front: You are moving to a new job and you won't have a lot of time to answer questions, but you don't want him to feel like you screwed him over. Do your day of training, offer to field emails for a week or two (you'll reply within 24 hours) then schedule an additional session for two weeks later. You should scale this to the size of the job you are handing over: perhaps an hour phone conference for small stuff, up to another day of training if you are handing over a full time position. At that point, he or she can ask any further questions and you can call it quits.
This buys you a bit of goodwill from both the new guy and your old boss. (Going to be wanting a reference from him someday? Show that you care and want things to go well, even after you leave.) Besides, odds are that the new guy is even moderately competent, he won't email you after the 3rd day, and will cancel your 2 week phone call. Plus, if he really is incompetent and starts seriously leaning on your expertise, you should call your old boss and tell him that the new guy has issues - that's probably more valuable than a slip of paper with a (now-known) incompetent's signature.
Perhaps I am missing something - but there appears to be only a single document that mentions any sort of trouble (https://house.resource.org/hbs/pub/gov.house.20111214.pdf) Are there other documents that illustrate the problem more completely?
Thank you for taking the time to answer all these questions. This was a fascinating read.
I propose a challenge: I'll take one end of the list, and you get the other. My kids get to decide who gets which end, and the loser has to post as AC on Slashdot for eternity.
Now that the rest of the world is rethinking nuclear power, We Americans have changed our tune.
However, I think the US might be on the right track here. Of course, it helps that the risk of tsunamis in the southeastern US is right between that of a zombie outbreak and Ralph Nader winning the presidency.
Of course! - If Apple just asks, call centers will give them their data! Let's ignore any potential legal roadblocks here - instead let's talk logistics: Were Apple to take this approach, they would first need to find a call center that stores all of it's data indefinitely (you know, in that big data center in their closet), rather than just the problem customers, then you have to deal with this pesky trend of staffing call centers with people from foreign companies with non-standard accents (Oddly, call centers are never in places with accents I enjoy, like Australia.) Next, you have to account for the fact that this data set will be dramatically skewed towards negative descriptors of people and products. Then you have to make financial arrangements with the company who owns the data, who might be different from the company that operates the call center. And that's just one company's data.
Sure, it's possible that Apple could get data this way, but it sounds like a lot of work, a lot of expense, and I haven't heard a whisper of it actually happening (which is not proof, but . ..). Google has openly been collecting data for years. Apple has not. I won't believe that it is Google playing catch up until you present me with some evidence supporting that conclusion.
And now Siri is harvesting your appointments and interests - Clearly, Siri is taking the moral high ground here.
I agree that algorithms are the important part of the system - but how do you test if they work out in the wild, unless you have a large representative data set to test them with?
My Goodness, You are right. It *is* two parts - a voice recognition system, and something that takes a language based input and finds the appropriate response. Hmmmm - What should we call this component? It takes your inquiry, and finds an answer - For the sake of this discussion let's call it a "search engine." Clearly the "Search Agorithms" that it uses are critical, otherwise you'd get junk as an answer. It's great to hear that Apple is developing one of those! But wait, it sounds like they actually outsource a large fraction of the "engine" part to Wolfram Alpha just like they outsource a lot of the voice processing to Nuance - perhaps we shouldn't look too closely - it might let the magic out. But I digress, and you raise such a good point. This "Search Engine" portion of natural language processing really is critical. So I guess Apple totally dominates all competitors in this nascent field too, eh?
Incidentally - I've used several generations of Dragon Naturally Speaking, and it's a good argument for trying out something different - like centralized, statistical processing of voice data. Using that software, I was able to make subtle errors of several sorts at an unprecedented rate.
I happen to agree with you here. As I said, when I can get at it without signing an NDA, it's been released. You may make it clear that the service/product is going to change, possibly significantly, but you can't use "not released yet" as an excuse for flaws.
Have you been paying attention to what google has been doing with voice data? First, they've been collecting voice data for years. Before Google Voice actions, they were using Google Voice, before that, it was Google 411. They have a tremendous amount of natural language data back in the warehouse, and It's going to be quite a while before Apple has any hope of catching up (Remember - Google is still gathering data at an amazing rate via Voice actions and Google Voice, plus Android market share is now larger than iPhone market share - that's one more handicap for Apple).
As to the magic that Apple can supposedly work with incoming data: Would you be shocked if Google engineers can do the exact same thing with their voice data that Apple can? That's not valuable feedback, it's necessary, otherwise your algorithms will not improve.
And the "Siri isn't released yet" argument: I call shenanigans. If I can get it on my phone without signing an NDA, It's been released. I'm sure it WILL get better in future versions, but that's not an advantage - it's a requirement if Apple wants to stay in the field.
Apple HAS done good work in natural language processing, but I am unconvinced that this is a permanent advantage. They are playing catch-up in too many respects for anyone to say that they own the field.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I use Google's voice actions all the time. Care to convince me that they aren't much used?
Speaking of metaphors, I'm going to mix a special one, just for you.
You are using a broad brush to paint the kettle black. (* may or may not be applicable - meditation may help) ------------- I would argue that the attitude of many/. denizens on religion resemble this:
First, If you make extraordinary claims, you should present extraordinary evidence - Can you present any evidence that I am not my body, that my thoughts and feelings are not a bag of chemicals? (Ref: antidepressants)
Second, if more religious people ACTUALLY interpreted the texts/teaching of their religions as metaphors, the world would be a better place. We can see right through the stories, and we can also see "godly" folks adopting stupid positions based on these same texts/teachings. Religions may emphasize their kinder, softer side, but followers will do almost anything in the name of their god. There's the saying "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians" that pretty much sums it up. Even different sects of Buddhists engage in name-calling and worse in the name of their religion.
Third: We see religion as a set of memes that prey on weaknesses in the human mind. We pay attention to the history of religion: how they get started (Ref: LDS, Scientology, ), split/evolve (Ref: Judeo/Christianity) and die (Ref: Mithra, Apollonius of Tyana - veeeerrrry interesting) and we note the impressive similarities between them and other religions. The major difference: some have been around longer than others.
Merry Christmas, or whatever it is that floats your ark.
Check out the "Model 1: Word Shape" section, in which this theory is described as "oldest model in the psychological literature, and is likely much older than the psychological literature"
There's some other interesting sections there too, like the moving window study.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd suggest that you consider what it would take to implement any of the following of your ideas:
1) Ban theaters (I'm sure everyone will take this like the rational people we expect them to be, right?)
2) Pass new legislation (Yay! More regulations!) requiring that every theater in the country be retrofitted per your specifications.
3) Develop "consumer safe" ejection seat - must work flawlessly for infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, the elderly, the infirm, the deaf, those twits necking in the back row, the mentally handicapped, etc...
4) Pay for said regulations/retrofitting/inspections (How do you feel about taxes and/or movie ticket prices?)
All of these to save a couple people a year on average, maybe. Read up on the statistical value of a human life before you propose extravagant solutions.
Or we could just make a habit of smacking the hell out of people who cry wolf with the intent to cause injuries. Cheaper. Faster. Deters future idiocy.
We recognize that, with almost every activity, there is risk involved and there's the chance that people will die. We put up with deaths in theater fires because they are very rare and preventing them costs so much as to be prohibitive. (It's the same reason you don't see seat belts on school buses, or see a car recall after every accident.) We don't put up with people who think that "free speech" is a justified reason (or defense) for needlessly endangering others.
And besides, if the government can ban theaters for "your own protection", they might just as easily replace your house with a padded room, and take over management of your diet and exercise, and otherwise deprive you of ways to harm yourself.
+1
There are probably other reasons, but the way I heard it explained was this: Lots of doors open inward to restrict access to the hinge pins. Unless you have security hings, someone can pull the hinge pins and simply push the door open.
Good job. You are right. We can't legally prosecute you for being a douchbag, but even if we can't prosecute you for the speech itself, If you yell fire in a crowded theater with the intent of harming others, you can still be tried for reckless endangerment and, should the worst happen, voluntary manslaughter or murder.
You've managed to completely overlook what a fire in a crowded theater actually meant at the time that the phrase was coined. Let's just say that we have these things called "fire exits" in theaters now because theater fires used to be so gruesome. Holmes' 1919 opinion was written a mere 16 year after 600 people died in the Iroquis theater fire, and six years after 73 people died in Calumet, Michigan due to exactly the conduct you advocate. At the time, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater was a guaranteed way play on popular fears and to ensure that large numbers of people died. Congrats on holding the moral low ground.
In addition, you've utter neglected the fact that people packed in tightly do not behave in the same way as people packed loosely, irrespective of their intentions. If you have a hundred tightly packed people in a narrow hallway so much as casually lean forward all at one time, the people in the front are going to be under immense force. (If you think that the inevitable trampling someone to death is any one person's fault, you are an idiot and a bastard.) That this principle is still true today is evident in the 2003 Station Nightclub Fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
You have as much as admitted that people are predictable, and if you think that hurting people to emphasize that fact is acceptable, you deserve no better.
Woah. I'm surprised you can type with that chip on your shoulder. Ease up there . . .
The FTC requires that country-of-origin claims be assessed by portioning the manufacturing costs of the final product. A couple of dollars worth of foreign components/costs in an otherwise domestically sourced product that costs $300 is not considered to be an issue. If, on the other hand, the final product cost $5, then it's not acceptable to make a "Made in the USA" claim.
Here is a link to the FTC page which describes the situation a bit more clearly, if not nearly so briefly.
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus03-complying-made-usa-standard
Even if it is a bit fuzzy, the FTC regulates the use of express claims like "Made in the USA" See this webpage for details:
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus03-complying-made-usa-standard
In short, not every part of the device needs to be from the US for the device to be "Made in the USA". Here is a relevent exerpt for people who are interested, but not THAT interested:
-------------------
What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.?
The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U.S. parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.
Example: A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product.
Example: A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product.
You are preaching to the choir, sir.
You should check the actual game. I think -1 and -2 are special cases.
Don't forget hands -1 and -2.
Horse$#!t.
Go spend some time in Europe. My experience in Germany and Austria has been that that the government produces regulations that assume you can make your own decisions and be responsible for your own actions. If you screw up, you pay the price. Slip on a puddle and hit your head at the water park? Your fault - everyone knows water parks have slippery spots. Be more careful next time. A lawsuit is out of the question.
My experience was that day-to-day rules and regulations are mostly self-enforced: Occasionally an inspector will come around and if you are caught in violation, you will be fined. And you know what? It works. The government doesn't want to pay someone to poke into your life all the time, so they don't.
In comparison, the US (and England, in my experience) is practically a surveillance state. Every level of government assumes that you won't possibly comply unless someone is actually watching you. The government assumes you are an idiot and can't be trusted to walk onto a subway car without someone watching you. If you could make the US police and security industries as efficient as the ones I say in Europe, you'd make a good start on cutting the cost of government. Let's not even get started about the US policies about air travel.
The reason people in the US hate regulation is because the federal, state, and local governments have proved so bad at implementing them.
It sounds like you are taking most of the right steps already. Writing up projects, one last round of cleaning. . .
The rest really depends on how big of a job you are handing over. If you were a full time admin, then a single day of training is probably not going to be sufficient. If it was a part time position, then perhaps one day is sufficient. That said, I still wouldn't assume that the new guy is incompetent if he has questions after the first day.
I'd suggest that you tell the guy up front: You are moving to a new job and you won't have a lot of time to answer questions, but you don't want him to feel like you screwed him over. Do your day of training, offer to field emails for a week or two (you'll reply within 24 hours) then schedule an additional session for two weeks later. You should scale this to the size of the job you are handing over: perhaps an hour phone conference for small stuff, up to another day of training if you are handing over a full time position. At that point, he or she can ask any further questions and you can call it quits.
This buys you a bit of goodwill from both the new guy and your old boss. (Going to be wanting a reference from him someday? Show that you care and want things to go well, even after you leave.) Besides, odds are that the new guy is even moderately competent, he won't email you after the 3rd day, and will cancel your 2 week phone call. Plus, if he really is incompetent and starts seriously leaning on your expertise, you should call your old boss and tell him that the new guy has issues - that's probably more valuable than a slip of paper with a (now-known) incompetent's signature.
Best of luck.
I dunno. This is a /. denizen we are talking about. I'd suggest that he try pharmaceuticals instead.
Perhaps I am missing something - but there appears to be only a single document that mentions any sort of trouble (https://house.resource.org/hbs/pub/gov.house.20111214.pdf) Are there other documents that illustrate the problem more completely?
Thank you for taking the time to answer all these questions. This was a fascinating read.
I propose a challenge: I'll take one end of the list, and you get the other. My kids get to decide who gets which end, and the loser has to post as AC on Slashdot for eternity.
We should write out the rest of the list . . . So much potential for snark.
Now that's a movie I'd pay good money to see!
Now that the rest of the world is rethinking nuclear power, We Americans have changed our tune.
However, I think the US might be on the right track here. Of course, it helps that the risk of tsunamis in the southeastern US is right between that of a zombie outbreak and Ralph Nader winning the presidency.
Of course! - If Apple just asks, call centers will give them their data! Let's ignore any potential legal roadblocks here - instead let's talk logistics: Were Apple to take this approach, they would first need to find a call center that stores all of it's data indefinitely (you know, in that big data center in their closet), rather than just the problem customers, then you have to deal with this pesky trend of staffing call centers with people from foreign companies with non-standard accents (Oddly, call centers are never in places with accents I enjoy, like Australia.) Next, you have to account for the fact that this data set will be dramatically skewed towards negative descriptors of people and products. Then you have to make financial arrangements with the company who owns the data, who might be different from the company that operates the call center. And that's just one company's data.
Sure, it's possible that Apple could get data this way, but it sounds like a lot of work, a lot of expense, and I haven't heard a whisper of it actually happening (which is not proof, but . . .). Google has openly been collecting data for years. Apple has not. I won't believe that it is Google playing catch up until you present me with some evidence supporting that conclusion.
And now Siri is harvesting your appointments and interests - Clearly, Siri is taking the moral high ground here.
I agree that algorithms are the important part of the system - but how do you test if they work out in the wild, unless you have a large representative data set to test them with?
My Goodness, You are right. It *is* two parts - a voice recognition system, and something that takes a language based input and finds the appropriate response. Hmmmm - What should we call this component? It takes your inquiry, and finds an answer - For the sake of this discussion let's call it a "search engine." Clearly the "Search Agorithms" that it uses are critical, otherwise you'd get junk as an answer. It's great to hear that Apple is developing one of those! But wait, it sounds like they actually outsource a large fraction of the "engine" part to Wolfram Alpha just like they outsource a lot of the voice processing to Nuance - perhaps we shouldn't look too closely - it might let the magic out. But I digress, and you raise such a good point. This "Search Engine" portion of natural language processing really is critical. So I guess Apple totally dominates all competitors in this nascent field too, eh?
Incidentally - I've used several generations of Dragon Naturally Speaking, and it's a good argument for trying out something different - like centralized, statistical processing of voice data. Using that software, I was able to make subtle errors of several sorts at an unprecedented rate.
I happen to agree with you here. As I said, when I can get at it without signing an NDA, it's been released. You may make it clear that the service/product is going to change, possibly significantly, but you can't use "not released yet" as an excuse for flaws.
I thought they were the new IBM, and Apple was the new Microsoft . . .
Have you been paying attention to what google has been doing with voice data? First, they've been collecting voice data for years. Before Google Voice actions, they were using Google Voice, before that, it was Google 411. They have a tremendous amount of natural language data back in the warehouse, and It's going to be quite a while before Apple has any hope of catching up (Remember - Google is still gathering data at an amazing rate via Voice actions and Google Voice, plus Android market share is now larger than iPhone market share - that's one more handicap for Apple).
As to the magic that Apple can supposedly work with incoming data: Would you be shocked if Google engineers can do the exact same thing with their voice data that Apple can? That's not valuable feedback, it's necessary, otherwise your algorithms will not improve.
And the "Siri isn't released yet" argument: I call shenanigans. If I can get it on my phone without signing an NDA, It's been released. I'm sure it WILL get better in future versions, but that's not an advantage - it's a requirement if Apple wants to stay in the field.
Apple HAS done good work in natural language processing, but I am unconvinced that this is a permanent advantage. They are playing catch-up in too many respects for anyone to say that they own the field.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I use Google's voice actions all the time. Care to convince me that they aren't much used?
Speaking of metaphors, I'm going to mix a special one, just for you.
You are using a broad brush to paint the kettle black. (* may or may not be applicable - meditation may help) /. denizens on religion resemble this:
-------------
I would argue that the attitude of many
First, If you make extraordinary claims, you should present extraordinary evidence - Can you present any evidence that I am not my body, that my thoughts and feelings are not a bag of chemicals? (Ref: antidepressants)
Second, if more religious people ACTUALLY interpreted the texts/teaching of their religions as metaphors, the world would be a better place. We can see right through the stories, and we can also see "godly" folks adopting stupid positions based on these same texts/teachings. Religions may emphasize their kinder, softer side, but followers will do almost anything in the name of their god. There's the saying "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians" that pretty much sums it up. Even different sects of Buddhists engage in name-calling and worse in the name of their religion.
Third: We see religion as a set of memes that prey on weaknesses in the human mind. We pay attention to the history of religion: how they get started (Ref: LDS, Scientology, ), split/evolve (Ref: Judeo/Christianity) and die (Ref: Mithra, Apollonius of Tyana - veeeerrrry interesting) and we note the impressive similarities between them and other religions. The major difference: some have been around longer than others.
Merry Christmas, or whatever it is that floats your ark.
Microsoft, of all places, has a pretty good webpage on this.
Check out the "Model 1: Word Shape" section, in which this theory is described as "oldest model in the psychological literature, and is likely much older than the psychological literature"
There's some other interesting sections there too, like the moving window study.