10 ms·

Never Again: We Need Science Based Government

10 points by pbw 6y ago

tbwriting 6y ago
My mind is boggled by the tone of these comments. “Science can be wrong! This would be a disaster!” What? Of course scientists can be wrong, but letting politicians ignore science, as we currently do, is clearly a disaster. This is supposed to be a site for technical people and I see much more trashing of this post than discussion of how to actually address the issue it’s raising. Can someone tell me what’s going on there??
htk 6y ago
Too politicized. We have plenty of “science based government” and they all failed. Yes Trump failed big, but the CDC also failed, as well as the WHO. The whole world was in a big amateur hour dealing with the Coronavirus issue.
- rogerkirkness 6y ago
  Likewise lockdowns seem to be political now, even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. There's a big difference between "health politician in chief" and "actually does real research" in terms of "science".
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    What would you think about a forum of scientists endorsed by years of published and peer reviewed research that is open to public scrutiny. I guess something like open source for scientists where thier track record and connections are transparent and not blocked by needless complecity and or paywalls. Scientists with skin in the game that have an incentive to stay faithful to honest investigation. Im just thinking out loud. Overall i agree with you as things currently stand. I'm just trying to think through a set of possible solutions.
    - diabeticApe 6y ago
      complexity
  - bitwize 6y ago
    > even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. Two words: New Zealand. COVID can't get a foothold in there because every time it shows up, Jacinda locks the whole country down. The USA being literally the worst developed nation in the world in terms of COVID infection and death rate has everything to do with us playing slapsy maxie with a deadly pandemic and not having the political will to do what needs to be done to stop it from spreading.
- pbw 6y ago
  I said “science based government” in the HN title, but really it's about adding a relatively small science-based check and balance to an existing system. Not replacing what we have just inserting something to keep it from going totally off the rails. To tug it back to reality. Political differences are fine. But someone needs to step in if a branch of the government, any branch and any party, goes so drastically far afield of what is known to be true. Next time it might be 10X worse. We need to patch the OS and not just say “boy I’m glad that will never happen again!”
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    I would agree that in a society that basically measures political success on who is a better liar, we need a truth counterweight but how do we ensure that this does not become a tool of corrupt governments or officials to impose thier ideologies as absolute truth with selective reporting?
    - pbw 6y ago
      Yes counterweight is a great way to put it. I don't at all know how to implement this idea, but I feel strong if we don't figure that out, with the best minds we can find, we are doomed. Imagine Trump but more religious, with more power, more aggressive, more grandiose, more ties to dictators. We've seen proof positive the system is vulnerable to single loose cannon. We need to at least attempt to improve the system. To not do that is total negligence.
      - ganafagol 6y ago
        I applaud your idea, but it won't work. There are already checks and balances. The president is not a dictator. Congress is one of them. Both chambers are elected separately and provide a counterweight to a freewheeling president. Unless they also freewheel of course. The Surpreme Court is another one. Supposedly very educated, almost "wise" people sit there to stop things that go wrong if president AND congress go too far. You are proposing another instance that can stop bad things from happening if ALL of the above fail. If the majority in congress joins the president with nonsense. Both Chambers. AND the Surpeme Court too. All of those have to fail for your proposal to kick in and make sense. And you know what? If that happens, it's too late. If all the above fail, your Science Council will just be sucked into the same politicized dark alley that the other branches are in. Why? Becaude they don't exist in a vacuum. No matter how they are appointed, by election, by lifetime appointment, whatever process, once they have real power, this process can be corrupted just as much as for the other branches. You see it right now happening with the Supreme Court. People on the Science Council will live in the real world, they are not infinitely wise (wo)men falling from the sky. They need to be picked and agreed upon. If that process fails for congress AND presideny AND the Supreme Court, then it's going to fail here too. And worse, it can be counter productive. As long as the scientific community is as "independent" as it is today, a global community not answering to a single country, it can't be easily corrupted by one countries gov going crazy. The moment you install an official council with actual power, it can and will be. Now you'll have an official body where by some corrupted process the participants will officially denounce climate change science or covid or whatever, and now your assumed corrupt regime can point at it and use it in their favor. In summary, good idea at first sight, but unworkable when zooming in.
jokit 6y ago
We need to remember that United States is for those who would be free, and the state exists to protect the rights of the individual. Americans value liberty over the illusion of security, and understand that freedom is the best possible security. Freedom is for the brave. For those who aren't, they have the entire rest of the universe that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of defending the rights of the individual. The only legitimate role of any government (but officially recognized in the US) is to defend the rights of the individual.
cascom 6y ago
Without out defending the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic, it’s patently absurd to think policy should be purely driven by science, policy must incorporate ethics, national interest, individual liberty, economics, and a host of other pertinent factors...
- pbw 6y ago
  My article says that this new science council would work with all three existing branches of the government. Not replace them. So, it is in no way suggesting it be driven “only by science”. It’s more a question of injecting a modicum of science into the existing system.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    What do you propose would be appropriate in the hypothetical scenario in which science conflicts with basic human rights? Say for instance in the extreme example, there are too many people science suggests we need to depopulate. Or maybe such and such person is genetically predisposed to engage in disruptive or criminal activity therefore eugenics or pre-emptive incarceration. Reality may or may not reflect that but it wouldn't be the first time a powerful few used science to impose draconian and/or racist policies for political purposes.
    - pbw 6y ago
      I'm not proposing any specific implementation, I don't have one in mind, I'm only floating the goal. The goal is to get "some science" into the mix as a check and a balance. Not to have science take over or run things. Just something that most of the time provides a very gentle nudge or advisory role, but in the case of another Trump would kick in a bit more strongly. It was a disaster this time, and even if Biden wins, in 4 more years we could a second Trump-type, then a third, then a fourth. The country will not survive that. We need to do something to fix the root problem, not just wait around until it happens again. As for being hesitant to mess with what the founding fathers created this is a great commentary on that: https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA
diabeticApe 6y ago
Technocratic World Government here we come.. https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/ https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/ What concerns me is that science is ever changing and those that promote it are not in any way immune to human falability like corruption, self interest, deception etc. Im sure someone here knows what im talking about i dont need to say more..
- glial 6y ago
  > What concerns me is that science is ever changing “Science” is just a set of methods for finding out about the world. Scientific findings are our best-guess beliefs about the world. Those beliefs change as new evidence is uncovered. What would you rather?
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    Well assuming a lack of political incentive i would agree that this would be the best course of action. What im trying to get at is how do we keep them from devolving to politicians with scientific titles.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    Furthermore especially in the early stages of any scientific venture, the scientific method basically necessitates trial and error. Is that really an optimal approach over agreed principles AKA the social contract? Im hesitant to jump to conclusions but just because things are a mess doesnt seem to me an adequate reason to totally throw away the current approach without a careful assessment of potential pros and cons
    - glial 6y ago
      Yes, knowing how the world works and what one should do are very different. Knowing the dynamics of a system (how the world works - science) and defining an objective function (aka a desirable outcome) are totally separable, and it'd be unfortunate if we didn't see that.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
Proven 6y ago
LOL. FA Hayek debunked that nonsense in the 40's. We simply need less government.
giardini 6y ago
No way! Look at the book "Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them" by David H. Freedman https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/0316023787/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Experts+why+failing+us&qid=1602207480&s=books&sr=1-1#customerReviews https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-cons... to see why. Experts and expert organizations, scientific or otherwise, often provide wisdom about all aspects of life - and all wrong! The Covid pandemic proves this point: we can't get agreement on most anything. We'd do better to shitcan the CDC and most other academic and governmental institutions, forget about WHO and start all over again but with an eye to our failed past. Sure would save a lot of money too, even though it would put a multitude of incompetents onto the streets looking for jobs.
- pbw 6y ago
  I have not read it, but I read this excerpt: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/books/excerpt-wrong.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/books/excerpt-wrong.html I don't think any of that applies to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about scientific consensus, not what foods cause cancer but does smoking cause cancer. Not what medical procedure is best, but do vaccines work. Some 97% of scientists agree climate change is caused by man, but we allow the person in the highest position in the land to disbelieve that. To make decisions for 330M people based on false beliefs that everyone knows are false. And when he's out of office, we'll be sitting around waiting for the next Trump-like person to get elected. We have to do something, if not this, something better. Yes there's a ton of science that's speculative and gets overturned, but we now a shit-ton of things for sure, about math, statistics, probability, physical, chemistry, biology, we know a lot that's not getting overturned. The third law of thermodynamics is not getting overturned.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    Well i wouldn't be too concerned about climate change if i were you. United Nations Agenda 2030 is already in full force were likely to have dealt with those issues by then as a result of incentives given to participating business leaders like Ben Geortzel, Bill Gates and Elon Musk. But you do make a good point about about what we do about the next Trump-like president whether on the left or the right. Im not picking sides here theyre both full of shit imo but i do worry about a single person or group obtaining a monopoly on information and scientific discourse. Thats bad and will lead to a very dark future if we dont address it soon. Even if we do and we screw this up the damage could result in a butterfly effect that will be utterly devastaing to humanity in a decade or two.
bkmeneguello 6y ago
Science is never consensus. Not any government could possibly be ruled "by science" because science is never with, or only have workable theories. By the way, not ever should a government rule the people's liberties, they are not entitled to do that.
- pbw 6y ago
  The proposal it not that the government "be ruled by science" at all. The proposal is all three branches of the government still exist. The legislative still makes the laws, the executive still runs things, the judicial still interprets the laws. It's just a question of wedging in a small check and balance that most of the time does nothing, but who can intervene, in TBD ways, if things go gonzo bonkers. Have you seen Handmaid's Tale? The religious right is not far from that. We don't want that.
dpc_pw 6y ago
> but if someone down the line once again claims climate change or a pandemic is a hoax, the council would respond with full force using whatever political mechanisms we grant it. "Whoever disagrees with our priests, shall by severely punished!" Hahaha.
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  Im trying to find what youre quoting but nobody is saying anything about a priest. This comment seems disingenuous and im surprised it hasnt been flagged as such like some of the other comments below.
  - dpc_pw 6y ago
    > im surprised it hasnt been flagged Yes, we should most definitely send some authority to punish this awful display of mocker of our religion. It's real science we're talking about here!
brian_herman 6y ago
i misread this title never again: science based government i thought it was advocating for the opposite of what the post is about
75dvtwin 6y ago
Another view, is that applied science that impacts policy making, has become utterly corrupt, and largely unreliable. The transformation happened in the last 30 years or so. Deeply flawed academia reward system [1], combined with accountability-free bribe dispersing machines (eg book/documentary deals, speech fees, gifted real-estate, insider trading tips), have made this type of science very similar to 'Instagram likes' or 'Amazon reviews' in its reliability. On top of that, given that elected officials, at least in US, delegate law writing to K-Street [2], who, then, works through lobbyists to entice politicians to buy-into those laws -- we have really, no checks and balances. With the above point of view, 'Draining the swamp', makes sense for science as well, maybe ? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24680154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24680154 [2] https://politicaldictionary.com/words/k-street/ https://politicaldictionary.com/words/k-street/
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  Well put. I would say that one possible remedy to this issue is transparency but seeing as the specific details of how transparency is implemented would be determined by the same corrupt officials that rely on financing by "k-street" as you've put it, it will likely mean total transparency for the average citizen but special edge cases and exceptions a-la "Citizens United" or Too Big to Fail Banks for our elite rulers and thier scientists. I would argue that science would be a good welcome addition if it can be decoupled from this "k-street" dilemna. Otherwise its likely to make matters worse because political interests and agendas can be more easily legitimized as absolute and unquestionable truth. Couple that with a tight grip on information flow and weve got a serious problem on our hands.

10 points by pbw 6y ago

My mind is boggled by the tone of these comments. “Science can be wrong! This would be a disaster!” What? Of course scientists can be wrong, but letting politicians ignore science, as we currently do, is clearly a disaster. This is supposed to be a site for technical people and I see much more trashing of this post than discussion of how to actually address the issue it’s raising. Can someone tell me what’s going on there??

htk 6y ago

Too politicized. We have plenty of “science based government” and they all failed. Yes Trump failed big, but the CDC also failed, as well as the WHO. The whole world was in a big amateur hour dealing with the Coronavirus issue.

rogerkirkness 6y ago
Likewise lockdowns seem to be political now, even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. There's a big difference between "health politician in chief" and "actually does real research" in terms of "science".
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  What would you think about a forum of scientists endorsed by years of published and peer reviewed research that is open to public scrutiny. I guess something like open source for scientists where thier track record and connections are transparent and not blocked by needless complecity and or paywalls. Scientists with skin in the game that have an incentive to stay faithful to honest investigation. Im just thinking out loud. Overall i agree with you as things currently stand. I'm just trying to think through a set of possible solutions.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    complexity
- bitwize 6y ago
  > even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. Two words: New Zealand. COVID can't get a foothold in there because every time it shows up, Jacinda locks the whole country down. The USA being literally the worst developed nation in the world in terms of COVID infection and death rate has everything to do with us playing slapsy maxie with a deadly pandemic and not having the political will to do what needs to be done to stop it from spreading.
pbw 6y ago
I said “science based government” in the HN title, but really it's about adding a relatively small science-based check and balance to an existing system. Not replacing what we have just inserting something to keep it from going totally off the rails. To tug it back to reality. Political differences are fine. But someone needs to step in if a branch of the government, any branch and any party, goes so drastically far afield of what is known to be true. Next time it might be 10X worse. We need to patch the OS and not just say “boy I’m glad that will never happen again!”
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  I would agree that in a society that basically measures political success on who is a better liar, we need a truth counterweight but how do we ensure that this does not become a tool of corrupt governments or officials to impose thier ideologies as absolute truth with selective reporting?
  - pbw 6y ago
    Yes counterweight is a great way to put it. I don't at all know how to implement this idea, but I feel strong if we don't figure that out, with the best minds we can find, we are doomed. Imagine Trump but more religious, with more power, more aggressive, more grandiose, more ties to dictators. We've seen proof positive the system is vulnerable to single loose cannon. We need to at least attempt to improve the system. To not do that is total negligence.
    - ganafagol 6y ago
      I applaud your idea, but it won't work. There are already checks and balances. The president is not a dictator. Congress is one of them. Both chambers are elected separately and provide a counterweight to a freewheeling president. Unless they also freewheel of course. The Surpreme Court is another one. Supposedly very educated, almost "wise" people sit there to stop things that go wrong if president AND congress go too far. You are proposing another instance that can stop bad things from happening if ALL of the above fail. If the majority in congress joins the president with nonsense. Both Chambers. AND the Surpeme Court too. All of those have to fail for your proposal to kick in and make sense. And you know what? If that happens, it's too late. If all the above fail, your Science Council will just be sucked into the same politicized dark alley that the other branches are in. Why? Becaude they don't exist in a vacuum. No matter how they are appointed, by election, by lifetime appointment, whatever process, once they have real power, this process can be corrupted just as much as for the other branches. You see it right now happening with the Supreme Court. People on the Science Council will live in the real world, they are not infinitely wise (wo)men falling from the sky. They need to be picked and agreed upon. If that process fails for congress AND presideny AND the Supreme Court, then it's going to fail here too. And worse, it can be counter productive. As long as the scientific community is as "independent" as it is today, a global community not answering to a single country, it can't be easily corrupted by one countries gov going crazy. The moment you install an official council with actual power, it can and will be. Now you'll have an official body where by some corrupted process the participants will officially denounce climate change science or covid or whatever, and now your assumed corrupt regime can point at it and use it in their favor. In summary, good idea at first sight, but unworkable when zooming in.

jokit 6y ago

We need to remember that United States is for those who would be free, and the state exists to protect the rights of the individual. Americans value liberty over the illusion of security, and understand that freedom is the best possible security. Freedom is for the brave. For those who aren't, they have the entire rest of the universe that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of defending the rights of the individual. The only legitimate role of any government (but officially recognized in the US) is to defend the rights of the individual.

cascom 6y ago

Without out defending the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic, it’s patently absurd to think policy should be purely driven by science, policy must incorporate ethics, national interest, individual liberty, economics, and a host of other pertinent factors...

pbw 6y ago
My article says that this new science council would work with all three existing branches of the government. Not replace them. So, it is in no way suggesting it be driven “only by science”. It’s more a question of injecting a modicum of science into the existing system.
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  What do you propose would be appropriate in the hypothetical scenario in which science conflicts with basic human rights? Say for instance in the extreme example, there are too many people science suggests we need to depopulate. Or maybe such and such person is genetically predisposed to engage in disruptive or criminal activity therefore eugenics or pre-emptive incarceration. Reality may or may not reflect that but it wouldn't be the first time a powerful few used science to impose draconian and/or racist policies for political purposes.
  - pbw 6y ago
    I'm not proposing any specific implementation, I don't have one in mind, I'm only floating the goal. The goal is to get "some science" into the mix as a check and a balance. Not to have science take over or run things. Just something that most of the time provides a very gentle nudge or advisory role, but in the case of another Trump would kick in a bit more strongly. It was a disaster this time, and even if Biden wins, in 4 more years we could a second Trump-type, then a third, then a fourth. The country will not survive that. We need to do something to fix the root problem, not just wait around until it happens again. As for being hesitant to mess with what the founding fathers created this is a great commentary on that: https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA

diabeticApe 6y ago

Technocratic World Government here we come.. https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/ https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/ What concerns me is that science is ever changing and those that promote it are not in any way immune to human falability like corruption, self interest, deception etc. Im sure someone here knows what im talking about i dont need to say more..

glial 6y ago
> What concerns me is that science is ever changing “Science” is just a set of methods for finding out about the world. Scientific findings are our best-guess beliefs about the world. Those beliefs change as new evidence is uncovered. What would you rather?
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  Well assuming a lack of political incentive i would agree that this would be the best course of action. What im trying to get at is how do we keep them from devolving to politicians with scientific titles.
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  Furthermore especially in the early stages of any scientific venture, the scientific method basically necessitates trial and error. Is that really an optimal approach over agreed principles AKA the social contract? Im hesitant to jump to conclusions but just because things are a mess doesnt seem to me an adequate reason to totally throw away the current approach without a careful assessment of potential pros and cons
  - glial 6y ago
    Yes, knowing how the world works and what one should do are very different. Knowing the dynamics of a system (how the world works - science) and defining an objective function (aka a desirable outcome) are totally separable, and it'd be unfortunate if we didn't see that.
- diabeticApe 6y ago

Proven 6y ago

LOL. FA Hayek debunked that nonsense in the 40's. We simply need less government.

giardini 6y ago

No way! Look at the book "Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them" by David H. Freedman https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/0316023787/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Experts+why+failing+us&qid=1602207480&s=books&sr=1-1#customerReviews https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-cons... to see why. Experts and expert organizations, scientific or otherwise, often provide wisdom about all aspects of life - and all wrong! The Covid pandemic proves this point: we can't get agreement on most anything. We'd do better to shitcan the CDC and most other academic and governmental institutions, forget about WHO and start all over again but with an eye to our failed past. Sure would save a lot of money too, even though it would put a multitude of incompetents onto the streets looking for jobs.

pbw 6y ago
I have not read it, but I read this excerpt: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/books/excerpt-wrong.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/books/excerpt-wrong.html I don't think any of that applies to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about scientific consensus, not what foods cause cancer but does smoking cause cancer. Not what medical procedure is best, but do vaccines work. Some 97% of scientists agree climate change is caused by man, but we allow the person in the highest position in the land to disbelieve that. To make decisions for 330M people based on false beliefs that everyone knows are false. And when he's out of office, we'll be sitting around waiting for the next Trump-like person to get elected. We have to do something, if not this, something better. Yes there's a ton of science that's speculative and gets overturned, but we now a shit-ton of things for sure, about math, statistics, probability, physical, chemistry, biology, we know a lot that's not getting overturned. The third law of thermodynamics is not getting overturned.
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  Well i wouldn't be too concerned about climate change if i were you. United Nations Agenda 2030 is already in full force were likely to have dealt with those issues by then as a result of incentives given to participating business leaders like Ben Geortzel, Bill Gates and Elon Musk. But you do make a good point about about what we do about the next Trump-like president whether on the left or the right. Im not picking sides here theyre both full of shit imo but i do worry about a single person or group obtaining a monopoly on information and scientific discourse. Thats bad and will lead to a very dark future if we dont address it soon. Even if we do and we screw this up the damage could result in a butterfly effect that will be utterly devastaing to humanity in a decade or two.

bkmeneguello 6y ago

Science is never consensus. Not any government could possibly be ruled "by science" because science is never with, or only have workable theories. By the way, not ever should a government rule the people's liberties, they are not entitled to do that.

pbw 6y ago
The proposal it not that the government "be ruled by science" at all. The proposal is all three branches of the government still exist. The legislative still makes the laws, the executive still runs things, the judicial still interprets the laws. It's just a question of wedging in a small check and balance that most of the time does nothing, but who can intervene, in TBD ways, if things go gonzo bonkers. Have you seen Handmaid's Tale? The religious right is not far from that. We don't want that.

dpc_pw 6y ago

> but if someone down the line once again claims climate change or a pandemic is a hoax, the council would respond with full force using whatever political mechanisms we grant it. "Whoever disagrees with our priests, shall by severely punished!" Hahaha.

diabeticApe 6y ago
Im trying to find what youre quoting but nobody is saying anything about a priest. This comment seems disingenuous and im surprised it hasnt been flagged as such like some of the other comments below.
- dpc_pw 6y ago
  > im surprised it hasnt been flagged Yes, we should most definitely send some authority to punish this awful display of mocker of our religion. It's real science we're talking about here!

brian_herman 6y ago

i misread this title never again: science based government i thought it was advocating for the opposite of what the post is about

75dvtwin 6y ago

Another view, is that applied science that impacts policy making, has become utterly corrupt, and largely unreliable. The transformation happened in the last 30 years or so. Deeply flawed academia reward system [1], combined with accountability-free bribe dispersing machines (eg book/documentary deals, speech fees, gifted real-estate, insider trading tips), have made this type of science very similar to 'Instagram likes' or 'Amazon reviews' in its reliability. On top of that, given that elected officials, at least in US, delegate law writing to K-Street [2], who, then, works through lobbyists to entice politicians to buy-into those laws -- we have really, no checks and balances. With the above point of view, 'Draining the swamp', makes sense for science as well, maybe ? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24680154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24680154 [2] https://politicaldictionary.com/words/k-street/ https://politicaldictionary.com/words/k-street/

diabeticApe 6y ago
Well put. I would say that one possible remedy to this issue is transparency but seeing as the specific details of how transparency is implemented would be determined by the same corrupt officials that rely on financing by "k-street" as you've put it, it will likely mean total transparency for the average citizen but special edge cases and exceptions a-la "Citizens United" or Too Big to Fail Banks for our elite rulers and thier scientists. I would argue that science would be a good welcome addition if it can be decoupled from this "k-street" dilemna. Otherwise its likely to make matters worse because political interests and agendas can be more easily legitimized as absolute and unquestionable truth. Couple that with a tight grip on information flow and weve got a serious problem on our hands.