7 ms·

I'll begin by quoted this page, https://thenewstack.io/why-almost-everyone-wants-richard-stallman-cancelled/ https://thenewstack.io/why-almost-everyone-wants-r

I'll begin by quoted this page, https://thenewstack.io/why-almost-everyone-wants-richard-stallman-cancelled/ https://thenewstack.io/why-almost-everyone-wants-richard-sta... And his public behavior has been equally worrisome. According to dozens of witnesses, Stallman actively sexually harassed women students and faculty at MIT, for 30 or more years. To the point that women have passed down RMS-specific avoidance tactics like he hates plants so faculty should fill their offices with them or “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” It had allegedly reached the point that he was asked so many times to stop asking out colleagues and students that he decided to create and hand out a business card to non-verbally harass. Georgia Lyle, who worked at FSF from 2015 to 2018, wrote a long Twitter thread about the exhaustive — and ultimately moot — efforts she and other FSF staff made trying to change Stallman’s toxic behavior and silence his “racist and sexist ‘hacker humor’.” I don't think I can improve upon that.

teddyh 4y ago
From what I can tell, every allegation you repeated is false: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
- cyber_kinetist 4y ago
  This covers the Epstein comment drama, but what about the actual sexual harassment allegations?
  - daveevad 4y ago
  - teddyh 4y ago
    The link I gave does cover those, from what I can tell.
- tptacek 4y ago
  This doesn't rebut any of those allegations, and in fact adds new ones, like the time Stallman threatened to commit suicide if a woman refused to date him.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    - tptacek 4y ago
      No, it was not in fact OK to coerce someone into a date with a threat of suicide in 1985. I was there. It's telling, about this whole Stallman debate, that anyone would even try to make this claim. Anyways, I didn't know anything about the suicide threat before seeing this link, and didn't know my contempt for Stallman could get any deeper. So thanks for that!
      - teddyh 4y ago
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        >No, it was not in fact OK to coerce someone into a date with a threat of suicide in 1985. In 1985 you still had towns where blacks weren't allowed after sundown in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town The sort of things that were OK then would make the average sjw have a meltdown, just like how eating meat will be viewed in 40 years and everyone will pretend they always ate soy burgers.
        tptacek 4y ago
        I grew up in a part of Chicago where it was not safe for my Black friends to be on the street with me after dark. And even then, you'd have been ostracized for using a suicide threat to coerce someone into dating you. It's a remarkably fucked up thing to do.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  They’re exactly the sort of allegations one would level against a principled activist who couldn’t be removed any other way.
- zerocrates 4y ago
  I'm struggling to understand how the author of this page thought Stallman's "voluntary pedophilia is fine" statement would seem better with them providing the context that he wrote that in reference to a movement to lower the age of consent in the Netherlands to from 16 to 12 and from there eliminate it entirely.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Firstly, it is slightly disingenuous of you to bring that up, since RMS has not held that opinion for more than seven years now¹. Secondly, you are mischaracterizing what he actually wrote¹. The context, that this was a debate specifically about the age of consent, is relevant. Otherwise you seem to imply that any discussion of the age of consent is reprehensible. The age of consent differs quite a lot over the world, and you could declare every citizen of those countries to be terrible people, which would at least be consistent, or you could concede that there was a debate to be had. You might not agree with what RMS wrote (neither does RMS, now), but would you declare every person in a debate to be a terrible person who does not argue the side of the prevailing one? Even if they have since changed their minds? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184
    - zerocrates 4y ago
      Well, what Stallman actually wrote in his post referenced by this portion of the page I was referring to was: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." There are no links in this original post besides the one to the news article about the Dutch party pushing to lower the age of consent to 12. The page defending Stallman quotes from the news article (omitting the detail about the party's goal to go on to remove the age limit entirely) and then adds this comment: "When people talk about pedophilia, what usually comes to mind is prepubescent children. Not what Stallman was referring to." I'd say my previous comment contained an accurate statement of the view Stallman expressed there (and later retracted): that pedophilia is fine, if it's voluntary. Stallman's own later distillation of his prior view in his own words was "I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it." This page was written in the context of Stallman already having disavowed those earlier posts, but its tack for defending Stallman in relation to this quote is still to essentially say "12? misleading to call that pedophilia." On the one hand, this statement is itself misleading (Stallman offered no lower age limit for his views on voluntariness, in the context of discussing an article that included the idea of completely removing the age of consent, and further, the idea that he didn't really mean pedophilia here rests on the idea that famous language pedant Stallman repeatedly misused the word). Beyond that though, my point in my previous comment was more that, as an implied statement of the author's idea of what the public generally believes and as a matter of rhetorical tactics for defending Stallman it was... a choice.
daveevad 4y ago
> "I recall being told early in my freshman year 'If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.'” — (Anonymous Bachelor’s in Computer Science, ’04) https://mobile.twitter.com/secparam/status/1374219888089305091 https://mobile.twitter.com/secparam/status/13742198880893050... This is the first time I've ever seen that quote. I would note it is evidently anonymous hearsay.
- lettergram 4y ago
  It also sounds like a joke and gossip. I’m sure RMS could be like that, however having spent some time with him —- I didn’t see anything like that. He was frankly more interested in his laptop and food than people.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  I personally heard a guy tell RMS "Forgive me, I use vi". And RMS responded by saying that if it was a free licensed vi there was nothing wrong.
collegeburner 4y ago
i don't know if the allegations are true and if he sexually harassed people then sure, cancel him. but none of the "hacker humor" shit people reference seems that serious. * stuff like "knight for hot ladies" is just corny not bad. * the abort() joke was as follows: "Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program." that's not that bad honestly. it's more pro-abortion than anti-abortion so i'm not sure why progressives got mad. * the "emacs virgin" shit is cringe but not rly sexist? anyway i think he switched it to be either men or women later so it was still cringe but not gendered. idk if there's other stuff i missed but that covers what your article and the twitter thread you mentioned point out. like, yeah, it's cringe asf. but is it rly "cancellable? nah. btw i still think his presence in the open source community is a negative in part because of goofy ahh shit like emacs virgins or knight for hot ladies, mostly because the amount of cringe it produces attracts more asocial weirdos like rms and puts normal people off open source stuff. like, i'm a outgoing person and can sit and enjoy a coffee with almost anyone. but i feel like spending 5 minutes face to face with rms would make me lowkey want to unalive. i also really don't like a lot of his politics. so i'm in no way an apologist, just don't think a lot of what you referenced is problematic. ofc, i think there's enough evidence of creepy behavior, especially now, to kick him out and don't really have a problem with it. just the goofy ahh jokes isn't the right reason to do it.
- justinator 4y ago
  It seems to me that he created a toxic work environment - especially for women, and got away with it because of seniority and it seems having narcissistic personality traits.
  - kentrado 4y ago
    It is illegal to sexually harass women in the workplace. Gather all the evidence you have and send it to the district attorney and he will be given a fair trial at a court of law.
    - 4y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
From the first link in your post: "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, while developers who are women are more likely to want to change norms for communication on our site,” a request that’s frequently paired with the terms “toxic” and “rude.”" It is difficult for me to seriously treat an article that considers "rude comments" more important issue than "features". What a regular person wants is something that works. Whether it was done in a way that kept Susan happy is tertiary at best. Is this all that RMS is accused of? If so, I am only glad I am nowhere near that scene. edit: Come to think of it.. is the reason new software sucks so bad lately ( the focus on stupid stuff )?
- saghm 4y ago
  > "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, while developers who are women are more likely to want to change norms for communication on our site,” a request that’s frequently paired with the terms “toxic” and “rude.”" > It is difficult for me to seriously treat an article that considers "rude comments" more important issue than "features". What a regular person wants is something that works. Whether it was done in a way that kept Susan happy is tertiary at best. I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. Most people won't try to talk to someone about something if they know they're going to get a dismissive response, but that wouldn't stop them from being more vocal about it in an anonymous survey. If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I know it goes against everything people are being taught today, but not all opinions are equally valid. I will hesitate for a little bit since I know for a fact I do not have all the answers, but eventually my internal firewall will start marking things as "drivel". To be perfectly honest, it is this weird insistence that I not only have to agree with someone's opinion, but act on someone else's belief that I almost automatically pull back and say no. This is not how a conversation works. So thanks to those vocal individuals I mark the use of word "toxic" and automatically dismiss it as a person with no arguments. << If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you? And here I do not have a good answer that would scale. The dismissive approach works well on an individual level. I think experience ( and knowing that surveys have all sorts of flaws ) helps. Now, anecdata has its own obvious issues, but at certain point anecdata becomes data. <<I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. You might be right on confirmation bias. Still, I challenge you to defend the proposition that focusing on making a given piece of software work or adding features is less important than "toxic" behavior. As a user, do I care that, say, notepad++ was created in an environment that was not "toxic" or that it does what I want it to do and that it does it well? To me, at least, the choice is simple and not controversial at all.
ta8645 4y ago
Until he is criminally charged, I view such rumour mongering as simply a smear campaign against an innocent man. You can take a more "worried" view, but I believe we should hold more tightly to innocent-until-proven-guilty than is the norm these days.
r3856283 4y ago
There is a lot misinformation about RMS out there, you've posted some of it. This addresses some of it https://stallmansupport.org/ https://stallmansupport.org/ "Georgia Lyle", there is no such person, the Georgia you are thinking of wrote ~3 tweets, the FSF staff who were her coworkers did not agree that they were accurate. She rarely interacted with RMS, it was not part of her job, she was spreading rumors she had heard (and posted years after she had left the FSF and had no further involvement with Free Software). It looks like she's deleted them since. I think a lot of RMS misinformation has been an attempt to support feminism at his expense, and because his personality/autism tends to make some people rather unsympathetic to him. Note, the current FSF Executive Director (who's job is to work with the board, thus RMS), is currently a woman who was on FSF staff for years before taking that job.
alan-crowe 4y ago
> “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” A normal person probably doesn't see the double-indirection and ambiguity in this. The first indirection lies in using 'I'm a vi user' as a proxy for 'I don't like Emacs'. The second indirection lies in using 'I don't like Emacs' as a proxy for 'I reject you romantically'. The ambiguity is even less visible. Some women use an indirect 'No' as a shit test. The man is supposed to ask again. This is phenomenon invisible to normal people because it occurs in a social context of body language and flirting. Normal people find this social context conspicuous. Consequently, normal people are oblivious to the phenomenon of men with poor social skills failing to navigate the treacherous waters around the "ask again no" and the very different "don't ask again no". These waters are a normie's paddling pool. Remind yourself of the big picture here. We have a highly intelligent man with embarrassing blind-spots around certain social skills. We have intelligent women attempting to communicate with him. They choose a code with two properties. First, it aims at a social skills blind-spot; the message is likely to be misunderstood by the target. Second, it is a trivial code that normies will not even notice breaking. They get to have a sneer and a laugh at the expense of the loser who misunderstands the coded message. The joke lies in the weakness of the code. Everybody except the victim gets the message effortlessly. So long as 'I'm a vi user' is a private joke, its heartless cruelty is mitigated by its pettiness. But RMS is the victim. To tell the tale as a strike against him lacks self-awareness.

teddyh 4y ago

From what I can tell, every allegation you repeated is false: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/

cyber_kinetist 4y ago
This covers the Epstein comment drama, but what about the actual sexual harassment allegations?
- daveevad 4y ago
- teddyh 4y ago
  The link I gave does cover those, from what I can tell.
tptacek 4y ago
This doesn't rebut any of those allegations, and in fact adds new ones, like the time Stallman threatened to commit suicide if a woman refused to date him.
- teddyh 4y ago
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No, it was not in fact OK to coerce someone into a date with a threat of suicide in 1985. I was there. It's telling, about this whole Stallman debate, that anyone would even try to make this claim. Anyways, I didn't know anything about the suicide threat before seeing this link, and didn't know my contempt for Stallman could get any deeper. So thanks for that!
    - teddyh 4y ago
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      >No, it was not in fact OK to coerce someone into a date with a threat of suicide in 1985. In 1985 you still had towns where blacks weren't allowed after sundown in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town The sort of things that were OK then would make the average sjw have a meltdown, just like how eating meat will be viewed in 40 years and everyone will pretend they always ate soy burgers.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I grew up in a part of Chicago where it was not safe for my Black friends to be on the street with me after dark. And even then, you'd have been ostracized for using a suicide threat to coerce someone into dating you. It's a remarkably fucked up thing to do.
commandlinefan 4y ago
They’re exactly the sort of allegations one would level against a principled activist who couldn’t be removed any other way.
zerocrates 4y ago
I'm struggling to understand how the author of this page thought Stallman's "voluntary pedophilia is fine" statement would seem better with them providing the context that he wrote that in reference to a movement to lower the age of consent in the Netherlands to from 16 to 12 and from there eliminate it entirely.
- teddyh 4y ago
  Firstly, it is slightly disingenuous of you to bring that up, since RMS has not held that opinion for more than seven years now¹. Secondly, you are mischaracterizing what he actually wrote¹. The context, that this was a debate specifically about the age of consent, is relevant. Otherwise you seem to imply that any discussion of the age of consent is reprehensible. The age of consent differs quite a lot over the world, and you could declare every citizen of those countries to be terrible people, which would at least be consistent, or you could concede that there was a debate to be had. You might not agree with what RMS wrote (neither does RMS, now), but would you declare every person in a debate to be a terrible person who does not argue the side of the prevailing one? Even if they have since changed their minds? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184
  - zerocrates 4y ago
    Well, what Stallman actually wrote in his post referenced by this portion of the page I was referring to was: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." There are no links in this original post besides the one to the news article about the Dutch party pushing to lower the age of consent to 12. The page defending Stallman quotes from the news article (omitting the detail about the party's goal to go on to remove the age limit entirely) and then adds this comment: "When people talk about pedophilia, what usually comes to mind is prepubescent children. Not what Stallman was referring to." I'd say my previous comment contained an accurate statement of the view Stallman expressed there (and later retracted): that pedophilia is fine, if it's voluntary. Stallman's own later distillation of his prior view in his own words was "I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it." This page was written in the context of Stallman already having disavowed those earlier posts, but its tack for defending Stallman in relation to this quote is still to essentially say "12? misleading to call that pedophilia." On the one hand, this statement is itself misleading (Stallman offered no lower age limit for his views on voluntariness, in the context of discussing an article that included the idea of completely removing the age of consent, and further, the idea that he didn't really mean pedophilia here rests on the idea that famous language pedant Stallman repeatedly misused the word). Beyond that though, my point in my previous comment was more that, as an implied statement of the author's idea of what the public generally believes and as a matter of rhetorical tactics for defending Stallman it was... a choice.

daveevad 4y ago

> "I recall being told early in my freshman year 'If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.'” — (Anonymous Bachelor’s in Computer Science, ’04) https://mobile.twitter.com/secparam/status/1374219888089305091 https://mobile.twitter.com/secparam/status/13742198880893050... This is the first time I've ever seen that quote. I would note it is evidently anonymous hearsay.

lettergram 4y ago
It also sounds like a joke and gossip. I’m sure RMS could be like that, however having spent some time with him —- I didn’t see anything like that. He was frankly more interested in his laptop and food than people.
LtWorf 4y ago
I personally heard a guy tell RMS "Forgive me, I use vi". And RMS responded by saying that if it was a free licensed vi there was nothing wrong.

collegeburner 4y ago

i don't know if the allegations are true and if he sexually harassed people then sure, cancel him. but none of the "hacker humor" shit people reference seems that serious. * stuff like "knight for hot ladies" is just corny not bad. * the abort() joke was as follows: "Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program." that's not that bad honestly. it's more pro-abortion than anti-abortion so i'm not sure why progressives got mad. * the "emacs virgin" shit is cringe but not rly sexist? anyway i think he switched it to be either men or women later so it was still cringe but not gendered. idk if there's other stuff i missed but that covers what your article and the twitter thread you mentioned point out. like, yeah, it's cringe asf. but is it rly "cancellable? nah. btw i still think his presence in the open source community is a negative in part because of goofy ahh shit like emacs virgins or knight for hot ladies, mostly because the amount of cringe it produces attracts more asocial weirdos like rms and puts normal people off open source stuff. like, i'm a outgoing person and can sit and enjoy a coffee with almost anyone. but i feel like spending 5 minutes face to face with rms would make me lowkey want to unalive. i also really don't like a lot of his politics. so i'm in no way an apologist, just don't think a lot of what you referenced is problematic. ofc, i think there's enough evidence of creepy behavior, especially now, to kick him out and don't really have a problem with it. just the goofy ahh jokes isn't the right reason to do it.

justinator 4y ago
It seems to me that he created a toxic work environment - especially for women, and got away with it because of seniority and it seems having narcissistic personality traits.
- kentrado 4y ago
  It is illegal to sexually harass women in the workplace. Gather all the evidence you have and send it to the district attorney and he will be given a fair trial at a court of law.
  - 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

From the first link in your post: "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, while developers who are women are more likely to want to change norms for communication on our site,” a request that’s frequently paired with the terms “toxic” and “rude.”" It is difficult for me to seriously treat an article that considers "rude comments" more important issue than "features". What a regular person wants is something that works. Whether it was done in a way that kept Susan happy is tertiary at best. Is this all that RMS is accused of? If so, I am only glad I am nowhere near that scene. edit: Come to think of it.. is the reason new software sucks so bad lately ( the focus on stupid stuff )?

saghm 4y ago
> "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, while developers who are women are more likely to want to change norms for communication on our site,” a request that’s frequently paired with the terms “toxic” and “rude.”" > It is difficult for me to seriously treat an article that considers "rude comments" more important issue than "features". What a regular person wants is something that works. Whether it was done in a way that kept Susan happy is tertiary at best. I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. Most people won't try to talk to someone about something if they know they're going to get a dismissive response, but that wouldn't stop them from being more vocal about it in an anonymous survey. If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I know it goes against everything people are being taught today, but not all opinions are equally valid. I will hesitate for a little bit since I know for a fact I do not have all the answers, but eventually my internal firewall will start marking things as "drivel". To be perfectly honest, it is this weird insistence that I not only have to agree with someone's opinion, but act on someone else's belief that I almost automatically pull back and say no. This is not how a conversation works. So thanks to those vocal individuals I mark the use of word "toxic" and automatically dismiss it as a person with no arguments. << If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you? And here I do not have a good answer that would scale. The dismissive approach works well on an individual level. I think experience ( and knowing that surveys have all sorts of flaws ) helps. Now, anecdata has its own obvious issues, but at certain point anecdata becomes data. <<I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. You might be right on confirmation bias. Still, I challenge you to defend the proposition that focusing on making a given piece of software work or adding features is less important than "toxic" behavior. As a user, do I care that, say, notepad++ was created in an environment that was not "toxic" or that it does what I want it to do and that it does it well? To me, at least, the choice is simple and not controversial at all.

ta8645 4y ago

Until he is criminally charged, I view such rumour mongering as simply a smear campaign against an innocent man. You can take a more "worried" view, but I believe we should hold more tightly to innocent-until-proven-guilty than is the norm these days.

r3856283 4y ago

There is a lot misinformation about RMS out there, you've posted some of it. This addresses some of it https://stallmansupport.org/ https://stallmansupport.org/ "Georgia Lyle", there is no such person, the Georgia you are thinking of wrote ~3 tweets, the FSF staff who were her coworkers did not agree that they were accurate. She rarely interacted with RMS, it was not part of her job, she was spreading rumors she had heard (and posted years after she had left the FSF and had no further involvement with Free Software). It looks like she's deleted them since. I think a lot of RMS misinformation has been an attempt to support feminism at his expense, and because his personality/autism tends to make some people rather unsympathetic to him. Note, the current FSF Executive Director (who's job is to work with the board, thus RMS), is currently a woman who was on FSF staff for years before taking that job.

alan-crowe 4y ago

> “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” A normal person probably doesn't see the double-indirection and ambiguity in this. The first indirection lies in using 'I'm a vi user' as a proxy for 'I don't like Emacs'. The second indirection lies in using 'I don't like Emacs' as a proxy for 'I reject you romantically'. The ambiguity is even less visible. Some women use an indirect 'No' as a shit test. The man is supposed to ask again. This is phenomenon invisible to normal people because it occurs in a social context of body language and flirting. Normal people find this social context conspicuous. Consequently, normal people are oblivious to the phenomenon of men with poor social skills failing to navigate the treacherous waters around the "ask again no" and the very different "don't ask again no". These waters are a normie's paddling pool. Remind yourself of the big picture here. We have a highly intelligent man with embarrassing blind-spots around certain social skills. We have intelligent women attempting to communicate with him. They choose a code with two properties. First, it aims at a social skills blind-spot; the message is likely to be misunderstood by the target. Second, it is a trivial code that normies will not even notice breaking. They get to have a sneer and a laugh at the expense of the loser who misunderstands the coded message. The joke lies in the weakness of the code. Everybody except the victim gets the message effortlessly. So long as 'I'm a vi user' is a private joke, its heartless cruelty is mitigated by its pettiness. But RMS is the victim. To tell the tale as a strike against him lacks self-awareness.