It refers to any instance where a particular capability, feature, or technology significantly enhances the effectiveness of ANY organization or group, often in comparison with a larger organization or group.
So far, I only encountered it in the context of battlefield operations. It seems it has migrated out of that space and into a generic replacement for "more efficient"... Which generally means I can file it safely in my bullshit-bingo file.
And when I say "internet", I mean the broad, general term, and everything else that is implied: near-instant interchange of information; easy, specific targeting and organization of groups in widely disparate areas; ability to more effectively reach out quickly and more broadly with "fringe" ideas (ideas that may be termed "dangerous" or "harmful" or "radical" by any given governmental apparatus, not just that of the United States).
Personally, when I say "internet", I mean exactly that: the current international network of networks that allows various devices across the world to talk to each other via common protocols. Then again, that's not what you meant. Fine by me. I disagree with a good chunk of your implications of the internet, but that's anther story.
Your post is deriding my (and/or this bill's) "lack of understanding" about how propaganda or the internet works, when it is you who appears to have the lack of understanding, since you're putting the internet on the same level as all other communications mechanisms, or, at best, a slight, evolutionary improvement.
Err, no. I said that it is a communication medium like many others, not that it is identical to all others in efficiency.
Here's the part where I still see you actually contradicting yourself: the internet is a "force multiplier" - and it is only that. It does not change the nature of recruitment, propaganda, or indoctrination. It merely changes the distribution mechanism. As such, the tools that we have to understand propaganda and radicalization in a world without internet (which, btw, comprises a good chunk of the world where radical Islam is being propagated) can be applied in an identical fashion to how it works in a world with the internet. The primary thing that the internet changes is who the actors are. In the context of nation states, bully pulpits and traditional power structures, this is a revolution. In the context of propaganda and radicalizations, it is just another tool (even if it is a very efficient tool).
I've been calling the internet the greatest invention of mankind ever since I managed to get access to Lexis-Nexis. That, however, has nothing to do with how radical Islam is being spread and how terrorist cells organize. Focusing on that is mistaking a tool for a process. And that's why this bill is nonsense - it purports to investigate a tool, when it should be investigation a process. Not to mention that this is already being done by umpteen organizations far more qualified than any congress committee.
Thanks for pointing out the article. It pretty much mirrors my concerns exactly - the bill itself is nothing, but indicates serious issues in how terrorism is approached, and what problems are attributed to the internet.
To some extent, the bill is not all that much of a surprise. I've become enough of a cynic to expect crap like this, and am shocked when someone says something sensible.
And the point you're missing is that there is absolutely no reason to single out the internet. As a matter of fact, specifically mentioning the internet discredits a good chunk of the purpose of the bill. The internet is a communication medium, and as such, is guaranteed to be used for the purpose of radicalization - just like books, videos, radios, stickypads and smoke signals are. Singling out the internet indicates that there is either a lack of understanding about how propaganda and the internet works, or that the internet will be considered a specific target for fixing the problem of terrorism.
As for the internet being a force multiplier... uh, no. Force multipliers specifically refer to combat effectiveness. Please do not dilute the term to apply to just any increase in efficiency. If you're willing to argue that combat operations can be streamlined through use of the internet... again, any increase in communication efficiency helps any human activity, and the internet just happens to be the most efficient thing we have in that regard. At that point, you've done nothing more than substitute "force multiplier" for "better". Congratulations.
All that hot air, and no actual insight. Barely even informative.
Yes, the text is sponsored by democrats. Where's the relevance? Considering the consensus behind it, Teletubbies could have come up with it. Yes, it is important to look into preventing violent radicalization. Duh. As you so eloquently said, the how is the problem.
Here's why I'm at the very least mildly suspicious of this: Congress has proven time and time again that it will use the threat of terrorism to pass any bill, and that the powers in that bill will be abused. Furthermore, the near consensus on it is guaranteed to be due to the calculation that a vote against this bill will be used by opponents as a vote for terrorism (witness how Romney's comment about potential muslim representation in his cabinet was transformed into "he hates muslims" by his opponents).
So there are two reasons why this is a bad bill: 1) It is incredibly vague and full of feel-good statements. 2) This was a low-profile bill, as you said - why the hell is a bill that attempts to analyze the root cause of terrorism a low-profile bill?? This should be a far more important bill than the patriot act. Yet, it isn't.
The only thing positive I see in this bill is that it actually doesn't DO anything specific. However, I can guarantee you that the paragraph in the Findings section about the internet is going to be at the root of a whole lot of bad ideas and bad bills.
In short, the problem with this bill is that it does absolutely nothing useful (the cynic in me says that that's a good thing) and that it lays the groundwork for future wild goose chases. Would you rather get worked up while nothing bad has happened, or would you rather wait until Congress actually does do something stupid with this? Personally, I'd rather try and stop people ahead of time, rather than try to pick up the pieces of whatever disaster this will cause.
Mmh. I think we both abused hyperbole.:) I wouldn't even say a lot do. Sampling issues aside, I don't know anybody who brags about the size of their book shelf - certainly no one in the US.
Personally, I think there is something eternally cool and awesome about a classic library. For that reason alone, I'll keep most of my books.
I think that people who look down on people with lots of books are insecure about their own reading habits.
What - that's a load of crap I pulled out of my ass? Congrats. You're right.
Here's what I do know though - you're full of crap about why people like having books, why people read, and ultimately, why people like large libraries. It's for the same reason that people collect records, plates, coins, stamps, insects, door knobs and other things: they like the objects, and they like collecting them. Books tend to have a specific place of honor because for the longest time, they were the only way that knowledge was passed down. As a result, a large library correlated strongly with being learned, which was why they used to be status symbols.
Today, they're merely an indication of a person's passion. Looking down on people with large libraries says the same thing about you as does looking down on people with any other pastime; be it baseball, baseball cards or collecting train tickets: you're a pompous ass who needs external validations for why you're a worthy individual.
Come to think of it, maybe you should treat visits to the doctor just like visits to tech support: get a second opinion and make him explain everything in plain English.
Bingo. I never said to completely trust doctors in what they say. Just that it is important to understand what kind of exchange has to take place in order to have a successful visit.
What do they think they can find out by following us around? Everything we do is digital.
I normally hate all the Ayn Rand crap about how laws are just designed to keep the masses down, but in this case, it provides some context... It doesn't matter if you do everything online. At some point, you step back into the real world, along with real world rules. And that's when you can be caught for a million different things: littering, jaywalking, illegal parking, u-turns, speeding... the list is endless. If you're serious about taking someone out, don't do a frontal attack. Instead, sneak around the back and get them by surprise. Their site is firewalled and legally unassailable? Get them for something else. Tax evasion, anyone? If nothing else, the constant harassment will cause the admins to blow up at some point, and to provide some camera fodder.
On the hand, Taubes says that the medical establishment has gotten it wrong for the past 40 years. On the other hand, the medical establishment is exactly where he is getting his data from. Finally, his thesis about the cause of Type-II diabetes is how Type-II diabetes is defined.
I'm not saying that he is wrong - I'm saying that a good chunk of what he says is bog-standard medical knowledge couched in grandstanding and misappropriation. To me, this smells like someone who is trying to make money off of other people's work. In which case, it's nicely done. He's hit the "Seekrit Nollij!", "Conspiracy!" and "Live long and prosper!" buttons, and should entice enough people with them to make a good living. Congrats. I hope I never hear from him again.
No cultures with a tradition of long lived good health eat wheat or rice bran - or any non soluble bran.
Quote? Source? Who exactly are you referring to? The Matis Indians from the Amazon? Tibetans? French from the South? Fins from the North? Han Chinese? Mongols? Please, educate me. I can guarantee that I'll shoot your theory of "long lived good health" to pieces.
Go back to the traditional comfortably off working family diets of about 1900.
Who exactly are we referring to? The working miner? The working secretary? The working accountant or tailor? Where? Berlin? New York? Yorktown? I can tell you what my grandparents ate in 1900, and it'll scare your pants off. Lots of cabbage, lots of dairy, industrially produced bread, and very little meat and fruits. Why? Because fruits and meat were very expensive, and they flat out couldn't afford it. To this day, I don't understand why ox-tail soup is a delicacy - it was what my grandparents had when they couldn't get any other meat.
There are some good things about looking at how our diet has changed over time. But to argue though that the olden times were the golden times just because they were the olden times only demonstrates that you weren't present in the olden times. Instead, understand that the human body is a complex system, and that we are currently the closest we've ever been to understanding it. Anything else, and someone's trying to sell you their book, video or diet supplement.
You're like every customer who calls into customer support: they know the symptoms, are vaguely aware of the underpinnings of the machine and are absolutely convinced they know what the issue is.
Do yourself a favor, and treat your next interaction with your doctor like a call with tech support: understand that they know more about how the system is supposed to work than you, understand that you know more about how your system works than them, transfer that knowledge to them, and be patient while they wade through the standard troubleshooting steps (did you reboot your machine? do you get enough sleep/vitamins?).
You'll actually have a chance of getting some use out of them, and live a better life.
Because everything that's been known for hundreds of years is automatically true, right? Especially in medicine? I've got myself some blood-letting equipment I'd like to use next time you get the flu.
I'm not talking about the fact that making arbitrary choices is a fact of life. What pisses me off is that the legislature is finding it useful to discuss making a largely irrelevant change to an arbitrary cut-off. R, for all intents and purposes, means "Offending content inside. Might include nudity, violence, crude language and/or comedy, depending on what offends you." Whether this is 17 or 18 is a ridiculous distinction that we can settle on once, and then never go back to. We can also talk about the fact that AO pretty much means "We'd like to ban it outright, but aren't allowed to", but that's a different story altogether.
BTW, console makers are completely out of the picture here. The ESRB has no teeth, and it should stay that way. This is about legislative pandering, nothing else.
Playing this game when you're 17 will warp your fragile mind, but playing it when you're 18 is A-OK?
Bleah. This is nothing more than the latest attempt by some populist politicians to stir up public support over a matter so freaking trivial that it makes the Sparta Teapot Museum look positively profound.
The only thing that's worse than politicians pandering to hot-button issues is the people who keep voting them in. No wonder disillusion with democracy is running rampant.
If you're losing a ton of money over jury duty, you're making a metric-ton load more during all the other times you're not at jury duty. Consider it a small price to pay for the right to have a jury of your peers. If you're actually so deep in debt that you need the money you'd earn during jury duty... I can't help you, and would merely point out that you might want to readjust your lifestyle expectations.
Dammit - and here I have mod points, but already replied to something else.
This is exactly the purpose of the ACLU. While it doesn't deal with expert testimony, it does represent the union of all people who are accused (note that accused != guilty) and are being railroaded by the system. I never understand why people rail against the ACLU when the ACLU defends people like the KKK and child molesters because of a lack of due process in the trial. The only thing that stands between an honest man/woman and a wrongful conviction is the process itself. We'll disregard lying witnesses, missing evidence and other things that are just human failure. But if process isn't followed, the system itself is failing. And we can't have that.
This is a bullshit argument. Personally, I think it ranks with "but everyone else is doing it!" in shittiness. Did you ever think that some people actually consider jury duty to be a civic duty for which you ought to be thankful? Yes, it isn't the greatest system. But not participating - because that is what you're advocating - is just making it worse.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that no one should vote, because it is pointless. I'm sure you wouldn't mind to completely give up your right to vote and just accept everybody the American aristocracy and oligarchy throws at you.
And, because I can't write, here's the second sentence, but with links:
Instead, get rich and buy your own politician. It's much cheaper than running for president, and you have the benefit of not having to worry about re-election.
It took me a little while to understand what you were getting at, but it's something I've concluded as well: if you really, truly want to change something, don't bother voting. Don't even bother getting elected to office. Instead, get rich and buy your own politician. It's much cheaper than running for president, and you have the benefit of not having to worry about re-election.
Give it a year, it'll be tagged Hillary and Democrats. Hillary will be no different than Bush when it comes to abusing powers. I'm sure she'll be happy to use what Shrubby put into place.
Actually, what they have learned is to turn the West's (particularly the US) propaganda machine against itself. Quite brilliant, I have to admit. Anybody who underestimates Putin with respect to his goals and his determination is a fool (this means you, Shrubby).
You do realize that Russia is a federation, with the dominant party being fairly progressive, judging from its homepage.
However, this doesn't change the fact that Putin is an autocratic little bastard with lots of support by the general population. This is not a return to Stalinist ideology. This is a return to good old-fashioned tsarist imperialism and global power.
I doubt that the Perestroika was a planned retreat by the KGB. I do agree, however, that the KGB people are still smarting from what they saw as the loss of their position as one of the superpowers in the world. As is a large chunk of Russia. I believe that the Perestroika movement was genuine, but it ultimately didn't have enough support across a large enough swath of the population. The ex-KGB people though do have that support.
Russia is already a dictatorship (when was the last open election in Russia?) in all but name, and it's certainly working on the imperialism part. Anybody who's treating Russia as a friend or a partner will be in for a rude awakening. EU, I'm looking at you.
Slashdot Mirror
So far, I only encountered it in the context of battlefield operations. It seems it has migrated out of that space and into a generic replacement for "more efficient"... Which generally means I can file it safely in my bullshit-bingo file.
Personally, when I say "internet", I mean exactly that: the current international network of networks that allows various devices across the world to talk to each other via common protocols. Then again, that's not what you meant. Fine by me. I disagree with a good chunk of your implications of the internet, but that's anther story.
Err, no. I said that it is a communication medium like many others, not that it is identical to all others in efficiency.
Here's the part where I still see you actually contradicting yourself: the internet is a "force multiplier" - and it is only that. It does not change the nature of recruitment, propaganda, or indoctrination. It merely changes the distribution mechanism. As such, the tools that we have to understand propaganda and radicalization in a world without internet (which, btw, comprises a good chunk of the world where radical Islam is being propagated) can be applied in an identical fashion to how it works in a world with the internet. The primary thing that the internet changes is who the actors are. In the context of nation states, bully pulpits and traditional power structures, this is a revolution. In the context of propaganda and radicalizations, it is just another tool (even if it is a very efficient tool).
I've been calling the internet the greatest invention of mankind ever since I managed to get access to Lexis-Nexis. That, however, has nothing to do with how radical Islam is being spread and how terrorist cells organize. Focusing on that is mistaking a tool for a process. And that's why this bill is nonsense - it purports to investigate a tool, when it should be investigation a process. Not to mention that this is already being done by umpteen organizations far more qualified than any congress committee.
Thanks for pointing out the article. It pretty much mirrors my concerns exactly - the bill itself is nothing, but indicates serious issues in how terrorism is approached, and what problems are attributed to the internet.
To some extent, the bill is not all that much of a surprise. I've become enough of a cynic to expect crap like this, and am shocked when someone says something sensible.
And the point you're missing is that there is absolutely no reason to single out the internet. As a matter of fact, specifically mentioning the internet discredits a good chunk of the purpose of the bill. The internet is a communication medium, and as such, is guaranteed to be used for the purpose of radicalization - just like books, videos, radios, stickypads and smoke signals are. Singling out the internet indicates that there is either a lack of understanding about how propaganda and the internet works, or that the internet will be considered a specific target for fixing the problem of terrorism.
As for the internet being a force multiplier... uh, no. Force multipliers specifically refer to combat effectiveness. Please do not dilute the term to apply to just any increase in efficiency. If you're willing to argue that combat operations can be streamlined through use of the internet... again, any increase in communication efficiency helps any human activity, and the internet just happens to be the most efficient thing we have in that regard. At that point, you've done nothing more than substitute "force multiplier" for "better". Congratulations.
All that hot air, and no actual insight. Barely even informative.
Yes, the text is sponsored by democrats. Where's the relevance? Considering the consensus behind it, Teletubbies could have come up with it. Yes, it is important to look into preventing violent radicalization. Duh. As you so eloquently said, the how is the problem.
Here's why I'm at the very least mildly suspicious of this: Congress has proven time and time again that it will use the threat of terrorism to pass any bill, and that the powers in that bill will be abused. Furthermore, the near consensus on it is guaranteed to be due to the calculation that a vote against this bill will be used by opponents as a vote for terrorism (witness how Romney's comment about potential muslim representation in his cabinet was transformed into "he hates muslims" by his opponents).
So there are two reasons why this is a bad bill:
1) It is incredibly vague and full of feel-good statements.
2) This was a low-profile bill, as you said - why the hell is a bill that attempts to analyze the root cause of terrorism a low-profile bill?? This should be a far more important bill than the patriot act. Yet, it isn't.
The only thing positive I see in this bill is that it actually doesn't DO anything specific. However, I can guarantee you that the paragraph in the Findings section about the internet is going to be at the root of a whole lot of bad ideas and bad bills.
In short, the problem with this bill is that it does absolutely nothing useful (the cynic in me says that that's a good thing) and that it lays the groundwork for future wild goose chases. Would you rather get worked up while nothing bad has happened, or would you rather wait until Congress actually does do something stupid with this? Personally, I'd rather try and stop people ahead of time, rather than try to pick up the pieces of whatever disaster this will cause.
Mmh. I think we both abused hyperbole. :) I wouldn't even say a lot do. Sampling issues aside, I don't know anybody who brags about the size of their book shelf - certainly no one in the US.
Personally, I think there is something eternally cool and awesome about a classic library. For that reason alone, I'll keep most of my books.
I think that people who look down on people with lots of books are insecure about their own reading habits.
What - that's a load of crap I pulled out of my ass? Congrats. You're right.
Here's what I do know though - you're full of crap about why people like having books, why people read, and ultimately, why people like large libraries. It's for the same reason that people collect records, plates, coins, stamps, insects, door knobs and other things: they like the objects, and they like collecting them. Books tend to have a specific place of honor because for the longest time, they were the only way that knowledge was passed down. As a result, a large library correlated strongly with being learned, which was why they used to be status symbols.
Today, they're merely an indication of a person's passion. Looking down on people with large libraries says the same thing about you as does looking down on people with any other pastime; be it baseball, baseball cards or collecting train tickets: you're a pompous ass who needs external validations for why you're a worthy individual.
Irrelevant. If I HAVE to rely on an external entity for backups, it is not a backup at all.
Bingo. I never said to completely trust doctors in what they say. Just that it is important to understand what kind of exchange has to take place in order to have a successful visit.
I normally hate all the Ayn Rand crap about how laws are just designed to keep the masses down, but in this case, it provides some context... It doesn't matter if you do everything online. At some point, you step back into the real world, along with real world rules. And that's when you can be caught for a million different things: littering, jaywalking, illegal parking, u-turns, speeding... the list is endless. If you're serious about taking someone out, don't do a frontal attack. Instead, sneak around the back and get them by surprise. Their site is firewalled and legally unassailable? Get them for something else. Tax evasion, anyone? If nothing else, the constant harassment will cause the admins to blow up at some point, and to provide some camera fodder.
On the hand, Taubes says that the medical establishment has gotten it wrong for the past 40 years. On the other hand, the medical establishment is exactly where he is getting his data from. Finally, his thesis about the cause of Type-II diabetes is how Type-II diabetes is defined.
I'm not saying that he is wrong - I'm saying that a good chunk of what he says is bog-standard medical knowledge couched in grandstanding and misappropriation. To me, this smells like someone who is trying to make money off of other people's work. In which case, it's nicely done. He's hit the "Seekrit Nollij!", "Conspiracy!" and "Live long and prosper!" buttons, and should entice enough people with them to make a good living. Congrats. I hope I never hear from him again.
Quote? Source? Who exactly are you referring to? The Matis Indians from the Amazon? Tibetans? French from the South? Fins from the North? Han Chinese? Mongols? Please, educate me. I can guarantee that I'll shoot your theory of "long lived good health" to pieces.
Who exactly are we referring to? The working miner? The working secretary? The working accountant or tailor? Where? Berlin? New York? Yorktown? I can tell you what my grandparents ate in 1900, and it'll scare your pants off. Lots of cabbage, lots of dairy, industrially produced bread, and very little meat and fruits. Why? Because fruits and meat were very expensive, and they flat out couldn't afford it. To this day, I don't understand why ox-tail soup is a delicacy - it was what my grandparents had when they couldn't get any other meat.
There are some good things about looking at how our diet has changed over time. But to argue though that the olden times were the golden times just because they were the olden times only demonstrates that you weren't present in the olden times. Instead, understand that the human body is a complex system, and that we are currently the closest we've ever been to understanding it. Anything else, and someone's trying to sell you their book, video or diet supplement.
You're like every customer who calls into customer support: they know the symptoms, are vaguely aware of the underpinnings of the machine and are absolutely convinced they know what the issue is.
Do yourself a favor, and treat your next interaction with your doctor like a call with tech support: understand that they know more about how the system is supposed to work than you, understand that you know more about how your system works than them, transfer that knowledge to them, and be patient while they wade through the standard troubleshooting steps (did you reboot your machine? do you get enough sleep/vitamins?).
You'll actually have a chance of getting some use out of them, and live a better life.
Because everything that's been known for hundreds of years is automatically true, right? Especially in medicine? I've got myself some blood-letting equipment I'd like to use next time you get the flu.
I'm not talking about the fact that making arbitrary choices is a fact of life. What pisses me off is that the legislature is finding it useful to discuss making a largely irrelevant change to an arbitrary cut-off. R, for all intents and purposes, means "Offending content inside. Might include nudity, violence, crude language and/or comedy, depending on what offends you." Whether this is 17 or 18 is a ridiculous distinction that we can settle on once, and then never go back to. We can also talk about the fact that AO pretty much means "We'd like to ban it outright, but aren't allowed to", but that's a different story altogether.
BTW, console makers are completely out of the picture here. The ESRB has no teeth, and it should stay that way. This is about legislative pandering, nothing else.
Playing this game when you're 17 will warp your fragile mind, but playing it when you're 18 is A-OK? Bleah. This is nothing more than the latest attempt by some populist politicians to stir up public support over a matter so freaking trivial that it makes the Sparta Teapot Museum look positively profound. The only thing that's worse than politicians pandering to hot-button issues is the people who keep voting them in. No wonder disillusion with democracy is running rampant.
If you're losing a ton of money over jury duty, you're making a metric-ton load more during all the other times you're not at jury duty. Consider it a small price to pay for the right to have a jury of your peers. If you're actually so deep in debt that you need the money you'd earn during jury duty... I can't help you, and would merely point out that you might want to readjust your lifestyle expectations.
Dammit - and here I have mod points, but already replied to something else.
This is exactly the purpose of the ACLU. While it doesn't deal with expert testimony, it does represent the union of all people who are accused (note that accused != guilty) and are being railroaded by the system. I never understand why people rail against the ACLU when the ACLU defends people like the KKK and child molesters because of a lack of due process in the trial. The only thing that stands between an honest man/woman and a wrongful conviction is the process itself. We'll disregard lying witnesses, missing evidence and other things that are just human failure. But if process isn't followed, the system itself is failing. And we can't have that.
This is a bullshit argument. Personally, I think it ranks with "but everyone else is doing it!" in shittiness. Did you ever think that some people actually consider jury duty to be a civic duty for which you ought to be thankful? Yes, it isn't the greatest system. But not participating - because that is what you're advocating - is just making it worse.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that no one should vote, because it is pointless. I'm sure you wouldn't mind to completely give up your right to vote and just accept everybody the American aristocracy and oligarchy throws at you.
Unfortunately, it seems that some people need to be reminded of this on occasion. Sad, I know.
Instead, get rich and buy your own politician. It's much cheaper than running for president, and you have the benefit of not having to worry about re-election.
It took me a little while to understand what you were getting at, but it's something I've concluded as well: if you really, truly want to change something, don't bother voting. Don't even bother getting elected to office. Instead, get rich and buy your own politician. It's much cheaper than running for president, and you have the benefit of not having to worry about re-election.
Give it a year, it'll be tagged Hillary and Democrats. Hillary will be no different than Bush when it comes to abusing powers. I'm sure she'll be happy to use what Shrubby put into place.
Actually, what they have learned is to turn the West's (particularly the US) propaganda machine against itself. Quite brilliant, I have to admit. Anybody who underestimates Putin with respect to his goals and his determination is a fool (this means you, Shrubby).
You do realize that Russia is a federation, with the dominant party being fairly progressive, judging from its homepage.
However, this doesn't change the fact that Putin is an autocratic little bastard with lots of support by the general population. This is not a return to Stalinist ideology. This is a return to good old-fashioned tsarist imperialism and global power.
I doubt that the Perestroika was a planned retreat by the KGB. I do agree, however, that the KGB people are still smarting from what they saw as the loss of their position as one of the superpowers in the world. As is a large chunk of Russia. I believe that the Perestroika movement was genuine, but it ultimately didn't have enough support across a large enough swath of the population. The ex-KGB people though do have that support.
Russia is already a dictatorship (when was the last open election in Russia?) in all but name, and it's certainly working on the imperialism part. Anybody who's treating Russia as a friend or a partner will be in for a rude awakening. EU, I'm looking at you.