> There’s no proof that ejaculating more actually lowers the chances of prostate cancer. For now, doctors just know they’re connected. It may be that men who do it more tend to have other healthy habits that are lowering their odds.
> Ejaculation doesn’t seem to protect against the most deadly or advanced types of prostate cancer. Experts don’t know why.
I'm not the expert but, like all things, exercise, sleep and diet probably goes a long way.
I think for media/assets, CC-BY is the equivalent of MIT/BSD for source, and CC-BY-SA similar to a GPL. Anything more restrictive than that (e.g., "NC") wouldn't really qualify as "free". The licensing in this case seems to have too many strings attached.
There's a recent article that basically sums it up as the parents being the ones pushing back against the bans, not teachers or students.
> "Mommy and Daddy were checking in all day long saying, 'I miss you and can’t wait to see you,'" Hochul told the NYT. "That’s a parental need, not a student need."
Newborn Stroller babies are not asking to be looking at a tablet. It’s the parents.
Newborn Babies do not ask to watch YouTubes while being fed ultra-processed food.
It’s the parents who purchase all those electronic devices to their children. I gather that they do it because shutting them off is illegal and irreversible
I’m raising two kids right now (4 & 6) and I agree with them. Strollers with built-in tablets are abhorrent and shitty parenting.
Learning how to be ‘bored’ is an important part of growing up, and any parent that is not teaching their children that lesson is failing their children.
When I was a kid and got bored I roamed the creek or biked miles around. Sometimes even with a real or bb gun.
All these things now end in arrest or investigation or at the least a Karen stirring up shit, unless you are real rural. I weep for today's kids. You can do almost nothing nowadays what I did as a kid unless your parents are rich enough to not work and accompany you. The parents want to let their boredom drive them to discover the world, but they usually can't. Instead they're locked in with a tablet where a Karen can't snitch on them for being a kid.
This is such a lost experience. I was a “free range kid” well before that term was coined. It was wonderful. I occasionally got in trouble, but mostly I explored the world and learned a lot.
A student recently asked me if I was ever bored. I said no. They had a hard time believing me. I pointed out that the world is endlessly interesting if you just look at it. This table— who made it? Why was it made this way? What is it made from? How was THAT made? And so on. Even dirt is fascinating. I remember biology teacher demonstrating with a microscope that a small sample of soil contains countless microbes…
I hope that people will eventually grow out of the fascination with online/social media, but I am not optimistic. But if they do, come join the rest of the folks who are having fun in the real world.
I don’t think we should raise ‘fun in the real world’ on a pedestal higher than ‘fun in the digital world’. The problem isn’t whether the fun is digital or real, the problem is that the digital fun isn’t really fun, but drugs. Real drugs aren’t legal, and the same should be true for their digital equivalent.
There's been pushback against this, 8 states have passed “Reasonable Childhood Independence” laws since 2018, Georgia in the last few days, and more will.
There are still places where you can experience these things without "Karen" ruining your life. Smaller towns basically anywhere provide the statistical cover you are looking for. When you dial the density up to a certain threshold, these people become unavoidable.
I have a 5 year old, it takes effort to not expose them to phones and tablets, it's a conscious choice. We even avoid them when driving for a couple of hours, instead she can draw in a coloring book or we can play disney songs on the radio. It's all habits, how come our kid can sit alone in the back seat for an hour and not make a fuss, but her cousin needs mom to sit with her in the back seat for even a short drive. Mostly what I observe is parents using phones as a pacifier when they need the kid to sit still for awhile.
Yeah gotta love those 'cool' parents who even brag how they easily travel with small kids in their cars for a long time. Then you look at the car and of course there is a tablet in front of each kid.
'Bbbut kids then cry and scream!' Well yeah, thats how you raised them overall, don't expect miracles suddenly, world doesn't revolve around you and certainly kids don't.
Fyi our small kids (3 and 5) can handle that 'boredom' of day-long travel without any device just fine. But its due to them being raised without screens, and their parents not being constantly glued to same thing. So they just watch the country go by, go through a book or two, draw with pencil on paper (yes, its still a thing), we talk to them and entertain them and so on.
Your kids are soon going to notice the glowing entrancing screen that other kids (their friends) have access to, and they will absolutely hate you for denying them the same fun. Tale as old as time.
Admittedly not my kids, but my experience of how "tablet/phone banned" kids actually act in that case is "why are these other kids being so boring"
But these kids are pretty well looked after, 24/7 parent available, high engagement parenting. The kids just find stuff in the real world to do. They get 30 minutes of "group" screen time a day, as in the family sits down together and watches something.
I have the same feeling when I see adults on their phones to be honest, and I'm quite introverted. Just feels like a sterile community to be in.
Man I don’t know. Schools can be genuinely awful. Easily half of the educational value I received during my school hours was found while messing around on my laptop instead of paying attention. I’m sure I’m a rare case there, but these devices were my only escape from a dull, incompetent education system.
The customers are captive (pay or sheriff with guns show up to toss your ass out), the employer is spending OPM (largely funded to administration or special interest segments or overhead), and the student consuming has essentially no say since his parents have no money left to choose somewhere else after paying already for the public school.
What could possibly go wrong where the only person with any real choice is an administrator who doesn't bear the cost or benefit of his own actions? The incentives could hardly be more misaligned.
Precisely. I moved around quite a bit as a kid, so I got a more wholistic picture of the public education system than most. I’m not sure I met a single teacher that wasn’t overworked. In the richer areas teachers typically wanted to teach; in the poorer areas even that often wasn’t true (An issue of filtering and work environment, not a personal failing thing). I once had a history teacher who only showed movies for the entire year I had her. With us placated, she’d go lounge in the corner. But even the teachers who gave a damn couldn’t do much with the absurd ratios; it was impressive they even managed to keep kids in their seats and fights from breaking out.
Any time the instinct to further police kids in schools arises, I get defensive. I know what that environment is like for the kids in it, and anyone would look for an escape while trapped in there. Schools right now function as weird little child prisons, somewhere to put kids while their parents (those who aren’t rich enough to do otherwise) go to work. If the schools aren’t gonna get any better (certainly not under this administration), then why bother taking away the coping mechanisms people have available?
> then why bother taking away the coping mechanisms people have available?
If the kids won’t learn anyways, we might as well give them their dopamine and depression machines so they can really double down on not learning?
Calling schools prisons?
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Learning isn’t always fun and it’s unfortunate that, as a child, you were asked to do things that weren’t 100% the most fun thing you could be doing at any given time, but it turns out playing video games all day has no value. It turns out, simply being a student with some anecdata gives one no insight into actual teaching.
> Learning isn’t always fun and it’s unfortunate that, as a child, you were asked to do things that weren’t 100% the most fun thing you could be doing at any given time
Are you kidding me? That’s your takeaway? My man, I wanted to learn. Most kids want to learn. The issue, which I brought up in various forms, is that the teachers were overworked, the schools underfunded (or administratively mismanaged), and that many teachers were uninterested in trying to teach their classes. I don’t want kids to rot on tik tok, I want schools that are effectively able to teach students. My reference to prisons was very exaggerated no doubt, but a reference nonetheless to the very real phenomenon of a highly securitized and policed model of schooling I experienced while in attendance. An elementary school I attended in downtown Memphis had police doing random bag checks on entry, and most of the places I went were surrounded by walls and fences, had small windows, etc that were quite reminiscent of a prison. This is a known phenomenon, not my personal invention.
>If the kids won’t learn anyways, we might as well give them their dopamine and depression machines so they can really double down on not learning?
Look I understand why you read me this way, but no. I don’t want kids to have phones in schools. My issue is that people act like phones are the issue here, when the phones’ rampant use and abuse is just one tiny symptom of a broken education system that necessitates coping mechanisms by the students. Taking the phones without any will to actually repair this situation is a bandaid on a gunshot.
No matter how good a teacher or school is it will never compete with the direct access to children tech companies have 24/7. They spend billions designing addictive apps that destroy attention spans and we are supposed to blame teachers and schools?
Modern mobiles should be banned from schools completely. Every kid who left school >15 years ago did fine without scrolling all day long.
To start, I’m not blaming anybody in schools. Teachers have no time nor capacity to police device usage. The issues here are structural.
> They spend billions designing addictive apps that destroy attention spans
Yes that’s precisely what they do, and they suck. It’s also not the first time someone’s thought to capitalize on the addictive tendencies of adolescents. Why is this one the one that’s ruining schools?
See my position is that phones haven’t had an outsized influence on the stagnation of our (US) educational outcomes. I think that other, deeper, system-wide problems are at fault. Phones’ presence in schools, the fact that they haven’t already been banned widely by a crowd of concerned parents, is itself evidence of the issues I’m talking about. Many parents don’t have the time to worry about such things. Many others are worried for their kids’ safety due to overwhelming reporting of a somewhat real threat in school shootings and violence, and want to make sure they can contact them. Addressing the phone issue would involve addressing parents directly, or those mechanisms influencing their behavior. Again, though, why the hell are we so fixated on the phones? Is this really the big issue with schools? If we’re going to have energy directed towards reforming schools, can’t we maybe direct it towards something more useful and impactful than banning the phones? That’s my problem.
The article lays out why the students are “coping”. It’s not because teaching them geometry is “broken” - it’s because learning it is hard and there’s no dopa hit when you memorize sohcahtoa. Watching TikTok is easy, and there is a dopa hit every time.
This isn’t a “schools are bad” thing - this is a fundamental attack on young people by meta, Google, TikTok and the rest. Pretending that if your Memphis school just let kids bring guns or pot to school you’d have not needed your phone (there’s a reason they were searching bags, after all) is bizarre.
>Pretending that if your Memphis school just let kids bring guns or pot to school you’d have not needed your phone (there’s a reason they were searching bags, after all) is bizarre
Pretending that this is what the parent poster is saying is absurd. They made an effort to express a nuanced and humane view in an exceedingly clear manner. They are also doing a great job at handling this interaction with you in an open-minded and non-confrontational way.
>this is a fundamental attack on young people by meta, Google, TikTok and the rest
I agree with that. But, funny thing, I thought these companies consisted of human beings who had excelled at their formal educations?
> I’m dumbfounded when I hear ‘experts’ claim that phones are not the problem. Like tobacco companies—whose hired experts long denied the connection between smoking and cancer—they say that “correlation does not prove causation.”
> But that’s just sophistry and spin.
Ah, you see, the article man, a man who clearly possesses no biases whatsoever, has simply declared it to be sophistry and spin from these so-called “experts,” therefore indeed it must be.
In all seriousness, the article shows that students are doing worse inside and outside of schools, increasingly since 2010 or so, and it shows that phone use has risen over roughly the same period. I’m happy to attribute some of the issue to phones, especially the students’ complaints of focus issues, but this period also encapsulates fucking covid 19, which is where the charts show the biggest rise in complaints. Why would I blindly assume the phones are the biggest causative factor here without the author providing an argument for it? Ah but that’s just “sophistry and spin” I’m sure. Jesus.
There’s other issues in this article too that a more honest author would have addressed. Why might prison students be more willing to learn? I tried to track this comment down, but it’s on one of his own articles (very unbiased stuff) and is thus subscribe(pay?)-walled. Because of that, I’m left to assume these are adult prisoners taking advantage of a voluntary program in their prison. Gee why might an adult who wants to go to school, whose alternative is prison, be more interested than a kid who doesn’t want to be there? Really strains the mind that one.
>Pretending that if your Memphis school just let kids bring guns or pot to school you’d have not needed your phone (there’s a reason they were searching bags, after all) is bizarre.
I didn’t have a phone in elementary school, my cope was fantasy novels. The reason was indeed largely to keep knives and drugs out. See, perhaps the fact that some of the kids were flirting with gang violence before age 10, and that others were bringing weapons to school to defend themselves against said gangs, indicates problems more significant than TikTok in school.
> The article lays out why the students are “coping”. It’s not because teaching them geometry is “broken” - it’s because learning it is hard and there’s no dopa hit when you memorize sohcahtoa. Watching TikTok is easy, and there is a dopa hit every time.
The article doesn’t even try to show that the learning outcomes are related to phones, much less that the reason for any mental distress of students is because “learning is hard.” Do the kids of billionaires with private tutors have a similarly negative experience with the process of learning? No I’m not delusional, we can’t give everyone private tutors. I am delusional enough, however, to think that a series of drastic reforms and restructurings could bring the student to teacher ratio more in line with that of the more successful developed nations.
Ivan Illich argued that we should open the doors to the schools and let those that wanted to leave leave, and those that wanted to stay stay. And he meant this even for the teachers as for the students. Then, he said, true education would begin to be possible.
Then you've suddenly a generation of students that don't know their heads from their asses out in the streets and useless to anyone.
This might have not been too terrible a century ago, but the day is coming when a warm body is effectively useless. Yeah, you can teach anyone to fry burgers, but we don't need that many of those and nobody wants to babysit a bunch of incredibly unreliable and stupid adults when they can get a far less troublesome burger cooking machine instead.
What is it about primary and secondary educate discussions that always bring out the doomers on HN? And, for most people, their sample size is very, very small, but they paint generalisations with a wide brush.
>During the 19th century Industrial Revolution, reformers explicitly modeled public schools after factories to habituate youth to regimented workplace environments.
>Cell-like classrooms with regimented rows of desks
>Rigid schedules and rules to control movement
>Obedience to authority figures
>Conformity and standardization
>In the 20th century, disciplinary issues led architects to also incorporate prison elements
>Enclosing perimeter fences up to 10 feet high
>Locked or monitored gates limiting entrance/exit
>Surveillance cameras blanketing hallways and grounds
>Metal detectors
>Mesh covered windows preventing exit attempts
>Sparse and durable interior materials resistant to damage
>Currently over 17% of schools possess 10 or more of these. Their prevalence continues rising yearly.
The article goes on but this should hopefully be illustrative of my point.
>Learning isn’t always fun and it’s unfortunate that, as a child, you were asked to do things that weren’t 100% the most fun thing you could be doing at any given time
Parent poster was complaining about the school system being unfit for the purpose of teaching, the "100% fun" thing is in your imagination.
>but it turns out playing video games all day has no value.
Neither has the system of formalized education, if we were to judge purely by your reading comprehension.
On the other hand, at least half of everyone I know learned the language that we are currently conversing in from videogames.
You think not having ten year olds wandering the halls at will makes an elementary school “like prison”? Really?
> Parent poster was complaining about the school system being unfit for the purpose of teaching, the "100% fun" thing is in your imagination.
The entire conversation spawned from a comment about how phones should be banned, and the poster I replied to talking about how it’s unfair to take them away from students, for “coping” or as a source of “escape”.
Would you like to re-discuss reading comprehension as an artifact of reading an entire comment chain to gain context before snarkily responding to only the last thing that was said, or are you good?
Maybe that video game didn’t do you quite as much service as you’d like to pretend.
Actually in high school (thats 14-18) we didn’t have to ask permission. We had to go over to a sign out sheet, write our names on the sheet, and take a hall pass which we’d be asked for if we ran into any adults. We then needed to sign in upon return, to ensure every sign out had a corresponding sign in, which the teacher would briefly check at the end of class.
>Maybe that video game didn’t do you quite as much service as you’d like to pretend.
No, I learned English at school from a teacher. Thus, I was a relative straggler in language learning, in comparison with those of my peers who could afford PCs able to run GTA3.
For your benefit, I re-read the whole thread just now and I still find your reasoning faulty and your premise, frankly, cruel.
Your only response to salient points such as, I quote, "incompetent education system", "The customers are captive", "The incentives could hardly be more misaligned" was, basically, "boo fucking hoo".
I'll leave you to ponder why your putative ten-year olds would even have anything to "cope" with or "escape" from. Maybe they're trying to cope with the traumatic realization that the world they've been born into is hell-bent on turning them into you.
> then why bother taking away the coping mechanisms people have available?
Firstly, I use TikTok myself so this isn't coming from a place of "old man yells at clouds", but why does it have to be smartphones and addictive algorithms? There's a practically unlimited number of ways to cope, they can daydream about their interests, draw and sketch things, read, interact with others, at least that's what we used to do, but just about anything that doesn't involve algorithmic content is practically harmless in comparison.
When overused, streams of dopamine such as TikTok can completely drain your desire to do anything creative, productive, to learn things, to experiment, to be curious, to do anything that delivers less than immediate, consistent reward (even video games can be low-reward in comparison).
I've been on both sides of this. I've gone years without engaging with these algorithms at all while harnessing my creative energy, and I've gotten stuck in the depths of these algorithms for weeks at a time.
It's questionable whether they're going to be able to get out of it, much like kids who start doing drugs in their tween years. It may be a coping mechanism, but in kids and teenagers it's probably about as healthy as daily cannabis consumption.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply, and I more or less completely agree with you about the harms. Regarding your weed comparison, I knew kids in middle school smoking tons of pot to get through the day; no doubt they were messing themselves up for life (at least a bit) with that habit. I hope social media isn’t quite so harmful, but I bet it’s not a ton better.
The weed example is a good comparison though. I view kids smoking lots of weed as a failure of a system. Knowing some of them, we’re usually talking about shitty family situations on top of a shitty school they’re made to attend for a solid amount of their waking life. The school should take their pot, of course it should, but it’s a marker far down a road that shouldn’t have been started along to begin with. There’s an enormously complicated set of social reasons that those kids’ schools, and their families, are messed up, but it’s as though there’s no will to tackle these issues. It’s much easier to attack the simple things you can see, the smoking and the phone use, with bandaid solutions that ignore the underlying causes. I almost see it as a distraction from really fixing anything. That’s where my frustration comes from, I really have no problem with the banning of the phones itself.
Daydreaming is what they're doing and it's what the teachers are complaining about: "When you are standing in front of them trying to teach, they’re vacant. They have no ability to tune in… They’re not there."
It's a bit hard to notice because Gioia is a polemicist trying to whip up a crowd, but what he brings up isn't actually complaints about kids using smartphones in the classroom. Rather they're about students being uninterested in the material (or less charitably, perhaps in the teacher's presentation of it), and then he implies very strongly that this must be due to smartphones but doesn't try to argue that case. Instead he gets mad at people who point out that correlation is not causation, claims they're engaging in "sophistry and spin", that's he's "dumbfounded" anyone could possibly disagree with this amazing argument, then immediately goes off on a tangent about AI cheating (a form of sophistry).
Actually, at no point in this article is smartphone usage in the classroom ever brought up as an actual problem. The link is implied to be causal whenever children have any access to "tech" in general, anywhere at all.
My computer studies teacher would teach us about ergonomics and warcraft.
Whereas, exploiting the school systems taught me far more.
Heck we had VB6 compilers installed on school systems, but got maybe 1 week of curriculum over 3 years. However they were very good for building my first nefarious apps.
Theres an expectation by many students that you can just meet all class obligations and receive a proper education. But really, class metrics are for ass covering. You need to use that time, when the world isnt trying to squeeze you for labor, to actually learn things.
Its crazy to me that they are not. I was in high school in the mid 2000s, and if the teachers saw a phone it was immediately confinscated. What happened since then?
In the years when I was forced to consume the mandatory blessings of the Prussian system, a common occurrence was teachers constantly blowing up at the class, with the common theme of blaming our unruly behavior on how our parents hadn't taught us how to behave. In turn, it's my understanding that my parents weren't the only parents who believed that to be the teachers' job.
Neither side seemed to realize that they were setting an example with their behavior; nor acknowledge that we were actual conscious human beings who are choosing our behaviors in response to our environment, and were we to be presented with any remotely convincing reason to shut up and listen, why, we would've gladly done so!
And of course the only reason teachers could ever muster was threats of scarier teachers or the headmaster or expulsion. Which usually worked for about a minute, threats of violence not being particularly interesting. Especially as it turned out how the new, sterner teachers actually cared to teach us stuff; the evil Director turned out to be a nice intelligent lady who was totally fed up with herding "credentialed experts" in shrill schoolmarming; and expulsion would've been the path to salvation, were it not for the parents who feared it like the devil.
To think how good-faith we were as kids, and how ridiculously did society fail so many of us. Our only responsibilities as such were to inform our parents of the frequent irregular parent-teacher conferences which were mainly teachers begging for money and complaining about our behavior and, and twice a year have the teachers sign a note confirming that we were going to school, so the parents could claim some form of welfare payment.
Therefore, we had to learn it all from TV, CS1.6, GTA and later PornHub. Now we're in the White House -- or in the trenches by Kharkiv.
The linked article is clearly sensationalist and focuses on "experts" who are trying to make their career off this "crisis" (I expect they all have books lined up and speaking engagements).
Meanwhile "As the New York Times reports, schools where smart devices have been partially or fully banned during instructional hours have seen incredible increases in student attentiveness and communication."
As much as their opinion page sucks, I'm much more inclined to go with the reporting in the New York Times instead of someone who says "zombie apologists" in all sincerity.
> I'm much more inclined to go with the reporting in the New York Times
Quite the opposite for me. I don't have a problem with their opinion pages, because it's labelled as such and is at times interesting. I wouldn't trust their reporting though, least of all the numbers.
I use them (more than one) as signals, and draw my own conclusions. I had subscribed to the NYT for several years, and my view is that much of their reporting is just a narrative that the journalist prefers. There's a certain amount of wiggle room with facts and even numbers, and the journalists make good use of it.
Distrust all media deeply. Not because there's an organizational directive to say something in a certain way, but they staff themselves with people who want to say something in a certain way.
> Phones should be banned in school. Really that simple.
It's not that simple, because as the article says, "these children are getting turned into screen addicts long before they enter the school system" and "they are in a constant state of dopamine withdrawal at school".
Is "dopamine withdrawal" really a thing? Is there any studies about it?
To me "dopamine addiction" feels a bit of a figure of speech to make people quickly understand and relate to the problems of social feeds and especially short form content. But is there any science behind it that could classify it as an addiction?
I would find it hard to imagine that kids at school are in physical pain and psychically unable to do something (which would be symptoms of real withdrawal). I think it's more reasonable that they are just bored and annoyed because they can't access their favorite form of entertainment. I remember how bored (and restless to go home) I was in middle school the day after I bought and started playing GTA: San Andreas, is it that different?
I'm sure the education system need to update a lot of ways of teaching as they are indeed outdated and extremely uninteresting to a young audience, but I also think that phones should absolutely not be allowed in a class rooms (same way we couldn't play a videogame or watch tv in there).
> To me "dopamine addiction" feels a bit of a figure of speech to make people quickly understand and relate to the problems
I agree. I think the key point from the article is this: "they behave like addicts". The "dopamine" part is inessential to the diagnosis. Smartphones are like a drug, similar to or analogous to a drug. If they were literally a drug, causing overt physical withdrawal symptoms, then we might have taken the problem more seriously already.
They tend to be. One of the issues is the dopamine withdrawals they experience while away from their phone:
"First of all the kids have no ability to be bored whatsoever. They live on their phones. And they’re just fed a constant stream of dopamine from the minute their eyes wake up in the morning until they go to sleep at night.
Because they are in a constant state of dopamine withdrawal at school, they behave like addicts. They’re super emotional. The smallest things set them off."
My son is in high school, and at the Parent's assembly at the beginning of the year the Principal announced that he would be doing what he could to ban phones at school (kids can have them, but they can't be out during class). Half the parents cheered, the other half booed.
FWIW, I was one of the cheering parents. But you can't enact policy when half of the parents are against it. And this is at a school that is top 20 (out of 1100) in the state, I can't imagine what it is like for the bottom 50% of schools.
They are banned from the classroom at the school I send my kids to. I think it gets tricky when you have classes where you are expected to use a tablet or laptop, which is surprisingly common now. The same school has pretty sophisticated IT, so the wifi the kids are on blacklists a lot of websites. But still somehow my son said there was a kid in one of his classes watching a TV show during class.
We've had a problem for a very long time that kids are convinced that school is 1) not worth it, 2) not necessary, and often 3) a waste of time and in some cases 4) harmful to them.
I think we should take a look at the education system and figure out how to make it better align with what actually interests kids instead of trying to force them to learn what we think suits them.
Most kids would get off their phones if school was interesting to them. Sure, you'll always have bad apples.
Rather than trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, we should realize there's a mismatch and try to correct it.
Phones are a problem, but they aren't THE problem.
School itself is the problem, and has been for a VERY long time.
This doesn't hold at all. Path tracing doesn't "just work", it is computational infeasible. It needs acceleration structures, ray traversal scheduling, denoisers, upscalers, and a million other hacks to work any close to real-time.
Except that it isn't like that at all. All you get from the driver in terms of ray tracing is the acceleration structure and ray traversal. Then you have denoisers and upscalers provided as third-party software. But games still ship with thousands of materials, and it is up to the developer to manage lights, shaders, etc, and use the hardware and driver primitives intelligently to get the best bang for the buck. Plus, given that primary rays are a waste of time/compute, you're still stuck with G-buffer passes and rasterization anyway. So now you have two problems instead of one.
