I mostly agree with you and sympathize with the grief you're getting: if you emit carbon, and sink it right back, what right others have to say you're hurting the environment?
That's why the best solution is to just do a mandatory version of this: have a carbon tax, and apply the taxes toward carbon credits, effectively neutralizing everyone's carbon, without them even noticing much. Easy, and pretty painless since you can just switch to less carbon-intense things, and the "magic of the market" will be put to use, now that environmental inefficiencies *are* economic inefficiencies.
The problem, of course, is that "environmentalists" oppose this *because* it's easy. See, the solution is designed to reduce net carbon emissions. But for most environmentalists, "global warming" is merely a pretense to slow down economic growth. So if you propose a solution that takes them at their word, they'll be a bit confused: "But... but... that isn't economically damaging enough". They'd rather come up with an (ineffective) laundry list of things they don't like and want to ban (SUVs, incandescents, etc.) regardless of what their users do about the carbon.
Would you agree with me that this is why environmentalists by and large (I know there are a few exceptions) oppose the solution I outlined?
(Btw, this all assumes that the effect of the offsets is to prevent or remove CO2. Some offset programs feel good but don't do this. For example, simply building wind farms merely increases the supply of energy, decreasing the price and encouraging use. If you wanted to get credits through a wind farm, a better way would be to work out a deal whereby a power plant with replace *existing demand* for energy one-for-one with wind energy instead of fossil fuels, and subsidize the wind farm so that it can profitably sell at prevailing energy rates.)
*has deleted my bookmarks on three of the last four times I updated *later versions no longer immediately load a URL when I click on it from the drop-down menu in the address bar, no clear way to change this, complete denial that this feature ever existed *updating destroys javascript whitelist *yes, random sites do have different font sizes, that is a valid complaint *large file download speed slows down if you don't take the non-obvious step of clearing download list
Only if you narrow it down to the point where you can identify how much you will pay out to *each person*. Noticing a higher rate of accidents among frequent drinkers (again, I don't know if this exists) still accomplishes the function of insurance, which is to spread the risk of things *that cannot be more precisely predicted*. In such an exercise, you still don't know if any one person in that class will have an accident, just that (if true) a higher fraction of them will require a payout.
No strawman. I wasn't saying "my system is better than the status quo, therefore it's the best". The claim was that I don't think you can trust the result unless you remove the secret ballot constraint, and therefore my system is better than any one lacking this. I understand that you disagree with that position, but it was not a strawman, and I absolutely was not equating rejection of my system with support of the status quo.
I will, however, view the link you gave, and see if it convinces me that I can trust the result while keeping others' votes fully secret from everyone.
Why would a woman cede regular sex with a committed, higher-ranked male, in order to get sex with a lower-ranked male?That just doesn't make any sense.
Why don't you start spinning tales about how you ditched the college chick you were dating in order to do meals-on-wheels-with-benefits?
I don't think my proposal takes us back to the old days of vote buying. Under my proposal, it's still difficult to find if an arbitrary voter voted a certain way, and it wouldn't be internet searchable, just *in principle* verifiable.
In contrast, anything where you can't connect a voter with a vote WILL have corruption.
That's still effectively the same as a secret ballot, because they could just pad the published list with fake serial numbers voting a certain way. You would need some way to verify that the serial number corresponds to a valid voter, and to do that, at some point, you need to find a real person behind the vote.
That's why I think finding the person is unavoidable. We should, of course, put up a lot of barriers so that it's nearly impossible for an *arbitrary* person to find an *arbitrary* voter's vote. For example, group X only sees a random 10% of voters, and can visit only 1% of that. Any descrepancies, and you can privately verify each person's vote.
Now, what you could do instead is publish the serial numbers, linked to each voter, and then have some one-way function that changes it to their election-day number, and publish the votes for those transformed numbers. Then you can keep them from padding the list, because you can compare physical poll no-shows to the published number of no-shows.
I have reservations about calling them scientific polls. Obama's (and Paul's) supporters are dominated by younger, internet- and social-networking-savvy people. People who avoid the landline phones through which the surveys are conducted, like the plague.
Er, no, a candidate's ENTIRE share of votes at a precinct disappearing, doesn't happen. That is inexcusable.
This is why I've long held that the only way to ensure all votes are accurately counted, is to end the secret ballot. Don't make it available on the internet, but make it so groups, with stringent limitations, can audit the list, and people can check their own vote.
I mean, look at this -- people found that their votes weren't counted, simply because a weak reality check caught it. Imagine what it's like on all the times where it *isn't* painfully obvious your vote wasn't counted!
The evidence is the fact that they reject any sustainable, effective, long-term solution if it also isn't economically damaging. For example, a carbon tax plus contracting out the carbon sinking could (like I suggested before) contain the problem completely and be robust against pretty much anything (people who "need" carbon intense activities, different power sources, any carbon-intense new technology), while at the same time having a minimal economic impact, esp. as the sinking cost goes down.
All proposals are something designed to be as inconvenient as possible, and they'll rationalize away any non-economically damaging solution.
You have seen me in the past propose carbon tax + sink in lieu of e.g. inefficient-product bans, and agreed it would be a better, sustainable, long-term solution. What do *you* make of the fact that every "environmentalist"-proposed solution emphasizes inconvenience over the environment?
(And btw, I wasn't necessarily saying that *that* poster was anticapitalist, just explaining what results when you rationalize ["that's bad because it hurts the environment"] rather than justify ["that's bad because it hurts the environment, and even if it didn't, it would concentrate power in the hands of the few"]. FWIW, I think it's consistent with support of capitalism to demand that people who violate the rights of others pay compensation, and the tax I proposed is consistent with that ideal as a remedy.)
Yes, like what goaway said, that's the same problem, just assigning a higher penalty ("distance") to parts of the graph ("edges") involving a left turn. Same problem, different numbers.
I'm sorry, but this is a pretty ridiculous perspective. If all you're concerned about is reducing the net emissions that lead global warming, you shouldn't care whether someone a) doesn't emit, or b) emits and then re-sinks the same amount. In that respect, certain indulgences *do* cancel your damage and are valid alternatives to reducing emissions.
I strongly suspect that it's more than environmental damage that bothers you when people use fossil fuels. And that's okay! But don't be surprised when people respond to your concerns with policies that are optimized for "environmental preservation" rather than "weighted sum of environmental preservation and destruction of the capitalist system".
Let's say we can get carbon sequestration cheap enough that the typical person's (in a developed economy) entire carbon contribution can be sunk for ~$200/year.
Then, say, the government ensure everyone sinks their contribution, so it's, in effect, scattered throughout the year via taxes on carbon.
And let's further say that money is applied to removing the carbon from the atmosphere.
Hell, let's sweeten the pot: all countries do same.
Problem solved, right? No more net emissions. No more global warming. Full environmental cost of carbon is contained.
Raise your hand if you think the cries for reducing fossil fuel consumption would end. Okay? You there, with your hand up: I want what you're smoking.
"Fossil fuels cause global warming" may be true. It's definitely *also* a rationalization for a separate, independent goal.
Oh, I'm with you 100%. Workers who already earned their pensions should be first in line for cash as it comes in, yet somehow, GM is allowed to pay a dividend, the *last* payment a corporation is supposed to make, while the pensions aren't fully funded, and GM won't even SAY how much it would take to fully fund it on a termination basis.
I mean -- that's just how it's supposed to work. When a corporation is insolvent, first you pay workers for work already done, then bondholders, then stockholders. Yet GM is allowed to pay stockholders in preference to workers. WTF?
So, what needs to happen is: GM need to water its own stock into oblivion through new issues until the pension fund can be fully covered on a termination basis. That is, enough to buy annuities for everyone so it's no longer in GM's hands. Then, fully fund a *third-party* program to cover warranties -- since GM has made it clear they have no clue how to save for predictable future obligations. If they can't cover it, start seeking buyers for every business unit. Once all of that is taken care of, then they can see if there's something left for secured bondholders, and the stock will be trading for a few pennies per share after about eight reverse-splits.
But... but... in the whole Ubuntu fiasco I went through... EVERYONE who spoke on the matter, repeatedly emphasized that loading an alternate OS by holding down a button during startup is an ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE OPTION, and that's why being locked out of all OSes in Stage 1.5 (where I can't give it any commands) was 100% unavoidable for me in dual-booting Ubuntu, and There Was No Other Way.
Read my sig if you don't believe me!
Then, mod me down for stating facts and having the audacity to complain that people hold non-Linux products to different design standards!
Lieber Dan Nystedt von ComputerWorld, die Englische Sprache manglet die rechte Woerter auszusagen, wie falsch Du's hast. Ich wunsche, dass ich Deutsch wusste, damit ich das Reste schreien konnte.
Was Dich das letzte Satz zu schreiben verursacht, weiss ich nicht. Sie kampfen fuer die junge Sinne von jedem Kind in entwicklungen Laendern. Was ist so besonders ueber dies das GRUB oder LILO fuer Dualboot nicht koennen bentutzt werden? Schreibt Microsft das Code fuer Dualboot? Das waere mir eine Ueberraschung.
Wenn Du behaupst, Microsft will nur, das die Kinder das beste OS fuer lernen bekommst, warum geben sie keine kostenlose Kopien von Windows und Office zur dritte Weltlichen Kindern bevor die OLPC angefangen hat? Weil sie lieber die Ware ausgeben wuerde, als ein Gegner in die Herzen und Sinnen den Kindern fallen lassen. Linux ist immer jedem frei gewesen. Denk daran.
You make a good point, but you haven't addressed the GP's or my concern, for the simple reason that the legal system (or specifically, the jury system) doesn't have to be rational. It's true that computers currently control many tasks, but the public in general draws the (socially acceptable) line at some tasks. I wish I could articulate how that line is formed, but I can't, because it's not articulable, but rather, arbitrary.
Only by suspending, through a legislative act, the right to sue the big-pockets behind the driverless cars for unbounded damages, will it be possible to see them on the road. That is why I say the barriers are political rather than technological.
I guess I wasn't clear. I accept the driverless cars have a lower risk of accident. However, that is more than completely wiped out by the fact that you have to insure against a larger payment when you do have an accident, because courts will award more in damages.
It's the same thing I've been railing about. All of them have truly massive, unfunded legacy costs and legacy obligations to keep on overpaid, useless workers. Unlike their foreign competitors, they have to pay huge amounts of money every year that adds nothing to product value, and does not correspond to capital that is earning them value as it would on a loan. (That "capital" -- lower wages for workers that agreed to such deferred compensation -- was unfortunately thrown off as as dividends and bonuses.)
If you're a good stylist or engineer or manager or machinist or, yes, driverless car designer, who is actually worth your salt, you will go work for a car company that can afford you, not GM.
That's why even a "superman" -- some individual capable of single-handedly dazzling the world with his skill in all of the above areas -- could not save GM. If such a person existed, he go work for Toyota, which could pay him more, because they wouldn't be deducting to pay for all the legacy obligations!
It ends the problem of drunk driving only if the automated system is 100% in control portal-to-portal and 100% reliable portal-to-portal. The drunk will be making the initial decision to take to the roads.
Yes, which is why the problem is greatly curtailed -- drunk merely has to be able to say, "God damn I'm wasted. Car, take me home." I'm willing to bet that most drunk people who get in a car will gladly take this option in preference to risking a DUI.
You are correct, of course, that part of the problem is simply not giving a damn how your driving affects others. To the extent that that is the problem, I agree that technology and laws are largely ineffective. For example, when someone tries to use a cell phone while making a difficult driving maneuver, the problem is not that he overestimates his skill, or that he deems the potential punishment small enough. It's that he's just not putting in the effort to be a safe driver, and no law or technology will change that.
That's a very important point, and I hope more people take note of what you said. The primary barriers to this kind of thing are political, not technological. If I injure or kill someone through my driving, what's the most you could hope to sue me for? Maybe a million dollars. But if the car was self-driving, well hey, that's a company with deep pockets. You could sue me for a lot more!
Now who can handle the insurance policy on that?
Then, of course, inane regulation.
Never mind that these will be safer and less obstructive than 95% of drivers. Never mind that they'll end the problem of drunk driving. Never mind that they will massively increase productivity. Everyone has to get their piece.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem reasonable, so maybe you'll reply to me.
... but ... that isn't economically damaging enough". They'd rather come up with an (ineffective) laundry list of things they don't like and want to ban (SUVs, incandescents, etc.) regardless of what their users do about the carbon.
I mostly agree with you and sympathize with the grief you're getting: if you emit carbon, and sink it right back, what right others have to say you're hurting the environment?
That's why the best solution is to just do a mandatory version of this: have a carbon tax, and apply the taxes toward carbon credits, effectively neutralizing everyone's carbon, without them even noticing much. Easy, and pretty painless since you can just switch to less carbon-intense things, and the "magic of the market" will be put to use, now that environmental inefficiencies *are* economic inefficiencies.
The problem, of course, is that "environmentalists" oppose this *because* it's easy. See, the solution is designed to reduce net carbon emissions. But for most environmentalists, "global warming" is merely a pretense to slow down economic growth. So if you propose a solution that takes them at their word, they'll be a bit confused: "But
Would you agree with me that this is why environmentalists by and large (I know there are a few exceptions) oppose the solution I outlined?
(Btw, this all assumes that the effect of the offsets is to prevent or remove CO2. Some offset programs feel good but don't do this. For example, simply building wind farms merely increases the supply of energy, decreasing the price and encouraging use. If you wanted to get credits through a wind farm, a better way would be to work out a deal whereby a power plant with replace *existing demand* for energy one-for-one with wind energy instead of fossil fuels, and subsidize the wind farm so that it can profitably sell at prevailing energy rates.)
*has deleted my bookmarks on three of the last four times I updated
*later versions no longer immediately load a URL when I click on it from the drop-down menu in the address bar, no clear way to change this, complete denial that this feature ever existed
*updating destroys javascript whitelist
*yes, random sites do have different font sizes, that is a valid complaint
*large file download speed slows down if you don't take the non-obvious step of clearing download list
Only if you narrow it down to the point where you can identify how much you will pay out to *each person*. Noticing a higher rate of accidents among frequent drinkers (again, I don't know if this exists) still accomplishes the function of insurance, which is to spread the risk of things *that cannot be more precisely predicted*. In such an exercise, you still don't know if any one person in that class will have an accident, just that (if true) a higher fraction of them will require a payout.
No strawman. I wasn't saying "my system is better than the status quo, therefore it's the best". The claim was that I don't think you can trust the result unless you remove the secret ballot constraint, and therefore my system is better than any one lacking this. I understand that you disagree with that position, but it was not a strawman, and I absolutely was not equating rejection of my system with support of the status quo.
I will, however, view the link you gave, and see if it convinces me that I can trust the result while keeping others' votes fully secret from everyone.
Additionally, insurance companies could drop you if they found out, for exaple, you were out drinking 3 nights a week.
Yeah, man, I hate when they accurately judge my risk of an accident and prevent me from leeching off of safe drivers.[1]
[1] Assuming frequent drinkers really are more dangerous as per actuarial tables, which may or may not be true.
Why would a woman cede regular sex with a committed, higher-ranked male, in order to get sex with a lower-ranked male?That just doesn't make any sense.
Why don't you start spinning tales about how you ditched the college chick you were dating in order to do meals-on-wheels-with-benefits?
I don't think my proposal takes us back to the old days of vote buying. Under my proposal, it's still difficult to find if an arbitrary voter voted a certain way, and it wouldn't be internet searchable, just *in principle* verifiable.
In contrast, anything where you can't connect a voter with a vote WILL have corruption.
That's still effectively the same as a secret ballot, because they could just pad the published list with fake serial numbers voting a certain way. You would need some way to verify that the serial number corresponds to a valid voter, and to do that, at some point, you need to find a real person behind the vote.
That's why I think finding the person is unavoidable. We should, of course, put up a lot of barriers so that it's nearly impossible for an *arbitrary* person to find an *arbitrary* voter's vote. For example, group X only sees a random 10% of voters, and can visit only 1% of that. Any descrepancies, and you can privately verify each person's vote.
Now, what you could do instead is publish the serial numbers, linked to each voter, and then have some one-way function that changes it to their election-day number, and publish the votes for those transformed numbers. Then you can keep them from padding the list, because you can compare physical poll no-shows to the published number of no-shows.
I have reservations about calling them scientific polls. Obama's (and Paul's) supporters are dominated by younger, internet- and social-networking-savvy people. People who avoid the landline phones through which the surveys are conducted, like the plague.
These things happen in primaries.
Er, no, a candidate's ENTIRE share of votes at a precinct disappearing, doesn't happen. That is inexcusable.
This is why I've long held that the only way to ensure all votes are accurately counted, is to end the secret ballot. Don't make it available on the internet, but make it so groups, with stringent limitations, can audit the list, and people can check their own vote.
I mean, look at this -- people found that their votes weren't counted, simply because a weak reality check caught it. Imagine what it's like on all the times where it *isn't* painfully obvious your vote wasn't counted!
The evidence is the fact that they reject any sustainable, effective, long-term solution if it also isn't economically damaging. For example, a carbon tax plus contracting out the carbon sinking could (like I suggested before) contain the problem completely and be robust against pretty much anything (people who "need" carbon intense activities, different power sources, any carbon-intense new technology), while at the same time having a minimal economic impact, esp. as the sinking cost goes down.
All proposals are something designed to be as inconvenient as possible, and they'll rationalize away any non-economically damaging solution.
You have seen me in the past propose carbon tax + sink in lieu of e.g. inefficient-product bans, and agreed it would be a better, sustainable, long-term solution. What do *you* make of the fact that every "environmentalist"-proposed solution emphasizes inconvenience over the environment?
(And btw, I wasn't necessarily saying that *that* poster was anticapitalist, just explaining what results when you rationalize ["that's bad because it hurts the environment"] rather than justify ["that's bad because it hurts the environment, and even if it didn't, it would concentrate power in the hands of the few"]. FWIW, I think it's consistent with support of capitalism to demand that people who violate the rights of others pay compensation, and the tax I proposed is consistent with that ideal as a remedy.)
Yes, like what goaway said, that's the same problem, just assigning a higher penalty ("distance") to parts of the graph ("edges") involving a left turn. Same problem, different numbers.
I'm sorry, but this is a pretty ridiculous perspective. If all you're concerned about is reducing the net emissions that lead global warming, you shouldn't care whether someone a) doesn't emit, or b) emits and then re-sinks the same amount. In that respect, certain indulgences *do* cancel your damage and are valid alternatives to reducing emissions.
I strongly suspect that it's more than environmental damage that bothers you when people use fossil fuels. And that's okay! But don't be surprised when people respond to your concerns with policies that are optimized for "environmental preservation" rather than "weighted sum of environmental preservation and destruction of the capitalist system".
What would be the point?
Let's say we can get carbon sequestration cheap enough that the typical person's (in a developed economy) entire carbon contribution can be sunk for ~$200/year.
Then, say, the government ensure everyone sinks their contribution, so it's, in effect, scattered throughout the year via taxes on carbon.
And let's further say that money is applied to removing the carbon from the atmosphere.
Hell, let's sweeten the pot: all countries do same.
Problem solved, right? No more net emissions. No more global warming. Full environmental cost of carbon is contained.
Raise your hand if you think the cries for reducing fossil fuel consumption would end. Okay? You there, with your hand up: I want what you're smoking.
"Fossil fuels cause global warming" may be true. It's definitely *also* a rationalization for a separate, independent goal.
Oh, I'm with you 100%. Workers who already earned their pensions should be first in line for cash as it comes in, yet somehow, GM is allowed to pay a dividend, the *last* payment a corporation is supposed to make, while the pensions aren't fully funded, and GM won't even SAY how much it would take to fully fund it on a termination basis.
I mean -- that's just how it's supposed to work. When a corporation is insolvent, first you pay workers for work already done, then bondholders, then stockholders. Yet GM is allowed to pay stockholders in preference to workers. WTF?
So, what needs to happen is: GM need to water its own stock into oblivion through new issues until the pension fund can be fully covered on a termination basis. That is, enough to buy annuities for everyone so it's no longer in GM's hands. Then, fully fund a *third-party* program to cover warranties -- since GM has made it clear they have no clue how to save for predictable future obligations. If they can't cover it, start seeking buyers for every business unit. Once all of that is taken care of, then they can see if there's something left for secured bondholders, and the stock will be trading for a few pennies per share after about eight reverse-splits.
[/rant]
But ... but ... in the whole Ubuntu fiasco I went through ... EVERYONE who spoke on the matter, repeatedly emphasized that loading an alternate OS by holding down a button during startup is an ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE OPTION, and that's why being locked out of all OSes in Stage 1.5 (where I can't give it any commands) was 100% unavoidable for me in dual-booting Ubuntu, and There Was No Other Way.
Read my sig if you don't believe me!
Then, mod me down for stating facts and having the audacity to complain that people hold non-Linux products to different design standards!
Okay, here's my best:
Lieber Dan Nystedt von ComputerWorld, die Englische Sprache manglet die rechte Woerter auszusagen, wie falsch Du's hast. Ich wunsche, dass ich Deutsch wusste, damit ich das Reste schreien konnte.
Was Dich das letzte Satz zu schreiben verursacht, weiss ich nicht. Sie kampfen fuer die junge Sinne von jedem Kind in entwicklungen Laendern. Was ist so besonders ueber dies das GRUB oder LILO fuer Dualboot nicht koennen bentutzt werden? Schreibt Microsft das Code fuer Dualboot? Das waere mir eine Ueberraschung.
Wenn Du behaupst, Microsft will nur, das die Kinder das beste OS fuer lernen bekommst, warum geben sie keine kostenlose Kopien von Windows und Office zur dritte Weltlichen Kindern bevor die OLPC angefangen hat? Weil sie lieber die Ware ausgeben wuerde, als ein Gegner in die Herzen und Sinnen den Kindern fallen lassen. Linux ist immer jedem frei gewesen. Denk daran.
Okay, that's enough for now.
Would this be an easier, more functional way to make the cheap android referenced in this story?
Don't worry, Google will correct the spelling when you search for it.
You make a good point, but you haven't addressed the GP's or my concern, for the simple reason that the legal system (or specifically, the jury system) doesn't have to be rational. It's true that computers currently control many tasks, but the public in general draws the (socially acceptable) line at some tasks. I wish I could articulate how that line is formed, but I can't, because it's not articulable, but rather, arbitrary.
Only by suspending, through a legislative act, the right to sue the big-pockets behind the driverless cars for unbounded damages, will it be possible to see them on the road. That is why I say the barriers are political rather than technological.
I guess I wasn't clear. I accept the driverless cars have a lower risk of accident. However, that is more than completely wiped out by the fact that you have to insure against a larger payment when you do have an accident, because courts will award more in damages.
It's the same thing I've been railing about. All of them have truly massive, unfunded legacy costs and legacy obligations to keep on overpaid, useless workers. Unlike their foreign competitors, they have to pay huge amounts of money every year that adds nothing to product value, and does not correspond to capital that is earning them value as it would on a loan. (That "capital" -- lower wages for workers that agreed to such deferred compensation -- was unfortunately thrown off as as dividends and bonuses.)
If you're a good stylist or engineer or manager or machinist or, yes, driverless car designer, who is actually worth your salt, you will go work for a car company that can afford you, not GM.
That's why even a "superman" -- some individual capable of single-handedly dazzling the world with his skill in all of the above areas -- could not save GM. If such a person existed, he go work for Toyota, which could pay him more, because they wouldn't be deducting to pay for all the legacy obligations!
Not too bad, as long as it doesn't *also* mandate that driverless cars camp the passing lane, like too many freeway drivers going that speed :-P
It ends the problem of drunk driving only if the automated system is 100% in control portal-to-portal and 100% reliable portal-to-portal. The drunk will be making the initial decision to take to the roads.
Yes, which is why the problem is greatly curtailed -- drunk merely has to be able to say, "God damn I'm wasted. Car, take me home." I'm willing to bet that most drunk people who get in a car will gladly take this option in preference to risking a DUI.
You are correct, of course, that part of the problem is simply not giving a damn how your driving affects others. To the extent that that is the problem, I agree that technology and laws are largely ineffective. For example, when someone tries to use a cell phone while making a difficult driving maneuver, the problem is not that he overestimates his skill, or that he deems the potential punishment small enough. It's that he's just not putting in the effort to be a safe driver, and no law or technology will change that.
That's a very important point, and I hope more people take note of what you said. The primary barriers to this kind of thing are political, not technological. If I injure or kill someone through my driving, what's the most you could hope to sue me for? Maybe a million dollars. But if the car was self-driving, well hey, that's a company with deep pockets. You could sue me for a lot more!
Now who can handle the insurance policy on that?
Then, of course, inane regulation.
Never mind that these will be safer and less obstructive than 95% of drivers. Never mind that they'll end the problem of drunk driving. Never mind that they will massively increase productivity. Everyone has to get their piece.