5 ms·

I completely disagree with the author. The browser allows a distribution model that vastly improves, in a lost of cases, on the alternatives. Not always, of cou

I completely disagree with the author. The browser allows a distribution model that vastly improves, in a lost of cases, on the alternatives. Not always, of course, but those alternatives can be harder to maintain, legacy desktop apps. I love a lot of things that desktop apps stand for - control of one's data, more privacy, less tracking, etc. But that's what businesses want, not something using the web exposes. WebGL can allow 3D medical, engineering and other productivity visualizations and learning. WebRTC allows people to mess less with installing 8 different conferencing apps and keeping them up to date. A built-in PDF viewer allows it to update frequently along with the browser and if properly sandboxes is probably more secure than installing some random PDF viewer setup.exe from somewhere. Gyroscope, accelerometer and compass APIs allow me to install fewer crappy small ad-packed native apps that I'll use one in a blue moon. Should they be gated by proper permissions? Sure. Why should I trust a random native app with more data than a random website? I can probably continue with a lot more of these. They boil down to some of: * If I wouldn't bother installing a native app, then allowing the web to do it enables another use case for me. * If I don't want to trust a website with a piece of data (gated by permissions), why would I trust a native app? * The fact that someone wants to use the web just for document browsing doesn't mean there aren't large swaths of users who benefit greatly for using it for many other things. * There are security holes in the browser. Installing native applications is, in a lot of cases, more dangerous.

omegalulw 5y ago
This is a rosy picture of the browser but one of the reasons I really dislike my browser exposing all this is privacy: all if this is stuff that companies can use to uniquely identify you.
pmlnr 5y ago
> medical You surely don't want medical data on the web, right? What could possibly go wrong?
- kencausey 5y ago
  Perhaps, but keep in the mind that Intranets exist. It is possible to have 'private' web services.
- folkhack 5y ago
  Factually we're already there. I've reviewed my own HIPAA-sensitive lab results in a patient portal for example. I'd go check out some of the solutions Epic Systems has put out if you're interested in current product offerings in the space. Information wants to be shared, collaborated on, and worked on in real-time... both private intranets and/or public internet provide platforms to do this.
- bufferoverflow 5y ago
  Yes, I do. Not all medical info need privacy.
- joshgel 5y ago
  It’s actually mandated now that providers allow free, on-demand, API access to patients for their medical data.
- karamanolev 5y ago
  I can argue that it's easier to architect an intranet web medical data viewer right now than a typical desktop application accessing an intranet server. Client-server desktop applications typically use custom protocols and custom servers leading to a higher likelihood of security issues. They're harder/slower/trickier to update and administer within a big organization, leading to a higher chance of messing up. Whatever security issues you can think of running it in a browser context, more exist when running it as native code. If you run an intranet web service with the same security precautions as a public web service, which is currently very well explored, there are less things to go wrong.
- zxzax 5y ago
  Please don't shoot the messenger here, but your doctor and insurance company are very likely already using the web to exchange information about you. You can either have that in a way that is standards-complaint and vetted by a large group of browser engineers, or they could try to roll their own... which would you prefer?
  - TrainedMonkey 5y ago
    Most of the offices use cloud based patient management apps. In my anecdotal experience, as soon as they enter my phone number into one of those, I start getting significantly increased spam call volume. The spike lasts a few weeks. edit: typo
    - zxzax 5y ago
      It seems they don't necessarily have to be using a cloud-based service to sell/leak phone numbers to a third party?
runarberg 5y ago
Also important to mention is fun. The browser allows people to make fun stuff, be it a video game (using webGL) or a multiplayer instrument (using Web Audio API), and distribute it really easily. These API are well documented and are available to anyone to write and share. Thanks to the proliferation of web APIs you often don’t even need a server to make cool stuff and share with your friends. If you have to create an executable for your fun little project, and make sure your friends have all the dependencies, and then your friends that have only Macs or Iphones won’t be able to use it because you don’t know how to share it with them, you might not bother making that thing in the first place, and the world becomes so much poorer as a result. The web with it’s many features and API is really democratizing how we make fun interactive stuff and share it with each other. Most days there is a fun project that serves no purpose except to entertain strangers that makes it to the front page of HN. How many of those would still be made and shared if browsers would be as feature poor as the OP wants.
ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
So hear me out... plugins ;)
- karamanolev 5y ago
  If only we had tried making a browser plugin for multimedia applications with a separate runtime. We could call it something flashy, for example ... Flash. That totally went better than browser security. Another option would be feature-enabling plugins, for example a plugin that enables WebRTC developed by some random company. I still don't see how it won't be massively worse than browser security.
  - ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
    Flash was AWESOME in that it enabled all that everyone whining on here wanted in their browsers, not to mention the lowest barrier to entry on content creation not reached again on this day. But you had the option! Want your computer to the unsafe man-child playgroud? go ahead, install flash. Want something serious for work, don't touch it. But the advertisement industry had their way and apple and microsoft started to include flash by default. Do you think Google fought flash because they care about you? heh. Google helped kill flash because it gave an edge to microsoft since their ad network at the time was text only and microsoft et al were making bank on swf banners. anyway, you had the option! it was a plugin, not the browser. Instead of a better plugin, you killed the radio star, took over w3C so that feature for your ad network would be part of the standard. Now chrome is worse than flash. Features like Federated Learning of Cohorts will be shoved down your throat like or not and it won't even allow you to play web games or something FUN.
    - rektide 5y ago
      no view source! that broke the basic treatise of the internet. it wasn't a protocol, wasnt a medium: it was someone else highjacking your shit & doing what they wanted in a filthy untouchable applicationized sandbox you had no power over it. you the user has no power, no visibility, no say. application,. it a medium: out of your reach. very little of this submitted screed touches upon this area, but to me the anti-webassembly remarks feel very close fit to anti-flash remarks. js has gotten bad, but I continue to think eventually we'll see better actors (especially with an arisal of custom elements). webassembly makes me think the web will get anti-web anti-understandable, anti-user as a medium increasingly for the next 50 years probably, most of my remaining life. doing good & being a respectful medium will be just as possible as without webassembly, but there will be so much energy & focus on an industrialized non-user non-acessible non-user-agency dark world shadow-nightmare hell-web because of webhassembly, that will absolutely dominate & be enticing to so so so wide a range of the alpha geeks... while users lose & lose & lose. flash 2.0 is coming & it will be cheered & celebrated & far far worse for users than the flash we have finally killed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
HWR_14 5y ago
There are many things I trust neither a native app nor a website to access. Most browsers seem to opt into far too many APIs and expect me to blacklist them all in hidden advanced options. But there is no reason that everything about reading from my computer isn't off by default. Geolocation, accelerometer, raw mouse data, battery level, hardware info, fonts supported, etc. Heck, default to running code on every site is too much for me and the first thing I turn off. All the fine grained stuff is always I fight to find and remove.
rektide 5y ago
100% on the possibility & amazingness of the platform, and hugely in agreeance that the wide range of well specified semi-publicly owned standards that make up the web is by far one of the best most empowering things we society have done. I have colossal awe & I can see use after use after use for all the sad salty disgruntled anti- opinions poses in the sad-sheet here. still: I have some residual sympathies i'd share. for one, I am pretty terrified the webassembly based world will radically increase the un-observabity of the already virtualizing (as in, vdom) web dev world. understanding & working with the web medium we are given has gotten increasingly hard and the webassembly world sounds like an immoral indecypherable wreck for users with all good user agency pummeled away. but, i would not halt that. the web medium needs great liberties to grow. but, more so, in strong strong agreeance about "what we should do" that this article sets up, I think features should be flaggable. if someone wants to be a salty crufter, let em. it's the users right to their own experience. no website is obligated to function, to work, so if you disable webgpu, the good stuff just won't work: it's your choice to break maps, & dozens of others. let users turn features off broadly as they might & enable higher powers case by case. I think the poster is a grizzly salty refusenik, a denialist, which we hear a lot from a lot, way overmuch. these people are ultra vocal. I'm so glad their attitude is condensed into somethong reasonable. and to me: sure, I think they should have their asks. we should give folks the abity to disarm parts of the web platform. to let them have the experience they want. mostly I think these folks are kind of idiots, devuan class reactionaries harking a denialist small minded set of expectations they falsely impose on others. but the web should allow them what they want. it should make turning things off easy. because the web is about user agency. and the cost of letting folks turn capabilities off is almost nothing. they can have their broken bad experiences, when various features are required by a site. maximalize the user, even when they want the web to still be living in a barrel.
Anunayj 5y ago
Yup!, the browser is such a great environment. It's sandboxed to death, easy to use/install, and cross compatible. (Can use any Modern Browser/OS combo). I'd rather play games in my browser than install a native app that has wide access to my personal documents. Not to mention, Web Crypto API is the literal opposite of roll your own crypto. and is SOO much better than someone implementing cryptographic operations on JS. and can have so many use cases. End to End encryption with key stored in browser. (You can have the raw key inaccessible by JS even, only allow decryption/signing). Though I agree there are some APIs that are pretty dumb.
- folkhack 5y ago
  > Not to mention, Web Crypto API is the literal opposite of roll your own crypto. and is SOO much better than someone implementing cryptographic operations on JS I'm glad someone is pointing this out as I felt like the author didn't even attempt to understand the Web Crypto API assuming an incorrect worst-case scenario.
  - saurik 5y ago
    WebCrypto is "roll your own crypto" as it implements low level algorithms instead of high-level protocols. The issue with rolling your own crypto wasn't "you will implement sha3 incorrectly" it was "you will use an algorithm for authenticated streaming symmetric encryption but accidentally reuse an initialization vector or fail to verify a checksum" or whatever.
o8r3oFTZPE 5y ago
Perhaps the author is just dreaming of another browser in addition to the one you prefer. One with different/less features. It is interesting how this is somehow a controversial idea. Is there some reason that the number of web browsers needs to remain small. Different browsers can be really useful. Personally I do not need want the browser the author suggests at all, but that's just me. Every user is different. I use "links" heavily for reading HTML; it is particularly good for printing HTML tables. I do not expect anyone else to use it. (But some do, including user who actually paid money for features.) A different browser is simply an optional program I choose to make use of. I do not use it for anything financial or otherwise sensitive. There are other browsers for that. In recent years I frequently see comments that seem hostile to the mere idea of more web browsers. I do not understand this. If this author wants some browser with some certain set of features, that is his business. "Disagreeing" with someone's desire for a browser with different/less features because of the annoyance of native apps. It make no sense. (Blame the developers of today's "native apps", not users who want alternatives.) AFAICT, there is no suggestion in this blog post of trying to take away anyone's preferred web browser and make them use native apps. The author just wants more options besides the popular ones. A browser with different/fewer features in addition to all the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, do-everything-under-sun ones written by online advertising-supported organisations.
- basch 5y ago
  or even just a "web browser mode" vs "multimedia gateway mode." the techwizardry demands of heavy hitters like YouTube and Facebook have created an "attack surface" that forces active and constantly evolving opt out behavior. the web is actively hostile towards the lay browser (person who browses.) a million notifications to allow and enable things on first visit to a site is a terrible experience. sane defaults should disallow these apis on most popular properties. furthermore, I personally wouldnt mind a split between the browser and a communicator. a separate webrtc phonelike app that handles all teleconferencing. i get why people dont want a native app installed for each voip solution, but a single tool that is cross compatible, pushed out of the "web browser" would make web browsers safer. the average person is using a web browser to look at celebrity news, pictures, youtube videos. delivering those things efficiently doesnt need to be much more complicated than the web was 10 years ago. having a separate button to launch "3d game rendering mode" would be preferable to every site on the web abusing the tech behind the scenes to deliver targeted ads.
Seirdy 5y ago
You can sandbox native apps as well, without buying into all the complexity and unplanned obsolescence (have you tried browsing on an old 32bit computer?) that web browsers come with. Also, sandboxing web apps is incredibly limited; how do you restrict a web app from accessing the network? Web apps also provide no degree of trust. You can't know what will be loaded in advance. Native software can allow you to inspect source code and modify it beforehand without resorting to maintaining a web server for self-hosting. Hell, Debian's working on reproducible builds and F-Droid has had it for years, while the web just figured out script verification with SHAs (entirely controlled by the vendor, which misses half the point). > Gyroscope, accelerometer and compass APIs allow me to install fewer crappy small ad-packed native apps that I'll use one in a blue moon. Even better: let's try to build a world where people don't have to run proprietary malware, on the web or otherwise. > A built-in PDF viewer allows it to update frequently along with the browser and if properly sandboxes is probably more secure than installing some random PDF viewer setup.exe from somewhere. Better idea: have a PDF reader that just opens documents without any scripts or internet connection. muPDF is a good option. Also, don't use random apps (native or web); distro packages are a good start for some trust beyond the vendor. We've reached the point at which running two web apps cuts down battery life twice as much as me running my desktop, mail client, editor, newsreader, music player, and IRC client combined. The only "native" programs that come close to this level of resource abuse are Java IDEs. Web browsers are so complex that they essentially can't be forked or created anew without hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding. And with the increasing footprint of web apps, it's no wonder people feel the need to turn their computers into e-waste every N years.

omegalulw 5y ago

This is a rosy picture of the browser but one of the reasons I really dislike my browser exposing all this is privacy: all if this is stuff that companies can use to uniquely identify you.

pmlnr 5y ago

> medical You surely don't want medical data on the web, right? What could possibly go wrong?

kencausey 5y ago
Perhaps, but keep in the mind that Intranets exist. It is possible to have 'private' web services.
folkhack 5y ago
Factually we're already there. I've reviewed my own HIPAA-sensitive lab results in a patient portal for example. I'd go check out some of the solutions Epic Systems has put out if you're interested in current product offerings in the space. Information wants to be shared, collaborated on, and worked on in real-time... both private intranets and/or public internet provide platforms to do this.
bufferoverflow 5y ago
Yes, I do. Not all medical info need privacy.
joshgel 5y ago
It’s actually mandated now that providers allow free, on-demand, API access to patients for their medical data.
karamanolev 5y ago
I can argue that it's easier to architect an intranet web medical data viewer right now than a typical desktop application accessing an intranet server. Client-server desktop applications typically use custom protocols and custom servers leading to a higher likelihood of security issues. They're harder/slower/trickier to update and administer within a big organization, leading to a higher chance of messing up. Whatever security issues you can think of running it in a browser context, more exist when running it as native code. If you run an intranet web service with the same security precautions as a public web service, which is currently very well explored, there are less things to go wrong.
zxzax 5y ago
Please don't shoot the messenger here, but your doctor and insurance company are very likely already using the web to exchange information about you. You can either have that in a way that is standards-complaint and vetted by a large group of browser engineers, or they could try to roll their own... which would you prefer?
- TrainedMonkey 5y ago
  Most of the offices use cloud based patient management apps. In my anecdotal experience, as soon as they enter my phone number into one of those, I start getting significantly increased spam call volume. The spike lasts a few weeks. edit: typo
  - zxzax 5y ago
    It seems they don't necessarily have to be using a cloud-based service to sell/leak phone numbers to a third party?

runarberg 5y ago

Also important to mention is fun. The browser allows people to make fun stuff, be it a video game (using webGL) or a multiplayer instrument (using Web Audio API), and distribute it really easily. These API are well documented and are available to anyone to write and share. Thanks to the proliferation of web APIs you often don’t even need a server to make cool stuff and share with your friends. If you have to create an executable for your fun little project, and make sure your friends have all the dependencies, and then your friends that have only Macs or Iphones won’t be able to use it because you don’t know how to share it with them, you might not bother making that thing in the first place, and the world becomes so much poorer as a result. The web with it’s many features and API is really democratizing how we make fun interactive stuff and share it with each other. Most days there is a fun project that serves no purpose except to entertain strangers that makes it to the front page of HN. How many of those would still be made and shared if browsers would be as feature poor as the OP wants.

ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago

So hear me out... plugins ;)

karamanolev 5y ago
If only we had tried making a browser plugin for multimedia applications with a separate runtime. We could call it something flashy, for example ... Flash. That totally went better than browser security. Another option would be feature-enabling plugins, for example a plugin that enables WebRTC developed by some random company. I still don't see how it won't be massively worse than browser security.
- ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
  Flash was AWESOME in that it enabled all that everyone whining on here wanted in their browsers, not to mention the lowest barrier to entry on content creation not reached again on this day. But you had the option! Want your computer to the unsafe man-child playgroud? go ahead, install flash. Want something serious for work, don't touch it. But the advertisement industry had their way and apple and microsoft started to include flash by default. Do you think Google fought flash because they care about you? heh. Google helped kill flash because it gave an edge to microsoft since their ad network at the time was text only and microsoft et al were making bank on swf banners. anyway, you had the option! it was a plugin, not the browser. Instead of a better plugin, you killed the radio star, took over w3C so that feature for your ad network would be part of the standard. Now chrome is worse than flash. Features like Federated Learning of Cohorts will be shoved down your throat like or not and it won't even allow you to play web games or something FUN.
  - rektide 5y ago
    no view source! that broke the basic treatise of the internet. it wasn't a protocol, wasnt a medium: it was someone else highjacking your shit & doing what they wanted in a filthy untouchable applicationized sandbox you had no power over it. you the user has no power, no visibility, no say. application,. it a medium: out of your reach. very little of this submitted screed touches upon this area, but to me the anti-webassembly remarks feel very close fit to anti-flash remarks. js has gotten bad, but I continue to think eventually we'll see better actors (especially with an arisal of custom elements). webassembly makes me think the web will get anti-web anti-understandable, anti-user as a medium increasingly for the next 50 years probably, most of my remaining life. doing good & being a respectful medium will be just as possible as without webassembly, but there will be so much energy & focus on an industrialized non-user non-acessible non-user-agency dark world shadow-nightmare hell-web because of webhassembly, that will absolutely dominate & be enticing to so so so wide a range of the alpha geeks... while users lose & lose & lose. flash 2.0 is coming & it will be cheered & celebrated & far far worse for users than the flash we have finally killed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

HWR_14 5y ago

There are many things I trust neither a native app nor a website to access. Most browsers seem to opt into far too many APIs and expect me to blacklist them all in hidden advanced options. But there is no reason that everything about reading from my computer isn't off by default. Geolocation, accelerometer, raw mouse data, battery level, hardware info, fonts supported, etc. Heck, default to running code on every site is too much for me and the first thing I turn off. All the fine grained stuff is always I fight to find and remove.

rektide 5y ago

100% on the possibility & amazingness of the platform, and hugely in agreeance that the wide range of well specified semi-publicly owned standards that make up the web is by far one of the best most empowering things we society have done. I have colossal awe & I can see use after use after use for all the sad salty disgruntled anti- opinions poses in the sad-sheet here. still: I have some residual sympathies i'd share. for one, I am pretty terrified the webassembly based world will radically increase the un-observabity of the already virtualizing (as in, vdom) web dev world. understanding & working with the web medium we are given has gotten increasingly hard and the webassembly world sounds like an immoral indecypherable wreck for users with all good user agency pummeled away. but, i would not halt that. the web medium needs great liberties to grow. but, more so, in strong strong agreeance about "what we should do" that this article sets up, I think features should be flaggable. if someone wants to be a salty crufter, let em. it's the users right to their own experience. no website is obligated to function, to work, so if you disable webgpu, the good stuff just won't work: it's your choice to break maps, & dozens of others. let users turn features off broadly as they might & enable higher powers case by case. I think the poster is a grizzly salty refusenik, a denialist, which we hear a lot from a lot, way overmuch. these people are ultra vocal. I'm so glad their attitude is condensed into somethong reasonable. and to me: sure, I think they should have their asks. we should give folks the abity to disarm parts of the web platform. to let them have the experience they want. mostly I think these folks are kind of idiots, devuan class reactionaries harking a denialist small minded set of expectations they falsely impose on others. but the web should allow them what they want. it should make turning things off easy. because the web is about user agency. and the cost of letting folks turn capabilities off is almost nothing. they can have their broken bad experiences, when various features are required by a site. maximalize the user, even when they want the web to still be living in a barrel.

Anunayj 5y ago

Yup!, the browser is such a great environment. It's sandboxed to death, easy to use/install, and cross compatible. (Can use any Modern Browser/OS combo). I'd rather play games in my browser than install a native app that has wide access to my personal documents. Not to mention, Web Crypto API is the literal opposite of roll your own crypto. and is SOO much better than someone implementing cryptographic operations on JS. and can have so many use cases. End to End encryption with key stored in browser. (You can have the raw key inaccessible by JS even, only allow decryption/signing). Though I agree there are some APIs that are pretty dumb.

folkhack 5y ago
> Not to mention, Web Crypto API is the literal opposite of roll your own crypto. and is SOO much better than someone implementing cryptographic operations on JS I'm glad someone is pointing this out as I felt like the author didn't even attempt to understand the Web Crypto API assuming an incorrect worst-case scenario.
- saurik 5y ago
  WebCrypto is "roll your own crypto" as it implements low level algorithms instead of high-level protocols. The issue with rolling your own crypto wasn't "you will implement sha3 incorrectly" it was "you will use an algorithm for authenticated streaming symmetric encryption but accidentally reuse an initialization vector or fail to verify a checksum" or whatever.

o8r3oFTZPE 5y ago

Perhaps the author is just dreaming of another browser in addition to the one you prefer. One with different/less features. It is interesting how this is somehow a controversial idea. Is there some reason that the number of web browsers needs to remain small. Different browsers can be really useful. Personally I do not need want the browser the author suggests at all, but that's just me. Every user is different. I use "links" heavily for reading HTML; it is particularly good for printing HTML tables. I do not expect anyone else to use it. (But some do, including user who actually paid money for features.) A different browser is simply an optional program I choose to make use of. I do not use it for anything financial or otherwise sensitive. There are other browsers for that. In recent years I frequently see comments that seem hostile to the mere idea of more web browsers. I do not understand this. If this author wants some browser with some certain set of features, that is his business. "Disagreeing" with someone's desire for a browser with different/less features because of the annoyance of native apps. It make no sense. (Blame the developers of today's "native apps", not users who want alternatives.) AFAICT, there is no suggestion in this blog post of trying to take away anyone's preferred web browser and make them use native apps. The author just wants more options besides the popular ones. A browser with different/fewer features in addition to all the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, do-everything-under-sun ones written by online advertising-supported organisations.

basch 5y ago
or even just a "web browser mode" vs "multimedia gateway mode." the techwizardry demands of heavy hitters like YouTube and Facebook have created an "attack surface" that forces active and constantly evolving opt out behavior. the web is actively hostile towards the lay browser (person who browses.) a million notifications to allow and enable things on first visit to a site is a terrible experience. sane defaults should disallow these apis on most popular properties. furthermore, I personally wouldnt mind a split between the browser and a communicator. a separate webrtc phonelike app that handles all teleconferencing. i get why people dont want a native app installed for each voip solution, but a single tool that is cross compatible, pushed out of the "web browser" would make web browsers safer. the average person is using a web browser to look at celebrity news, pictures, youtube videos. delivering those things efficiently doesnt need to be much more complicated than the web was 10 years ago. having a separate button to launch "3d game rendering mode" would be preferable to every site on the web abusing the tech behind the scenes to deliver targeted ads.

Seirdy 5y ago

You can sandbox native apps as well, without buying into all the complexity and unplanned obsolescence (have you tried browsing on an old 32bit computer?) that web browsers come with. Also, sandboxing web apps is incredibly limited; how do you restrict a web app from accessing the network? Web apps also provide no degree of trust. You can't know what will be loaded in advance. Native software can allow you to inspect source code and modify it beforehand without resorting to maintaining a web server for self-hosting. Hell, Debian's working on reproducible builds and F-Droid has had it for years, while the web just figured out script verification with SHAs (entirely controlled by the vendor, which misses half the point). > Gyroscope, accelerometer and compass APIs allow me to install fewer crappy small ad-packed native apps that I'll use one in a blue moon. Even better: let's try to build a world where people don't have to run proprietary malware, on the web or otherwise. > A built-in PDF viewer allows it to update frequently along with the browser and if properly sandboxes is probably more secure than installing some random PDF viewer setup.exe from somewhere. Better idea: have a PDF reader that just opens documents without any scripts or internet connection. muPDF is a good option. Also, don't use random apps (native or web); distro packages are a good start for some trust beyond the vendor. We've reached the point at which running two web apps cuts down battery life twice as much as me running my desktop, mail client, editor, newsreader, music player, and IRC client combined. The only "native" programs that come close to this level of resource abuse are Java IDEs. Web browsers are so complex that they essentially can't be forked or created anew without hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding. And with the increasing footprint of web apps, it's no wonder people feel the need to turn their computers into e-waste every N years.