7 ms·

This is so bad it makes my brain hurt trying to respond to it. We should be upset that our society has managed to put in our pockets supercomputers connected wi

This is so bad it makes my brain hurt trying to respond to it. We should be upset that our society has managed to put in our pockets supercomputers connected wirelessly to the world's knowledge? Ah, I see, they'll turn us into "fat miserable drooling zombies". Luckily, in this world of "skyrocketing" poverty, surely only the top 1% can afford such indulgences, right? It's not as if innovation and a growing economy have put them in the hands of more than a hundred million Americans. Oh dear, I guess the zombie apocalypse is nigh. This guy's Twitter feed[1] is more or less a constant stream of invective directed at "billionaires", like this: The billionaires believe the greatest threat to freedom is society. But a free society's great threat is billionaires. Let's say you had THREE BILLION DOLLARS in the bank. Would you really give a fuck if it was...2.75? That's like counting toilet paper! He's a clown, and it's embarrassing that HBR thinks he's valuable as a contributor. [1] https://twitter.com/umairh https://twitter.com/umairh EDIT: And in case there was any question about where he actually stands on capitalism, from a whole three days ago: So now the fashion establishment calls designers with real vision, like Westwood, "eccentric". Ah, capitalism. Fuck you so much.

davidw 13y ago
I'm not much of a fan of his either: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=176780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=176780 But you might tone it down with the name calling.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I'll spend some time trying to come up with a fairer term than "clown", but it's hard when I come across gems like: Goddammit I love rolling into hipster cafes at 7:30 am and making them burn with racist anger.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    What the hell does that even mean?
    - selmnoo 13y ago
      I think Umair is Pakistani, he's referring to racist tension he feels at some places. As an Asian, I can actually also attest to racism (though of a more subdued variety) against brown people in hipster'ish cafes. Incidentally, I do want to comment on the hasty and acerbic reaction to this piece on HN: wow, this got emotional fast, I was hoping for an informed and intellectually honest discussion, not going into people's twitter history and finding all sorts of tidbits. If you guys are finding him at fault for saying things that are actually not that out of line with this very article's sentiments, how do you reconcile with -- for example, the Zuck openly inviting his friend to let in on people's private information and calling FB users "dumb f---s"?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I see.. I looked for that tweet to find context but couldn't find it. However I did find two others in which he claims that white people having beards is racist, or something: https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 As an occasionally bearded white guy, this is distressing news; I was planning on growing a beard in December after "Movember", I hope I don't offend anybody... Maybe he's got a point in the cafe case, but honestly it seems like from the other posts he is just an purposely inflammatory troll. That seems to be his schtick, which probably explains the harsh reaction on HN. It's the sort of reaction he was looking for. > "...how do you reconcile with..." I'm not sure what needs to be reconciled. Can you explain this more?
        selmnoo 13y ago
        People are rejecting Umair's piece, in part, by what he's said elsewhere informally and casually. Somehow people continue using FB, and defending it, despite Zuck having said fairly nefarious things. To be clear, my question wasn't charged against you specifically. > However I did find two others in which he claims that white people having beards is racist, or something: https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 I did not find these tweets to be racist or strange at all. Maybe you're missing the context of what he's like as a person -- maybe that crucial information of tone is lost in pure text. I read it as more casual teasing. Considering he's a Pakistani-American, and probably associates big beards to religious Muslims in his mind, he's drawing some parallel between the two, maybe making note of the dissonant juxtaposition. But I do think he should be more careful with his wording, and make some due effort in not sounding offensive.
  - davidw 13y ago
    See my other comment above/below. When I see his byline, I skip the article: I know it's just going to irritate me.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Ad hominem much?
EliRivers 13y ago
And yet more and more and more US citizens need food stamps. That doesn't sound like a success.
- Bsharp 13y ago
  The important take-away from your statement, though, is that these people are still getting food. The fact that developed nations have the basic survival necessities taken care of to the point that everyone has time and money to spend on things as seemingly frivolous as smartphones (and the fact that something as insane as a smartphone is even affordable) is a testament to capitalism, not a point against it.
  - mrcarlosrendon 13y ago
    Sure they may be getting some food, but just barely. "...for 1 in 6 people in the United States, hunger is a reality" "These are often hard-working adults, children and seniors who simply cannot make ends meet and are forced to go without food for several meals, or even days" http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts.aspx http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts.asp...
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      "...for 1 in 6 people in the United States, hunger is a reality" That's simply not true. It's a misreading of the USDA's food security survey results, wherein the standard for "food insecurity"[1] is [R]eports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake. Note the second sentence. Hunger is not a "reality" for your family just because the USDA judges you to have "low food security". [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/foo...
      - mrcarlosrendon 13y ago
        Would you agree that "very low food security" translates to "hunger"? If so then the number is close to 1 in 18. In my opinion this is still a high number. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err155.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-r... From your link, of those that reported "very low food security": 96 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food. 89 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months. 95 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food. 68 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food. 47 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food. 29 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food. 23 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months. *Edited for formatting of percent breakdown
quotha 13y ago
Wow, was that a nerve he hit?
- davidw 13y ago
  The nerve Umair Haque's writing touches in me is that it is handwavy ranting and raving. A lot of his arguments, when looked at closely, seem kind of hollow. They're ... intellectual junk food - they have some flavor when you're chewing them, but there's not much substance, and there are a lot of additives that aren't that good.
  - tokenadult 13y ago
    The thoughtful comments here by participants I trust prompted me to flag the article. That's about all I have to say about it.
    - subsystem 13y ago
      That seem quite hypocritical since you write quite long rambling text yourself. At least show other people, who did upvote it, the respect of reading the article before you flag it.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Rambling? Perhaps. But I would hardly say that tokenadult is known for "handwaving". Quite the opposite actually, his long posts are typically the best researched and cited posts on this site.
        subsystem 13y ago
        It's not about "handwaving" per se, there are numerous reasons I don't enjoy tokenadults posts. All of which are irrelevant since many other people do. I simply ignore most of them and expect the same respect in return. But if you're a five year member, I'm in the mood and you're breaking basic rules of HN like "don't comment that you flagged" I reserve the right to call you out. Even if I wasn't technically correct about not reading the article this time.
grecy 13y ago
> Luckily, in this world of "skyrocketing" poverty, surely only the top 1% can afford such indulgences, right? It's not as if innovation and a growing economy have put them in the hands of more than a hundred million Americans. American consumer debt is at $11.15 trillion [1] and 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck [2] By definition, the masses can't afford those indulgences, they're just putting themselves into servitude for the rest of their lives. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-usa-fed-consumerdebt-idUSBRE97D0T820130814 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-usa-fed-consume... [2]http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
smacktoward 13y ago
>We should be upset that our society has managed to put in our pockets supercomputers connected wirelessly to the world's knowledge? Sure we should, if the tradeoff required to create a society that can produce such devices is that the vast majority of people have no say in the workings of the system, or spend their whole lives teetering on the edge of insolvency, or transfer huge environmental and economic burdens onto people either close to home or far away. It's like watching the movie Soylent Green and coming away asking "we should be upset that their society managed to feed everybody consistently and inexpensively?" Ends can't be judged independently of the means used to achieve them.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Do you think that was really the tradeoff? How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a few hundred million people? The beauty of "CapitalismStan" (God, even Tom Friedman would too embarrassed to coin that one...) is that each and every one of us gets to decide if parting with $200 and a monthly $80 bill is worth the benefit. I certainly think it would be a bargain at twice the price.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    The entire point of my comment was that the total price to society of the device can go well beyond the "$200 and a monthly $80 bill" that the individual pays to acquire it. > How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a few hundred million people? Respectfully, you're again arguing the merits of ends without discussing any means. Making the argument into "smartphone or no smartphone?" is like asking "candy or no candy?" Which do you think people will choose? But even free candy has costs; put the person who receives it on a scale a week later and you'll see them. One can certainly point to societal costs that the information economy has imposed that go beyond the costs of individual products. When Marc Andreesen says that "software is eating the world," what he's saying is that it takes wealth that used to be held by people outside Silicon Valley -- travel agents, booksellers, and recording artists, to name a few -- and transferring it to people inside Silicon Valley. And since software requires no human intervention to do the same thing over and over again, the number of people who are on the receiving end of this wealth transfer is naturally much smaller than those who are on the other; once you've got an algorithm for picking the best airline flight, say, money that used to provide a living for tens of thousands of travel agents can all flow instead to one guy -- the guy who owns the algorithm. So that one guy becomes crazy rich, while the travel agents lose their livelihood. Does the inegalitarian result of that wealth transfer outweigh the benefit to society at large that the algorithm provides? I'm guessing from your comments that you would say it does not, and I would probably agree with you on that. That's a more complicated question than whether or not people would prefer travel sites or no travel site, but it at least attempts to take into account the costs such sites create beyond what the individual user pays for them.
SilasX 13y ago
I would be very unnerved if 250 million dollars could arbitrarily disappear from my bank account, even if "I had a lot more anyway".
subsystem 13y ago
"So now the fashion establishment calls designers with real vision, like Westwood, "eccentric". Ah, capitalism. Fuck you so much." While the ambivalent relationship between fashion and commerce isn't new, it does seems like valid criticism.
dxbydt 13y ago
>This is so bad it makes my brain hurt If it's that bad I wonder what its doing sitting on the very top of HN right now. I think what he says cuts through the bullcrap and feels viscerally true. Imagine if, instead of him making these points, it was Obama or RMS or whoever you ideal is, making these exact points. You'd react very differently. That said, I'm not really sure what the alternative is. > our society has managed to put in our pockets supercomputers connected wirelessly to the world's knowledge As a grad student, I remember when the university got access to a supercomputer. Our professors were quite ecstatic & said we could now solve massive problems....as if it was the lack of supercomputers that was holding them back. That was 15 years ago & the university is in the same place in the rankings. All that happened was a bunch of students wrote some parallel processing code & got a thesis & graduated & moved on. Things are no different today. If you datamine the vast majority of queries run by the general public on wolframalpha, they wouldn't be far off from "2+3 = ?" It isn't like the common man is jumping up and down because he can finally crack Goldbach's conjecture. He could care less.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Imagine if, instead of him making these points, it was Obama or RMS or whoever you ideal is, making these exact points. You'd react very differently. I wouldn't: I had no idea who this guy was before reading this piece, and only decided to learn more about him because I was invited at the bottom of the article to follow him on Twitter. But it really does make my day that anyone would assume that President Obama or RMS would be just the folks to sell this drivel to me! Much as I disagree with both of them, they're each capable of making far better arguments.
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> Luckily, in this world of "skyrocketing" poverty, surely only the top 1% can afford such indulgences, right? It's not as if innovation and a growing economy have put them in the hands of more than a hundred million Americans. Way to go on the ethnocentrism.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Most of the article's criticism was directed at the USA, with a contrast to the social democracies in, e.g., Scandinavia. Regardless, if you want to think about the global impact, smartphone unit sales are likely to hit 10^9 this year.
  - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
    Right. I'm appalled to the ignorance (intentional or not) of the parent to the externalized costs of putting millions of phones in the hands of americans.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Prove they're larger than the benefits. Rough numbers are fine.

davidw 13y ago

I'm not much of a fan of his either: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=176780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=176780 But you might tone it down with the name calling.

twoodfin 13y ago
I'll spend some time trying to come up with a fairer term than "clown", but it's hard when I come across gems like: Goddammit I love rolling into hipster cafes at 7:30 am and making them burn with racist anger.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  What the hell does that even mean?
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    I think Umair is Pakistani, he's referring to racist tension he feels at some places. As an Asian, I can actually also attest to racism (though of a more subdued variety) against brown people in hipster'ish cafes. Incidentally, I do want to comment on the hasty and acerbic reaction to this piece on HN: wow, this got emotional fast, I was hoping for an informed and intellectually honest discussion, not going into people's twitter history and finding all sorts of tidbits. If you guys are finding him at fault for saying things that are actually not that out of line with this very article's sentiments, how do you reconcile with -- for example, the Zuck openly inviting his friend to let in on people's private information and calling FB users "dumb f---s"?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I see.. I looked for that tweet to find context but couldn't find it. However I did find two others in which he claims that white people having beards is racist, or something: https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 As an occasionally bearded white guy, this is distressing news; I was planning on growing a beard in December after "Movember", I hope I don't offend anybody... Maybe he's got a point in the cafe case, but honestly it seems like from the other posts he is just an purposely inflammatory troll. That seems to be his schtick, which probably explains the harsh reaction on HN. It's the sort of reaction he was looking for. > "...how do you reconcile with..." I'm not sure what needs to be reconciled. Can you explain this more?
      - selmnoo 13y ago
        People are rejecting Umair's piece, in part, by what he's said elsewhere informally and casually. Somehow people continue using FB, and defending it, despite Zuck having said fairly nefarious things. To be clear, my question wasn't charged against you specifically. > However I did find two others in which he claims that white people having beards is racist, or something: https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393721183197483008 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 https://twitter.com/umairh/status/393722734918004737 I did not find these tweets to be racist or strange at all. Maybe you're missing the context of what he's like as a person -- maybe that crucial information of tone is lost in pure text. I read it as more casual teasing. Considering he's a Pakistani-American, and probably associates big beards to religious Muslims in his mind, he's drawing some parallel between the two, maybe making note of the dissonant juxtaposition. But I do think he should be more careful with his wording, and make some due effort in not sounding offensive.
- davidw 13y ago
  See my other comment above/below. When I see his byline, I skip the article: I know it's just going to irritate me.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  Ad hominem much?

EliRivers 13y ago

And yet more and more and more US citizens need food stamps. That doesn't sound like a success.

Bsharp 13y ago
The important take-away from your statement, though, is that these people are still getting food. The fact that developed nations have the basic survival necessities taken care of to the point that everyone has time and money to spend on things as seemingly frivolous as smartphones (and the fact that something as insane as a smartphone is even affordable) is a testament to capitalism, not a point against it.
- mrcarlosrendon 13y ago
  Sure they may be getting some food, but just barely. "...for 1 in 6 people in the United States, hunger is a reality" "These are often hard-working adults, children and seniors who simply cannot make ends meet and are forced to go without food for several meals, or even days" http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts.aspx http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts.asp...
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    "...for 1 in 6 people in the United States, hunger is a reality" That's simply not true. It's a misreading of the USDA's food security survey results, wherein the standard for "food insecurity"[1] is [R]eports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake. Note the second sentence. Hunger is not a "reality" for your family just because the USDA judges you to have "low food security". [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/foo...
    - mrcarlosrendon 13y ago
      Would you agree that "very low food security" translates to "hunger"? If so then the number is close to 1 in 18. In my opinion this is still a high number. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err155.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-r... From your link, of those that reported "very low food security": 96 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food. 89 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months. 95 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food. 68 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food. 47 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food. 29 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food. 23 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months. *Edited for formatting of percent breakdown

quotha 13y ago

Wow, was that a nerve he hit?

davidw 13y ago
The nerve Umair Haque's writing touches in me is that it is handwavy ranting and raving. A lot of his arguments, when looked at closely, seem kind of hollow. They're ... intellectual junk food - they have some flavor when you're chewing them, but there's not much substance, and there are a lot of additives that aren't that good.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  The thoughtful comments here by participants I trust prompted me to flag the article. That's about all I have to say about it.
  - subsystem 13y ago
    That seem quite hypocritical since you write quite long rambling text yourself. At least show other people, who did upvote it, the respect of reading the article before you flag it.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Rambling? Perhaps. But I would hardly say that tokenadult is known for "handwaving". Quite the opposite actually, his long posts are typically the best researched and cited posts on this site.
      - subsystem 13y ago
        It's not about "handwaving" per se, there are numerous reasons I don't enjoy tokenadults posts. All of which are irrelevant since many other people do. I simply ignore most of them and expect the same respect in return. But if you're a five year member, I'm in the mood and you're breaking basic rules of HN like "don't comment that you flagged" I reserve the right to call you out. Even if I wasn't technically correct about not reading the article this time.

grecy 13y ago

> Luckily, in this world of "skyrocketing" poverty, surely only the top 1% can afford such indulgences, right? It's not as if innovation and a growing economy have put them in the hands of more than a hundred million Americans. American consumer debt is at $11.15 trillion [1] and 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck [2] By definition, the masses can't afford those indulgences, they're just putting themselves into servitude for the rest of their lives. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-usa-fed-consumerdebt-idUSBRE97D0T820130814 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-usa-fed-consume... [2]http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/

smacktoward 13y ago

>We should be upset that our society has managed to put in our pockets supercomputers connected wirelessly to the world's knowledge? Sure we should, if the tradeoff required to create a society that can produce such devices is that the vast majority of people have no say in the workings of the system, or spend their whole lives teetering on the edge of insolvency, or transfer huge environmental and economic burdens onto people either close to home or far away. It's like watching the movie Soylent Green and coming away asking "we should be upset that their society managed to feed everybody consistently and inexpensively?" Ends can't be judged independently of the means used to achieve them.

twoodfin 13y ago
Do you think that was really the tradeoff? How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a few hundred million people? The beauty of "CapitalismStan" (God, even Tom Friedman would too embarrassed to coin that one...) is that each and every one of us gets to decide if parting with $200 and a monthly $80 bill is worth the benefit. I certainly think it would be a bargain at twice the price.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  The entire point of my comment was that the total price to society of the device can go well beyond the "$200 and a monthly $80 bill" that the individual pays to acquire it. > How are we better off as a society if Apple, Google, Samsung don't put powerful, usable smartphones in the hands of a few hundred million people? Respectfully, you're again arguing the merits of ends without discussing any means. Making the argument into "smartphone or no smartphone?" is like asking "candy or no candy?" Which do you think people will choose? But even free candy has costs; put the person who receives it on a scale a week later and you'll see them. One can certainly point to societal costs that the information economy has imposed that go beyond the costs of individual products. When Marc Andreesen says that "software is eating the world," what he's saying is that it takes wealth that used to be held by people outside Silicon Valley -- travel agents, booksellers, and recording artists, to name a few -- and transferring it to people inside Silicon Valley. And since software requires no human intervention to do the same thing over and over again, the number of people who are on the receiving end of this wealth transfer is naturally much smaller than those who are on the other; once you've got an algorithm for picking the best airline flight, say, money that used to provide a living for tens of thousands of travel agents can all flow instead to one guy -- the guy who owns the algorithm. So that one guy becomes crazy rich, while the travel agents lose their livelihood. Does the inegalitarian result of that wealth transfer outweigh the benefit to society at large that the algorithm provides? I'm guessing from your comments that you would say it does not, and I would probably agree with you on that. That's a more complicated question than whether or not people would prefer travel sites or no travel site, but it at least attempts to take into account the costs such sites create beyond what the individual user pays for them.

SilasX 13y ago

I would be very unnerved if 250 million dollars could arbitrarily disappear from my bank account, even if "I had a lot more anyway".

subsystem 13y ago

"So now the fashion establishment calls designers with real vision, like Westwood, "eccentric". Ah, capitalism. Fuck you so much." While the ambivalent relationship between fashion and commerce isn't new, it does seems like valid criticism.

dxbydt 13y ago

>This is so bad it makes my brain hurt If it's that bad I wonder what its doing sitting on the very top of HN right now. I think what he says cuts through the bullcrap and feels viscerally true. Imagine if, instead of him making these points, it was Obama or RMS or whoever you ideal is, making these exact points. You'd react very differently. That said, I'm not really sure what the alternative is. > our society has managed to put in our pockets supercomputers connected wirelessly to the world's knowledge As a grad student, I remember when the university got access to a supercomputer. Our professors were quite ecstatic & said we could now solve massive problems....as if it was the lack of supercomputers that was holding them back. That was 15 years ago & the university is in the same place in the rankings. All that happened was a bunch of students wrote some parallel processing code & got a thesis & graduated & moved on. Things are no different today. If you datamine the vast majority of queries run by the general public on wolframalpha, they wouldn't be far off from "2+3 = ?" It isn't like the common man is jumping up and down because he can finally crack Goldbach's conjecture. He could care less.

twoodfin 13y ago
Imagine if, instead of him making these points, it was Obama or RMS or whoever you ideal is, making these exact points. You'd react very differently. I wouldn't: I had no idea who this guy was before reading this piece, and only decided to learn more about him because I was invited at the bottom of the article to follow him on Twitter. But it really does make my day that anyone would assume that President Obama or RMS would be just the folks to sell this drivel to me! Much as I disagree with both of them, they're each capable of making far better arguments.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago

twoodfin 13y ago
Most of the article's criticism was directed at the USA, with a contrast to the social democracies in, e.g., Scandinavia. Regardless, if you want to think about the global impact, smartphone unit sales are likely to hit 10^9 this year.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  Right. I'm appalled to the ignorance (intentional or not) of the parent to the externalized costs of putting millions of phones in the hands of americans.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Prove they're larger than the benefits. Rough numbers are fine.