6 ms·

https://archive.is/9IU8W https://archive.is/9IU8W I've got an old (2002) car, I love the buttons and knobs. No cameras, no screens, no key fob, no voice contro

https://archive.is/9IU8W https://archive.is/9IU8W I've got an old (2002) car, I love the buttons and knobs. No cameras, no screens, no key fob, no voice control, no electronic "safety" features, no tracking. The 4L straight six engine is still going strong at almost 300,000 miles. What's funny is watching my friends attempt to back out of the driveway or parking lot without a camera and screen. They put it in reverse and their eyes go right to the center console, expecting a screen, then they dart from mirror to mirror, unsure of what to do or where to look or how to judge, and they keep glancing at the dash, as if a screen is going to magically appear. At no point do they just throw their arm on the backside of the passenger seat, and turn around to look out the windows while keeping one hand on the wheel. It is as if this movement, this posture, is completely new to them. Asking them to use just one side view mirror to back all the way out of a gently curved driveway would be impossible. They need the digital guidance lines on the screen to go in reverse.

tashoecraft 3y ago
That’s great for you, but there’s been amazing advances in the world of automobile safety in the past 20 years. I’d rather improve my safety chances in an accident than worry about “tracking”.
- supportlocal4h 3y ago
  Why is it a forced choice?
- public_defender 3y ago
  This is a false choice. There is no reason that safety would require commercial surveillance. Also, why did you put the word tracking in quotation marks?
  - xadhominemx 3y ago
    They put it in quotes because no one is using these data to follow any individual’s life or movements. These days are all aggregated and/or anonymized before any detailed analysis.
    - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
      Yeah they put tracking in our cars without telling us, but I'll trust them they won't do individual tracking because they pinky swear it. Unless law enforcement requests that data, but luckily cops only go after bad people, and there's no such thing as politically motivated prosecution.
    - endemic 3y ago
      Then it should be no big deal for a few concerned folks to opt out.
    - Silhouette 3y ago
      Tell that to Jim Farley, the Ford executive who infamously observed, "We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing." He then issued possibly one of the most unconvincing retractions in the history of corporate newspeak the next day.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      How can this days be properly anonymized? Even just knowing where a car is parked every night narrowed it down a good bit in most areas, combiner that with where its parked during work hours and you're almost certainly anonymized. And yes, the analytics do track vehicle identifiers aren't truly anonymous. Many of the services Onstar offers, for example, wouldn't be possible without taking via unique identifier. The same goes for any vehicle that offers 4G/5G, mobile apps, remote unlocking, etc.
      - public_defender 3y ago
        I agree with this, and I think it's analogous to the 2021 Catholic Grindr tracking saga [0]. It would be difficult to keep this type of data safe (in the sense of not allowing someone to use it to exploit a private person) without all the exigencies of "running a business" in 2023. Once you add those considerations, it seems impossible. Even if GP is correct and companies all anonymize the data before analysis (which I absolutely do not believe), I am still concerned with: 1) Sale to outside parties including government, 2) Rogue employee with a grudge or a side business, 3) Data breach, 4) Internal policy change (juice revenue with DTC marketing?) [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/07/22/data-phones-leaks-church/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/07/22/data-ph...
  - tashoecraft 3y ago
    I agree, but that's not what the parent to whom I was responding to was describing. They said were holding on to their old car because of how simple and lacking of any tracking it had. I would prefer a newer car with better safety features even if it came with tracking. Would I love a non tracking safer car? Sure, but options are pretty limited. You're saying it's a false choice to a statement I wasn't making.
- voz_ 3y ago
  Agreed. I don’t understand the privacy obsession at the cost of all other comforts and features.
  - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
    Maybe you should read a bit more about why the lack of privacy is a risk. I would start by searching YouTube for “don’t talk to the police”.
  - c22 3y ago
    I guess that's how they get ya!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    The opposite can be argued too, I don't get the obsession with convenience above all else. Personally I'd rather know that the government and private corporations can't track everything I do and decide that I should no longer have the right to drive my own car.
diydsp 3y ago
2010 car here. Maintaining it well to reach >=300k. New cars also have oil-burning issues and I anticipate difficulty of obtaining parts due to large, diverse BOMs from all those useless features.
- tashoecraft 3y ago
  The scrap yards are very efficient at pulling out all those parts and selling them. Any reasonably popular vehicle you shouldn’t have a problem sourcing parts.
rconti 3y ago
To be fair, they probably don't realize you can see out the back. On most modern vehicles, you simply can't. Reversing is very easy thanks to side mirrors, but you can't see the kid you're about to run over.
sokoloff 3y ago
2005 CR-V coming up on 230K miles and still runs like a top. I did add a CarPlay-capable head unit that has a connection for a rear-view camera (which I haven’t gotten and probably won’t). Wireless CarPlay is pretty big usability and modest safety improvement (to have a 7” map display and voice control instead of futzing with a phone to get GPS guidance).
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  My car has wireless CarPlay, and ONLY wireless. I hate it. I can not share my data with my wife while I'm connected to CarPlay.
foobarbecue 3y ago
Do you know if your 2002 has side-impact anti-intrusion bars in the doors? I loved my 1999 Isuzu Amigo, and was sad when I was rear-ended in 2017 and had to get rid of it, but that fender bender probably saved my life. I replaced the Amigo with a 2014 Outlander Sport and in 2019 I was t-boned at an intersection, with the other car driving directly into my driver's side door. I was amazed to find that I escaped without a scratch. I did some research and found that the Amigo had terrible side-impact safety ratings; if I was still driving the Amigo I probably would have been crushed. In 2007 (effective 2009), the NHTSA mandated that all new vehicles have anti-intrusion bars in doors. That bar saved me. I think there's a sweet-spot in the mid-2010s when vehicles were being built with efficiency, safety, and durability in mind and weren't yet being festooned with computerized junk.
- alejohausner 3y ago
  You're leaving out the punchline of your reply: those side-impact bars protect passengers better, but they also make the car windows higher, and reduce visibility. It's harder to see out the back of modern cars when you simply turn your body around and look behind you. That's why backup cameras are becoming mandatory in new cars.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    Interesting. I didn't know that. Before the accident, I would have taken bigger windows over the side-impact bars if I'd been presented with the choice. And now I'm thankful to the regulators for taking away that freedom of choice. Odd.
    - rideontime 3y ago
      A teaching moment. Sometimes the regulators actually do know what's best.
      - mech7654 3y ago
        I am often frustrated at the poor visibility out of modern cars and I wonder how many crashes are caused by the poor visibility. It is the other side of the tradeoff that crash survivability data will not show- how many crashes would have been avoided altogether with better visibility.
vic-traill 3y ago
2005 Honda Civic LX w/ under 100,000 KM on it. In Canada, but first (and only previous) owner spent winter in Arizona and there has been no previous winter driving. Car is a champ. I can adjust everything via tactile controls. Sensors exist, but fewer sensors. (Note, this next sentence is me talking out of my ass) There is a whole industry built on replacing faulty sensors that are not detecting the fault they were designed to test for. Folks may note that a car of this vintage lacks safety features. This car has airbags, ABS and seat-belts. It does not have most of these features [0] built in; the driver is responsible for these features where possible. I'm fine w/ that. Regular maintenance includes oil change and inspection of components due to age. I've got a great mechanic who factors age into his maintenance recommendations. My annual operating cost, including fuel, insurance, maintenance and parking for 2023 YTD is CAD$1880. Mobile phone is used via ear bud. That has its own tracking issues but at least does not correlate to car-based telemetry. [0] https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/guide-to-safety-features/index.htm https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/guide-to-safety-...
- Tanoc 3y ago
  There has been a smaller advance in actual crash safety since 2000 than there was between 1980 and 2000. The only big leap forward since then was rollover standards where vehicles above a certain weight must be able to support their entire gross weight on their roof. Essentially any car designed and certified after 1998 is safe enough in an actual impact to prevent death or major injury barring structural failure like rust that compromises the crash cell and crumple zones. Most modern safety features introduced since the early 1980s are actually proactive rather than reactive in that they aim to prevent errant behaviour rather than protect from dangerous situations. Blind spot monitoring, lane change assist, and backup cameras for example are all proactive versus seatbealts, airbags, and crumple zones which are reactive. 2004 is around the last time we had mechanically simple cars with majority reactive safety systems and cars made before that cutoff date are getting increasingly more expensive to both enthusiasts and used purchasers.
xadhominemx 3y ago
Why would you you “safety” features in quotes?
- blueridge 3y ago
  I'm talking about things like: eyesight assists, automatic braking, side view mirrors that flash and light up constantly, etc. My wife has a new car with all of these features, and they're incredibly distracting. The car brakes automatically in parking lots when it sees shadows, beeps endlessly anytime it sees a curb while in reverse, and alarms anytime she so much as scratches her eye while driving because the software decided she's distracted or her eyes aren't on the road. I know a lot of people have different experiences with this stuff, and I'm sure the features have saved asses a few times, but she can't stand it. And for me, when the car is constantly alarming, and I have to constantly look at the screen to figure out why, it makes me hesitate while driving and I feel less confident on the road.
  - pertymcpert 3y ago
    You might have a dud or something because that just doesn't happen in modern cars.
    - DANmode 3y ago
      Interesting that deep in the settings you can find tolerances or thresholds for so many of these, then.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Some makes, like tesla, are anecdotally very bad. But on my VW, and my mom's toyota, it only ever warns about anything if you are actually doing something that isn't safe driving. I have had maybe one false alarm in 20k miles. A lot of people are technically awful drivers but haven't been in an accident, so they think they are fine.
      - pertymcpert 3y ago
jklinger410 3y ago
This is one of the most hacker news comments of all time. Absolutely critical levels of "kids these days." "Driving was better before it was easy!" It must be exhausting to think this way.
CrendKing 3y ago
You describe your friends' relying on technology to solve their problems in a condescending tone, yet they simply adapted to a world that is changing. When most of the cars they use already have the digital guidance, there is no point not using them, and still "throw their arm on the backside of the passenger seat, and turn around to look out the windows", which is way less efficient. Imagine you are planning a trip from California to Colorado. Are you gonna study paper maps and remember all the turns before go like old days just in case your phone would die sporadically? No, you don't spend an hour of your life to prepare for an event with 0.01% probability. Same for your friends.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Maintaining an awareness of your surroundings is a fundamental skill required for driving. If people have become so dependent on technological aids that when they drive a car without them, they fail to maintain awareness of their surroundings, that is a failure as a driver that is fully worthy of condescension. They're exhibiting a laziness or incompetence that puts others around them at risk.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  I've found the backup camera to be such a significant upgrade to backing out. I drive a hatchback, so a smallish car in today's world. When I'm in a parking lot, I'm inevitably surrounded by two giant fuck off bro-dozers that block all possibility of seeing anything around me, while the backup camera is mounted on my car's rear and has a fisheye-esque lens, meaning I can back to just the point where the rear is aligned with the cars around me, and I can see the entire lane of the parking lot, and thus can easily see if cars or people are coming. This is something you just cannot do by "looking behind you" because you are 3 feet forward of that camera. You cannot see the parking lot lane until you are already intruding into it. The awareness you get from that camera is just strictly better than you get from your eyes alone.
falcolas 3y ago
> At no point do they just throw their arm on the backside of the passenger seat, and turn around to look out the windows while keeping one hand on the wheel. It is as if this movement, this posture, is completely new to them. As a point of reference, Adam and Jamie of Mythbuster fame both had to be trained in this technique. And they’ve probably been driving longer than many of us here have been alive. In other words, it’s a trained driving position. Some folks learned it early, some late, and others haven’t been trained in it yet. Also, it doesn’t work well in modern vehicles with shorter windows. This last week I couldn’t see the driveway I had to back down by looking out the back window. I could via the camera though.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  > As a point of reference, Adam and Jamie of Mythbuster fame both had to be trained in this technique. And they’ve probably been driving longer than many of us here have been alive. If I remember right, didn't they have to be trained how to use this technique in a specific scenario that was effectively stung driving? If be really surprised if they couldn't back out of a parking dodge this way prior to training > Also, it doesn’t work well in modern vehicles with shorter windows This is largely by design. Intrusion protection has been prioritized over visibility with cameras filling in the gaps
haspok 3y ago
> The 4L straight six engine... Surely the mpg is excellent, and so are the emissions... (And don't call me Shirley!)
- blueridge 3y ago
  Oh the MPG is bad, emissions pass every time I renew! It's just a workhorse of an engine. It always starts and even in its old age has never left me stranded.

tashoecraft 3y ago

That’s great for you, but there’s been amazing advances in the world of automobile safety in the past 20 years. I’d rather improve my safety chances in an accident than worry about “tracking”.

supportlocal4h 3y ago
Why is it a forced choice?
public_defender 3y ago
This is a false choice. There is no reason that safety would require commercial surveillance. Also, why did you put the word tracking in quotation marks?
- xadhominemx 3y ago
  They put it in quotes because no one is using these data to follow any individual’s life or movements. These days are all aggregated and/or anonymized before any detailed analysis.
  - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
    Yeah they put tracking in our cars without telling us, but I'll trust them they won't do individual tracking because they pinky swear it. Unless law enforcement requests that data, but luckily cops only go after bad people, and there's no such thing as politically motivated prosecution.
  - endemic 3y ago
    Then it should be no big deal for a few concerned folks to opt out.
  - Silhouette 3y ago
    Tell that to Jim Farley, the Ford executive who infamously observed, "We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing." He then issued possibly one of the most unconvincing retractions in the history of corporate newspeak the next day.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    How can this days be properly anonymized? Even just knowing where a car is parked every night narrowed it down a good bit in most areas, combiner that with where its parked during work hours and you're almost certainly anonymized. And yes, the analytics do track vehicle identifiers aren't truly anonymous. Many of the services Onstar offers, for example, wouldn't be possible without taking via unique identifier. The same goes for any vehicle that offers 4G/5G, mobile apps, remote unlocking, etc.
    - public_defender 3y ago
      I agree with this, and I think it's analogous to the 2021 Catholic Grindr tracking saga [0]. It would be difficult to keep this type of data safe (in the sense of not allowing someone to use it to exploit a private person) without all the exigencies of "running a business" in 2023. Once you add those considerations, it seems impossible. Even if GP is correct and companies all anonymize the data before analysis (which I absolutely do not believe), I am still concerned with: 1) Sale to outside parties including government, 2) Rogue employee with a grudge or a side business, 3) Data breach, 4) Internal policy change (juice revenue with DTC marketing?) [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/07/22/data-phones-leaks-church/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/07/22/data-ph...
- tashoecraft 3y ago
  I agree, but that's not what the parent to whom I was responding to was describing. They said were holding on to their old car because of how simple and lacking of any tracking it had. I would prefer a newer car with better safety features even if it came with tracking. Would I love a non tracking safer car? Sure, but options are pretty limited. You're saying it's a false choice to a statement I wasn't making.
voz_ 3y ago
Agreed. I don’t understand the privacy obsession at the cost of all other comforts and features.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  Maybe you should read a bit more about why the lack of privacy is a risk. I would start by searching YouTube for “don’t talk to the police”.
- c22 3y ago
  I guess that's how they get ya!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  The opposite can be argued too, I don't get the obsession with convenience above all else. Personally I'd rather know that the government and private corporations can't track everything I do and decide that I should no longer have the right to drive my own car.

diydsp 3y ago

2010 car here. Maintaining it well to reach >=300k. New cars also have oil-burning issues and I anticipate difficulty of obtaining parts due to large, diverse BOMs from all those useless features.

tashoecraft 3y ago
The scrap yards are very efficient at pulling out all those parts and selling them. Any reasonably popular vehicle you shouldn’t have a problem sourcing parts.

rconti 3y ago

To be fair, they probably don't realize you can see out the back. On most modern vehicles, you simply can't. Reversing is very easy thanks to side mirrors, but you can't see the kid you're about to run over.

sokoloff 3y ago

2005 CR-V coming up on 230K miles and still runs like a top. I did add a CarPlay-capable head unit that has a connection for a rear-view camera (which I haven’t gotten and probably won’t). Wireless CarPlay is pretty big usability and modest safety improvement (to have a 7” map display and voice control instead of futzing with a phone to get GPS guidance).

WirelessGigabit 3y ago
My car has wireless CarPlay, and ONLY wireless. I hate it. I can not share my data with my wife while I'm connected to CarPlay.

foobarbecue 3y ago

Do you know if your 2002 has side-impact anti-intrusion bars in the doors? I loved my 1999 Isuzu Amigo, and was sad when I was rear-ended in 2017 and had to get rid of it, but that fender bender probably saved my life. I replaced the Amigo with a 2014 Outlander Sport and in 2019 I was t-boned at an intersection, with the other car driving directly into my driver's side door. I was amazed to find that I escaped without a scratch. I did some research and found that the Amigo had terrible side-impact safety ratings; if I was still driving the Amigo I probably would have been crushed. In 2007 (effective 2009), the NHTSA mandated that all new vehicles have anti-intrusion bars in doors. That bar saved me. I think there's a sweet-spot in the mid-2010s when vehicles were being built with efficiency, safety, and durability in mind and weren't yet being festooned with computerized junk.

alejohausner 3y ago
You're leaving out the punchline of your reply: those side-impact bars protect passengers better, but they also make the car windows higher, and reduce visibility. It's harder to see out the back of modern cars when you simply turn your body around and look behind you. That's why backup cameras are becoming mandatory in new cars.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Interesting. I didn't know that. Before the accident, I would have taken bigger windows over the side-impact bars if I'd been presented with the choice. And now I'm thankful to the regulators for taking away that freedom of choice. Odd.
  - rideontime 3y ago
    A teaching moment. Sometimes the regulators actually do know what's best.
    - mech7654 3y ago
      I am often frustrated at the poor visibility out of modern cars and I wonder how many crashes are caused by the poor visibility. It is the other side of the tradeoff that crash survivability data will not show- how many crashes would have been avoided altogether with better visibility.

vic-traill 3y ago

2005 Honda Civic LX w/ under 100,000 KM on it. In Canada, but first (and only previous) owner spent winter in Arizona and there has been no previous winter driving. Car is a champ. I can adjust everything via tactile controls. Sensors exist, but fewer sensors. (Note, this next sentence is me talking out of my ass) There is a whole industry built on replacing faulty sensors that are not detecting the fault they were designed to test for. Folks may note that a car of this vintage lacks safety features. This car has airbags, ABS and seat-belts. It does not have most of these features [0] built in; the driver is responsible for these features where possible. I'm fine w/ that. Regular maintenance includes oil change and inspection of components due to age. I've got a great mechanic who factors age into his maintenance recommendations. My annual operating cost, including fuel, insurance, maintenance and parking for 2023 YTD is CAD$1880. Mobile phone is used via ear bud. That has its own tracking issues but at least does not correlate to car-based telemetry. [0] https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/guide-to-safety-features/index.htm https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/guide-to-safety-...

Tanoc 3y ago
There has been a smaller advance in actual crash safety since 2000 than there was between 1980 and 2000. The only big leap forward since then was rollover standards where vehicles above a certain weight must be able to support their entire gross weight on their roof. Essentially any car designed and certified after 1998 is safe enough in an actual impact to prevent death or major injury barring structural failure like rust that compromises the crash cell and crumple zones. Most modern safety features introduced since the early 1980s are actually proactive rather than reactive in that they aim to prevent errant behaviour rather than protect from dangerous situations. Blind spot monitoring, lane change assist, and backup cameras for example are all proactive versus seatbealts, airbags, and crumple zones which are reactive. 2004 is around the last time we had mechanically simple cars with majority reactive safety systems and cars made before that cutoff date are getting increasingly more expensive to both enthusiasts and used purchasers.

xadhominemx 3y ago

Why would you you “safety” features in quotes?

blueridge 3y ago
I'm talking about things like: eyesight assists, automatic braking, side view mirrors that flash and light up constantly, etc. My wife has a new car with all of these features, and they're incredibly distracting. The car brakes automatically in parking lots when it sees shadows, beeps endlessly anytime it sees a curb while in reverse, and alarms anytime she so much as scratches her eye while driving because the software decided she's distracted or her eyes aren't on the road. I know a lot of people have different experiences with this stuff, and I'm sure the features have saved asses a few times, but she can't stand it. And for me, when the car is constantly alarming, and I have to constantly look at the screen to figure out why, it makes me hesitate while driving and I feel less confident on the road.
- pertymcpert 3y ago
  You might have a dud or something because that just doesn't happen in modern cars.
  - DANmode 3y ago
    Interesting that deep in the settings you can find tolerances or thresholds for so many of these, then.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Some makes, like tesla, are anecdotally very bad. But on my VW, and my mom's toyota, it only ever warns about anything if you are actually doing something that isn't safe driving. I have had maybe one false alarm in 20k miles. A lot of people are technically awful drivers but haven't been in an accident, so they think they are fine.
    - pertymcpert 3y ago

jklinger410 3y ago

This is one of the most hacker news comments of all time. Absolutely critical levels of "kids these days." "Driving was better before it was easy!" It must be exhausting to think this way.

CrendKing 3y ago

You describe your friends' relying on technology to solve their problems in a condescending tone, yet they simply adapted to a world that is changing. When most of the cars they use already have the digital guidance, there is no point not using them, and still "throw their arm on the backside of the passenger seat, and turn around to look out the windows", which is way less efficient. Imagine you are planning a trip from California to Colorado. Are you gonna study paper maps and remember all the turns before go like old days just in case your phone would die sporadically? No, you don't spend an hour of your life to prepare for an event with 0.01% probability. Same for your friends.

JohnFen 3y ago
Maintaining an awareness of your surroundings is a fundamental skill required for driving. If people have become so dependent on technological aids that when they drive a car without them, they fail to maintain awareness of their surroundings, that is a failure as a driver that is fully worthy of condescension. They're exhibiting a laziness or incompetence that puts others around them at risk.
mrguyorama 3y ago
I've found the backup camera to be such a significant upgrade to backing out. I drive a hatchback, so a smallish car in today's world. When I'm in a parking lot, I'm inevitably surrounded by two giant fuck off bro-dozers that block all possibility of seeing anything around me, while the backup camera is mounted on my car's rear and has a fisheye-esque lens, meaning I can back to just the point where the rear is aligned with the cars around me, and I can see the entire lane of the parking lot, and thus can easily see if cars or people are coming. This is something you just cannot do by "looking behind you" because you are 3 feet forward of that camera. You cannot see the parking lot lane until you are already intruding into it. The awareness you get from that camera is just strictly better than you get from your eyes alone.

falcolas 3y ago

> At no point do they just throw their arm on the backside of the passenger seat, and turn around to look out the windows while keeping one hand on the wheel. It is as if this movement, this posture, is completely new to them. As a point of reference, Adam and Jamie of Mythbuster fame both had to be trained in this technique. And they’ve probably been driving longer than many of us here have been alive. In other words, it’s a trained driving position. Some folks learned it early, some late, and others haven’t been trained in it yet. Also, it doesn’t work well in modern vehicles with shorter windows. This last week I couldn’t see the driveway I had to back down by looking out the back window. I could via the camera though.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
> As a point of reference, Adam and Jamie of Mythbuster fame both had to be trained in this technique. And they’ve probably been driving longer than many of us here have been alive. If I remember right, didn't they have to be trained how to use this technique in a specific scenario that was effectively stung driving? If be really surprised if they couldn't back out of a parking dodge this way prior to training > Also, it doesn’t work well in modern vehicles with shorter windows This is largely by design. Intrusion protection has been prioritized over visibility with cameras filling in the gaps

haspok 3y ago

> The 4L straight six engine... Surely the mpg is excellent, and so are the emissions... (And don't call me Shirley!)

blueridge 3y ago
Oh the MPG is bad, emissions pass every time I renew! It's just a workhorse of an engine. It always starts and even in its old age has never left me stranded.