10 ms·

Computers have an unprecedented ability to reproduce value for free. Programmers need a relatively fixed amount of resources to thrive. (The value of resources

Computers have an unprecedented ability to reproduce value for free. Programmers need a relatively fixed amount of resources to thrive. (The value of resources varies by location but we all need things like food, shelter, transportation, clothing, tools, etc etc) If we can find a way to make sure every person has what they need to thrive regardless of their income, programmers can open source all of their software and we can enable the maximum value creation possible. Other engineers like those that design commodities like dishwashers and cars or important manufacturing or medical equipment can also open source their designs so that repair costs are low and innovative improvements are easy to apply. I genuinely believe this would result in a steeper and more rapid innovation curve as well as a better world for all, than a world where we try to monetize things which have zero marginal cost to reproduce.

rootusrootus 3y ago
From each according to his ability. So far we haven't worked out how to square that with human nature, and it keeps failing utterly.
- SequoiaHope 3y ago
  And yet 100 years ago Peter Kropotkin asked, "Are we good enough?" (to handle capitalism?) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-w... A single paragraph excerpt: "Men are not good enough for Communism, but are they good enough for Capitalism? If all men were good-hearted, kind, and just, they would never exploit one another, although possessing the means of doing so. With such men the private ownership of capital would be no danger. The capitalist would hasten to share his profits with the workers, and the best-remunerated workers with those suffering from occasional causes. If men were provident they would not produce velvet and articles of luxury while food is wanted in cottages: they would not build palaces as long as there are slums. "
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Capitalism at least tries to use human selfishness to achieve a better outcome, even if imperfect. Could it be better? Obviously. I’m not convinced communism is the answer.
    - manoDev 3y ago
      > Capitalism at least tries to use human selfishness to achieve a better outcome Maybe you're not aware, but it was the socialists who coined the term "capitalism", and their definition has no relation with the one you gave. The definition is simply: the system where private property of means of production allow the accumulation of capital.
    - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
      I find it really hilarious that you're literally going "that's not real capitalism" yet you probably hate the same "excuse" from the other side of the ideological spectrum.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
One problem is that most necessary projects aren’t fun, and most fun projects aren’t necessary. Does anyone design dishwashers as a hobby, as an easy example? How do you propose we motivate people to do work that isn’t fun? Currently the carrot of higher pay or ownership in a more valuable thing is doing that, so we would need something to replace it if that goes away.
- smolder 3y ago
  There are potentially other carrots aside from material wealth that can motivate people to do unpleasant work. Currently it takes significant pay to get people to do certain important but thankless jobs. We could thank them. A legacy is important to many people. They may enjoy an immutable commemoration of their work, if they're secure in a material sense.
  - thorncorona 3y ago
    This is the exact same answer every leftist I've talked to says when I ask them who will run the garbage system, and who will clean the sewers.
    - ForHackernews 3y ago
      C'mon, robots obviously! Cleaning sewers doesn't sound like any fun, but designing or remotely piloting a fatberg-blasting sewer shark bot? That sounds kickass!
      - martinsnow 3y ago
        But it the meantime while there exists no such robots, or while the prototypes get stuck downthere. Someone has to manually fetch them, and do the job. It's not very enticing and I don't think there will be many software engineers ready to suit up, to dig one out.
        Niksko 3y ago
smolder 3y ago
These are the sorts of efficiency improvements that would go a long way towards tackling global warming and environmental destruction, particularly the open design to reduce waste. The question is, how can we get from where we are in terms of an economic and political system to one that supports a healthy commons and maximizes value, like you describe?
derefr 3y ago
Do you think there would be very many programmers in such a world? Personally, I think that a lot of people who right now go into programming "because it's a good career", would instead do things that are equally creative but also capture other things high on the Maslow hierarchy — e.g. fame. Personally, despite enthusiastically enjoying my programming career and puzzle-oriented problem-solving more generally, I'm still intending to retire early and become a novelist. If I could "thrive regardless of income", I'd do that right now.
- theragra 3y ago
  Same amount as novelists ;) I enjoy both, in moderation
- bee_rider 3y ago
  It is hard to guess what people would work on without needing to worry about money. You might try your novel, and one of two things could happen: You find out you love it, you write a really good novel, and society wins. You try it, find out that the actual experience of writing a novel is a drag. No harm no foul, you move on and keep trying things until you find something you are really passionate about and good at, and society wins. Maybe it is programming but you just need a more interesting program.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    You can also find out that you love it despite the novels (or software or paintings or poems or whatever) not being interesting for almost anyone else or even being available to anyone, but as you don't need the money you can keep doing that (and only that) and society simply loses out on whatever you're doing currently. The key part of what people would work on without needing to worry about money is that there is literally zero reason to assume that the thing worked on would be useful to society in any way whatsoever, it can be useless or even detrimental to it - the current mechanism of monetary compensation is the thing aligning the work to interests of others, remove it and you can't expect that alignment to persist. Unconditional income is a solution to the problem when we don't need people's labor anymore - it makes all sense when people can just go off and do whatever without worrying if it benefits others enough to justify the basic goods and services they need, and the society is okay with that. But while we still do need the labor of most people, there needs to be motivation to guide that labor to the specific things society needs.
valval 3y ago
I mean, I’ve seen worse arguments for socialism, but you seem to be painting an overly rosy picture. Yes, computers can reproduce software at zero marginal cost, but there’s still a considerable investment in the initial creation and ongoing maintenance. While I’m all for a world where programmers and engineers are able to fully devote themselves to open source projects, it’s not as simple as just making sure everyone has their basic needs met. The incentive structures are complex, and money still serves as a potent motivator for many to push boundaries and innovate. Remember, open-source doesn’t always equate to high-quality or innovative, and proprietary doesn’t always mean restrictive or uncreative. A balanced ecosystem where both proprietary and open-source software can coexist might be a more realistic and productive approach. I’m afraid that balance isn’t too dissimilar from the one we have now, so I’m sort of forced to go with Occam’s razor here.
- SequoiaHope 3y ago
  I certainly think open source under capitalism (work at the margins, engineers spread thin) will always be worse than open source under socialism (abundant workforce, lower stress, more time available). As far as initial investment in the creation of the software - yeah, that’s programmer time. The point of my scheme is to lower the cost of programmer time because their needs are already met, thus lowering the cost of initial investment. Hardware is a separate concern but I have a whole thing about how open source hardware tends to bring the hardware costs down to the lowest physically possible cost. Just look at 3D printers under patent ($25k) versus ten years after the patents expired and open source took over the low end ($250). I’m not sure how Occam’s razor would suggest that the status quo is close to the ideal situation here. Those seem unrelated.
patrec 3y ago
Sounds like an excellent idea that will work really well because it's incredibly well aligned with how humans actually function. I really wonder why no one else has thought of communism before.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  </sarcasm>, obviously. A couple remarks: Just because someone is proposing something for a small slice of society, doesn’t mean they intend to propose something similar for all of society. For instance, insisting on free schools, free (rail) roads, free health care, free water, and nationalised energy plants doesn’t mean they want to make everything free, or that they want to nationalise everything, or that they are nostalgic for communist Russia or whatever. That’s just the Red Scare talking. The fact is, different systems for different slices of society can and do coexist. Human nature is not limited to the environment we’re currently living in. Genetically we’re barely different from the people of a couple hundred years ago. And yet our ancestors lived under many kinds of societies. It would be a little presumptuous to assume the one we’re currently living in is the best. Especially considering how it came to be: remember that as Thatcher was saying capitalism/neoliberalism was natural, she did "nudge" things along by having the army pay a visit to workers on strike. Even communism isn’t a monolith. It took various forms, which failed for various reasons. Sometimes it was direct outside interference, like how the Paris Commune was basically crushed by the national army.
  - patrec 3y ago
    > Just because someone is proposing something for a small slice of society, doesn’t mean they intend to propose something similar for all of society Yup, a "small slice of society" that's just proverbially eating the world. > remember that as Thatcher was saying capitalism/neoliberalism was natural, she did "nudge" things along by having the army pay a visit to workers on strike. Unfortunately things never happening at times gets in the way of me remembering them. > Even communism isn’t a monolith. It took various forms, which failed for various reasons [...such as] direct outside interference Similarly to how perpetual motion machines took various forms and failed for various reasons, including direct outside interference.
jarjoura 3y ago
Humans have tried all kinds of value transfer systems for thousands of years. Giving someone "tokens" (ie. currency) to convert that into whatever they want, or need has been the most flexible version of whatever has come before it. What one person needs to thrive is not the same another person needs to thrive, so who gets to set what that level is? I'd be skeptical of any system where there's no opportunity to get ahead as people will either find ways to take advantage of the system and screw others over, or the system becomes unsustainable as populations shift in size.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Generally the broad concept I work with is “community ownership of the means of production”. What this means is that you are part owner in a cooperative of cooperatives that owns the machinery you depend upon for your well being. Of course your community trades with others and you and everyone have free choice to vote how you please and contribute as you desire. There is no “enforcement” that prevents you from accumulating more wealth but most of what you rely on is borrowed from a “things library” where you are permitted to use it indefinitely but not sell or destroy it, and in times of need the community may request that you return some items you are not using. More broadly I would say that many people believe the current system actually does not serve people well. We have a very small portion of the society that owns the means of production and 99 percent of the population have to deal with the dictums of those owners with very little say in how production is allocated. This leads to a world where the output is heavily slanted towards the ownership class while everyone else is fighting for scraps. A world with community ownership of the means of production would mean MUCH more wealth for the average person, so concerns over resource allocation would be less of a concern. The point anyway is that in the current system I certainly don’t get to decide what my “level” is beyond trying to work hard, but in a community ownership model I would have much more say. As you have said we have been trying different value systems for thousands of years. No reason to believe attempts to improve the system should not continue.
  - manoDev 3y ago
    > A world with community ownership of the means of production You seem to be trying really hard to avoid the word "communism". Is it a banned word in HN?
bee_rider 3y ago
We should guarantee minimum income, and abolish intellectual property. Build an economy around actually doing things rather than calling dibs on solutions. Let the market sort out the doing of things, just make sure everyone can participate.
- TastyAmphibian 3y ago
  Building a modest economy where everyone can participate is the way to go but to be honest, this world isn't fair, there are some who have more power over others
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > Build an economy around actually doing things rather than calling dibs on solutions. If I design something, how do I get compensated for the work if anyone can clone the work? Why is manufacturing counted as "compensated actually-doing-something" while design/R&D isn't?
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  Abolish IP? Why should you have errant and free access to modify my book and publish it under your name as if you wrote it, without me having 0 say in it?
matu3ba 3y ago
Unfortunately that is not how human nature works. Value itself depends on the necessity or desire of people for a product and is distributed via the money printing debt system. In other words: Necessary value can only exist, if other humans have a problem and depend on somebody/something to solve it (temporarily). Explaining valuation from individual desire is hard, but group desire depends on techniques to control the masses and in between are many layers of uncertainty.
- BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
  the necessity of debt to measure and trade is dubious at best, selfish and evil at worst people advocating for this are on the receiving end of a very extractive and destructive system
  - matu3ba 3y ago
    > the necessity of debt to measure and trade is dubious at best, selfish and evil at worst This is not what I wrote or meant, but I do agree that it could be understand like that. It would be of course better to measure necessity with something else, but so far approaches to replace it have failed for various reasons.
raincole 3y ago
Quite a lot big open source projects are backed by big cooperations.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Actually all open source projects are big cooperations. :)
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
I’ve been writing ship software, for my entire career. Most times, I’ve been quite involved in the entire process; from napkin sketch to shrinkwrap. For me, it is quite gratifying to ship, but for many people, the 50% (or more) of shipping software that is non-coding work, isn’t fun, and is usually deprecated, during the planning process. Examples are things like end-user documentation (not just maintenance docs), training, error handling, accessibility, localization (a huge task), continuing customer support, legal checklists, patent searches, copyright searches, branding strategies, glossaries, distribution channels, evangelists, usage feedback support, synchronization between all of the above, and the Web site, etc. Big fat, not-fun pain, but needs to be done. A lot of this stuff really needs to be considered before the first line of code is written, and the journey can take years. The app I’m working on has been in development for over two years (but to be fair, I did “wipe the slate,” and restart, after about a year). The basic “business logic” is in one SDK that I wrote in about a month and a half. All the rest of the work has been chrome.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  see https://www.marktarver.com/bipolar.html https://www.marktarver.com/bipolar.html
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    That's a great read!

rootusrootus 3y ago

From each according to his ability. So far we haven't worked out how to square that with human nature, and it keeps failing utterly.

SequoiaHope 3y ago
And yet 100 years ago Peter Kropotkin asked, "Are we good enough?" (to handle capitalism?) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-w... A single paragraph excerpt: "Men are not good enough for Communism, but are they good enough for Capitalism? If all men were good-hearted, kind, and just, they would never exploit one another, although possessing the means of doing so. With such men the private ownership of capital would be no danger. The capitalist would hasten to share his profits with the workers, and the best-remunerated workers with those suffering from occasional causes. If men were provident they would not produce velvet and articles of luxury while food is wanted in cottages: they would not build palaces as long as there are slums. "
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Capitalism at least tries to use human selfishness to achieve a better outcome, even if imperfect. Could it be better? Obviously. I’m not convinced communism is the answer.
  - manoDev 3y ago
    > Capitalism at least tries to use human selfishness to achieve a better outcome Maybe you're not aware, but it was the socialists who coined the term "capitalism", and their definition has no relation with the one you gave. The definition is simply: the system where private property of means of production allow the accumulation of capital.
  - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    I find it really hilarious that you're literally going "that's not real capitalism" yet you probably hate the same "excuse" from the other side of the ideological spectrum.

pfannkuchen 3y ago

One problem is that most necessary projects aren’t fun, and most fun projects aren’t necessary. Does anyone design dishwashers as a hobby, as an easy example? How do you propose we motivate people to do work that isn’t fun? Currently the carrot of higher pay or ownership in a more valuable thing is doing that, so we would need something to replace it if that goes away.

smolder 3y ago
There are potentially other carrots aside from material wealth that can motivate people to do unpleasant work. Currently it takes significant pay to get people to do certain important but thankless jobs. We could thank them. A legacy is important to many people. They may enjoy an immutable commemoration of their work, if they're secure in a material sense.
- thorncorona 3y ago
  This is the exact same answer every leftist I've talked to says when I ask them who will run the garbage system, and who will clean the sewers.
  - ForHackernews 3y ago
    C'mon, robots obviously! Cleaning sewers doesn't sound like any fun, but designing or remotely piloting a fatberg-blasting sewer shark bot? That sounds kickass!
    - martinsnow 3y ago
      But it the meantime while there exists no such robots, or while the prototypes get stuck downthere. Someone has to manually fetch them, and do the job. It's not very enticing and I don't think there will be many software engineers ready to suit up, to dig one out.
      - Niksko 3y ago

smolder 3y ago

These are the sorts of efficiency improvements that would go a long way towards tackling global warming and environmental destruction, particularly the open design to reduce waste. The question is, how can we get from where we are in terms of an economic and political system to one that supports a healthy commons and maximizes value, like you describe?

derefr 3y ago

Do you think there would be very many programmers in such a world? Personally, I think that a lot of people who right now go into programming "because it's a good career", would instead do things that are equally creative but also capture other things high on the Maslow hierarchy — e.g. fame. Personally, despite enthusiastically enjoying my programming career and puzzle-oriented problem-solving more generally, I'm still intending to retire early and become a novelist. If I could "thrive regardless of income", I'd do that right now.

theragra 3y ago
Same amount as novelists ;) I enjoy both, in moderation
bee_rider 3y ago
It is hard to guess what people would work on without needing to worry about money. You might try your novel, and one of two things could happen: You find out you love it, you write a really good novel, and society wins. You try it, find out that the actual experience of writing a novel is a drag. No harm no foul, you move on and keep trying things until you find something you are really passionate about and good at, and society wins. Maybe it is programming but you just need a more interesting program.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  You can also find out that you love it despite the novels (or software or paintings or poems or whatever) not being interesting for almost anyone else or even being available to anyone, but as you don't need the money you can keep doing that (and only that) and society simply loses out on whatever you're doing currently. The key part of what people would work on without needing to worry about money is that there is literally zero reason to assume that the thing worked on would be useful to society in any way whatsoever, it can be useless or even detrimental to it - the current mechanism of monetary compensation is the thing aligning the work to interests of others, remove it and you can't expect that alignment to persist. Unconditional income is a solution to the problem when we don't need people's labor anymore - it makes all sense when people can just go off and do whatever without worrying if it benefits others enough to justify the basic goods and services they need, and the society is okay with that. But while we still do need the labor of most people, there needs to be motivation to guide that labor to the specific things society needs.

valval 3y ago

I mean, I’ve seen worse arguments for socialism, but you seem to be painting an overly rosy picture. Yes, computers can reproduce software at zero marginal cost, but there’s still a considerable investment in the initial creation and ongoing maintenance. While I’m all for a world where programmers and engineers are able to fully devote themselves to open source projects, it’s not as simple as just making sure everyone has their basic needs met. The incentive structures are complex, and money still serves as a potent motivator for many to push boundaries and innovate. Remember, open-source doesn’t always equate to high-quality or innovative, and proprietary doesn’t always mean restrictive or uncreative. A balanced ecosystem where both proprietary and open-source software can coexist might be a more realistic and productive approach. I’m afraid that balance isn’t too dissimilar from the one we have now, so I’m sort of forced to go with Occam’s razor here.

SequoiaHope 3y ago
I certainly think open source under capitalism (work at the margins, engineers spread thin) will always be worse than open source under socialism (abundant workforce, lower stress, more time available). As far as initial investment in the creation of the software - yeah, that’s programmer time. The point of my scheme is to lower the cost of programmer time because their needs are already met, thus lowering the cost of initial investment. Hardware is a separate concern but I have a whole thing about how open source hardware tends to bring the hardware costs down to the lowest physically possible cost. Just look at 3D printers under patent ($25k) versus ten years after the patents expired and open source took over the low end ($250). I’m not sure how Occam’s razor would suggest that the status quo is close to the ideal situation here. Those seem unrelated.

patrec 3y ago

Sounds like an excellent idea that will work really well because it's incredibly well aligned with how humans actually function. I really wonder why no one else has thought of communism before.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
</sarcasm>, obviously. A couple remarks: Just because someone is proposing something for a small slice of society, doesn’t mean they intend to propose something similar for all of society. For instance, insisting on free schools, free (rail) roads, free health care, free water, and nationalised energy plants doesn’t mean they want to make everything free, or that they want to nationalise everything, or that they are nostalgic for communist Russia or whatever. That’s just the Red Scare talking. The fact is, different systems for different slices of society can and do coexist. Human nature is not limited to the environment we’re currently living in. Genetically we’re barely different from the people of a couple hundred years ago. And yet our ancestors lived under many kinds of societies. It would be a little presumptuous to assume the one we’re currently living in is the best. Especially considering how it came to be: remember that as Thatcher was saying capitalism/neoliberalism was natural, she did "nudge" things along by having the army pay a visit to workers on strike. Even communism isn’t a monolith. It took various forms, which failed for various reasons. Sometimes it was direct outside interference, like how the Paris Commune was basically crushed by the national army.
- patrec 3y ago
  > Just because someone is proposing something for a small slice of society, doesn’t mean they intend to propose something similar for all of society Yup, a "small slice of society" that's just proverbially eating the world. > remember that as Thatcher was saying capitalism/neoliberalism was natural, she did "nudge" things along by having the army pay a visit to workers on strike. Unfortunately things never happening at times gets in the way of me remembering them. > Even communism isn’t a monolith. It took various forms, which failed for various reasons [...such as] direct outside interference Similarly to how perpetual motion machines took various forms and failed for various reasons, including direct outside interference.

jarjoura 3y ago

Humans have tried all kinds of value transfer systems for thousands of years. Giving someone "tokens" (ie. currency) to convert that into whatever they want, or need has been the most flexible version of whatever has come before it. What one person needs to thrive is not the same another person needs to thrive, so who gets to set what that level is? I'd be skeptical of any system where there's no opportunity to get ahead as people will either find ways to take advantage of the system and screw others over, or the system becomes unsustainable as populations shift in size.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Generally the broad concept I work with is “community ownership of the means of production”. What this means is that you are part owner in a cooperative of cooperatives that owns the machinery you depend upon for your well being. Of course your community trades with others and you and everyone have free choice to vote how you please and contribute as you desire. There is no “enforcement” that prevents you from accumulating more wealth but most of what you rely on is borrowed from a “things library” where you are permitted to use it indefinitely but not sell or destroy it, and in times of need the community may request that you return some items you are not using. More broadly I would say that many people believe the current system actually does not serve people well. We have a very small portion of the society that owns the means of production and 99 percent of the population have to deal with the dictums of those owners with very little say in how production is allocated. This leads to a world where the output is heavily slanted towards the ownership class while everyone else is fighting for scraps. A world with community ownership of the means of production would mean MUCH more wealth for the average person, so concerns over resource allocation would be less of a concern. The point anyway is that in the current system I certainly don’t get to decide what my “level” is beyond trying to work hard, but in a community ownership model I would have much more say. As you have said we have been trying different value systems for thousands of years. No reason to believe attempts to improve the system should not continue.
- manoDev 3y ago
  > A world with community ownership of the means of production You seem to be trying really hard to avoid the word "communism". Is it a banned word in HN?

bee_rider 3y ago

We should guarantee minimum income, and abolish intellectual property. Build an economy around actually doing things rather than calling dibs on solutions. Let the market sort out the doing of things, just make sure everyone can participate.

TastyAmphibian 3y ago
Building a modest economy where everyone can participate is the way to go but to be honest, this world isn't fair, there are some who have more power over others
Chris2048 3y ago
> Build an economy around actually doing things rather than calling dibs on solutions. If I design something, how do I get compensated for the work if anyone can clone the work? Why is manufacturing counted as "compensated actually-doing-something" while design/R&D isn't?
lannisterstark 3y ago
Abolish IP? Why should you have errant and free access to modify my book and publish it under your name as if you wrote it, without me having 0 say in it?

matu3ba 3y ago

Unfortunately that is not how human nature works. Value itself depends on the necessity or desire of people for a product and is distributed via the money printing debt system. In other words: Necessary value can only exist, if other humans have a problem and depend on somebody/something to solve it (temporarily). Explaining valuation from individual desire is hard, but group desire depends on techniques to control the masses and in between are many layers of uncertainty.

BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
the necessity of debt to measure and trade is dubious at best, selfish and evil at worst people advocating for this are on the receiving end of a very extractive and destructive system
- matu3ba 3y ago
  > the necessity of debt to measure and trade is dubious at best, selfish and evil at worst This is not what I wrote or meant, but I do agree that it could be understand like that. It would be of course better to measure necessity with something else, but so far approaches to replace it have failed for various reasons.

raincole 3y ago

Quite a lot big open source projects are backed by big cooperations.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Actually all open source projects are big cooperations. :)

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

I’ve been writing ship software, for my entire career. Most times, I’ve been quite involved in the entire process; from napkin sketch to shrinkwrap. For me, it is quite gratifying to ship, but for many people, the 50% (or more) of shipping software that is non-coding work, isn’t fun, and is usually deprecated, during the planning process. Examples are things like end-user documentation (not just maintenance docs), training, error handling, accessibility, localization (a huge task), continuing customer support, legal checklists, patent searches, copyright searches, branding strategies, glossaries, distribution channels, evangelists, usage feedback support, synchronization between all of the above, and the Web site, etc. Big fat, not-fun pain, but needs to be done. A lot of this stuff really needs to be considered before the first line of code is written, and the journey can take years. The app I’m working on has been in development for over two years (but to be fair, I did “wipe the slate,” and restart, after about a year). The basic “business logic” is in one SDK that I wrote in about a month and a half. All the rest of the work has been chrome.

Chris2048 3y ago
see https://www.marktarver.com/bipolar.html https://www.marktarver.com/bipolar.html
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  That's a great read!