Hexbyte  Tech News  Wired The FCC’s Robocall Plan Sounds Awfully Familiar

Hexbyte Tech News Wired The FCC’s Robocall Plan Sounds Awfully Familiar

Hexbyte Tech News Wired

Hexbyte  Tech News  Wired

FCC chairman Ajit Pai, left, has announced a new proposal to combat robocalls.

Clodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters

Despite high-profile arrests and protocols with clever names, the robocall scourge remains indomitable. On Wednesday, Federal Communications Commission chair Ajit Pai teased a new proposal to put a serious dent in the problem. Stop us if you’ve heard this one before.

On the face of it, Pai’s proposal sounds appealing. It would allow carriers to block robocalls by default, rather than on an opt-in basis. If you want even more rigorous blocking, you could, under the proposal, opt in to use your contact list as a so-called white list, bouncing any number you don’t already know. And it would grease the skids for carriers to implement standards known as “SHAKEN” and “STIR,” which will make it easier to flag calls from spoofed phone numbers. You know, the ones that are weirdly so close to your own.

“This isn’t an easy problem to solve, and we always need to be thinking about what more we can do,” Pai wrote in a blog post announcing the proposal. The FCC will vote on the matter on June 6.

These are all, by and large, fine ideas. But they’re not new ideas, and Pai’s proposal doesn’t appear to offer solutions for what has made such rules tricky to implement in the past. And while they would almost certainly help improve the current robocall nightmare—assuming they pass next month—they won’t end it altogether. In fact, they may create some new headaches along the way.

“Historically, once a technique stops working the bad guys simply move to a different technique.”

Alex Quilici, YouMail

Without knowing the exact language of the proposed rule, it’s hard to say exactly how Pai’s broad strokes will play out in practice. But the notion that carriers should block calls on behalf of consumers dates back to Tom Wheeler’s FCC, which in 2016 proposed that very thing.

“It seems to follow a familiar pattern from chairman Pai of taking things that the Obama administration did, filing off the serial numbers, and trying to take credit for it,” says Harold Feld, senior vice president of the nonprofit group Public Knowledge. “There’s a certain chutzpah in having spent the previous administration in a passionate campaign to undermine every single thing, and dissent from every single order, to now try to pretend that these are your own initiatives and take credit for them.”

Still, carriers have argued the FCC does need to clarify whether they can legally implement robocall blocking on an opt-out basis, after a legal challenge to Wheeler’s rule left that in doubt. Settling the issue could spur action on their part. What’s less clear is how effective it would be.

“Let’s assume this rule allows phone companies to implement call blocking technology that blocks all spoofed calls. That would be amazing,” says Margot Saunders, senior counsel at the advocacy group National Consumer Law Center. “What are the callers going to say about that, though? Because the law does not prohibit all caller ID spoofing. It only prohibits caller ID spoofing with intent to defraud.”

So yes, you could expect to see fewer incoming calls from numbers that look suspiciously like your own. But as Saunders notes, that’s just one kind of robocall. If that avenue of attack gets cut off, bad actors can always buy up legitimate phone numbers by the hundreds, or even thousands, to run their scams instead.

“Historically, once a technique stops working the bad guys simply move to a different technique,” says Alex Quilici, CEO of YouMail, a third-party service that offers robocall blocking. “It should help people in terms of the number of robocalls that get through and bother them, but I’m not sure it reduces the actual volume of robocalls being made. We saw this when ‘scam likely’ and other labeling came out from the carriers—and suddenly everyone made more robocalls.”

Consumer advocates also wonder who exactly will pay for all of this. Digging a moat against robocalls doesn’t come cheap, and positioning it as an opt-out service could potentially simply add another automatic line-item to your monthly bill. “I have a strong suspicion that what carriers really want is an ability, whether you want it or not, to put a robocall-blocking fee on your bill and charge you for that,” says Feld. “There’s no economic incentive for carriers to improve robocall blocking. As with a lot of things, like 911 or emergency services, it’s a cost that doesn’t yield back profit unless you get permission to tack this on as a fee.”

Yes, in that scenario you’d be able to opt out if you wanted to, and at least you’d be getting fewer robocalls as part of the bargain. But consider how closely you look at your mobile bill, and how often, and remember that any solutions on the table right now will help with the robocall problem but not solve it entirely. The calculus suddenly doesn’t look so simple.

The good news is that those who spend their days mired in the robocall nightmare generally agree that Pai’s proposal is a good, important step. But context matters. These are solutions that have bounced around for years, and that promise incomplete results at best. That’s absolutely better than nothing. But it’s still not as much as you deserve.

More Great WIRED Stories

Read More

Hexbyte Tech News Wired When Google Serves Ads in Iran, Advertisers Pay the Price

Hexbyte Tech News Wired

Hexbyte  Tech News  Wired

Advertisers say that Google makes it far too easy to accidentally run ads in countries under US sanctions like Iran, North Korea, or Syria.

Tricia Hipps

As director of paid search at Greenlane Marketing, a web marketing firm based in Eagleville, Pennsylvania, Christian Wenzel spends a lot of time studying who’s clicking on his clients’ Google ads. He’ll look at things like where they’re located to see if, for instance, people in Pennsylvania are more likely to click on a given ad than people in California. Then, he’ll tweak the ad campaign accordingly in hopes of maximizing its effectiveness.

Last April, Wenzel was scanning one Google Ad performance report when he noticed something strange. The campaign was for a US-based software company, and it was supposed to reach people in the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. But according to Google, the ad had also been shown to people in Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba—all countries that are sanctioned by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. People in those countries were unlikely to be prime customers for Wenzel’s client, but whenever they clicked on the ads, his client was charged for it anyway.

It wasn’t much—about $100 in Iran here, less than $1 in Cuba there—but to Wenzel, it felt like throwing money away. “Obviously, that’s money we’re wasting for our clients,” he says. “There’s no way those people would become a customer.”

When Wenzel tried to exclude those countries from being targeted in the campaign, though, he found that he couldn’t easily do that either. In order to comply with the law, Google prohibits advertisers from naming six sanctioned countries as targets or exclusions. And yet, Google still serves ads in these places, which means advertisers can inadvertently spend money reaching people in countries where they’re largely barred from doing business. “It’s kind of bullshit,” Wenzel says. “In my opinion it’s just Google trying to increase their revenue.”

Issie Lapowsky covers the intersection of tech, politics, and national affairs for WIRED.

Wenzel is hardly alone in feeling ripped off. The issue he spotted is the subject of numerous blog posts, Google message board discussions, and tweets, going back years. WIRED spoke with several advertisers who found unexpected costs accrued in OFAC-sanctioned countries, with no easy or obvious way to exclude those countries from their campaigns. Not only that, they say Google’s default ad settings quietly nudge advertisers to spend money in these places, often unwittingly. It’s an issue that, while narrow, underscores the voraciousness of Google’s $100 billion ad business, and the blurry lines tech companies draw in pursuit of global growth.

OFAC sanctions are a tangled morass of trade restrictions that apply to an ever-evolving list of countries, businesses, and individuals, in order to help the United States achieve any number of foreign policy goals. Given the complex nature of sanctions, Google declined to provide legal justifications for why it writes rules the way it does. Instead, a spokesperson said in a statement, “We comply with sanctions imposed by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control, and we do not offer the Google Ads product to advertisers in countries sanctioned by OFAC.” This policy applies to Crimea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. As part of its compliance, Google also prohibits advertisers outside these countries from targeting them specifically.

But that doesn’t mean Google prevents ads from appearing in those places. “If an advertiser chooses to run a global campaign, their ads will show up globally without geographic limitations,” the spokesperson said. In other words, if you try to target people in Iran, Google won’t allow it. But if you try to target anyone in the world, you may very well be charged for ads that pop up in Iran.

From a legal perspective, there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as the entity paying for the ad and the publisher hosting the ad are based somewhere else. After all, the goal of economic sanctions is to prevent US entities and individuals from doing business with these countries. “Unless one of your parties is in Iran or unless they’re a prohibited party under the sanctions, there wouldn’t be money movement or an economic transaction,” says Allison Caffarone, executive director of the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement at New York University School of Law.

A spokesperson for OFAC declined to comment on Google’s ad program.

But while Google appears to be on the right side of the law, whether they’re doing right by their advertisers is a different question altogether. Advertisers say the company makes it far too easy to accidentally run ads in these places—and not easy enough to leave them out.

The issue, they say, stems from the default settings Google has put in place for geographically targeted ads. Say you want to reach people in the United States. Today, if you start an ad campaign and select the United States as your location target, by default Google will send your ad not just to people who are in the United States but also to people who Google believes have shown an interest in the United States. Google’s algorithms could, in other words, determine that a person in Pyongyang is interested in your product, regardless of whether they’re even allowed to buy it. If that person clicks on the ad, you’d have to pay Google for it either way.

Advertisers can target specific locations for their Google Ad campaigns.

Issie Lapowsky; Google

Facebook, Google biggest competitor in the digital ad space, also allows advertisers to target their campaigns geographically. But unlike Google, Facebook’s feature defaults to targeting only those people whose home or most recent location is within the bounds the advertiser sets. Advertisers can then change their parameters to target people traveling to that location or who were recently in that location, if they want.

Google advertisers also have the option to change their location target settings, but often they don’t know they need to. Google doesn’t disclose all of this in the main location settings, instead tucking it away under a separate menu called Location Options. There, users can opt out of Google’s recommended setting and target only people in their chosen locations.

Expanding the location options reveals that Google’s default setting targets not just people in the selected location but also people who are interested in it.

Issie Lapowsky; Google

“[Google] has very different motives than the advertisers do,” says Aaron Weiner, who specializes in Google Ads for the marketing firm SoftwarePromotions. “They want to make money on my clicks. They don’t necessarily want to sell customers on my client.”

This is how Wenzel’s client ended up gathering clicks in Iran and other countries. Though they believed they were only targeting the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, Google was also targeting people who its algorithms decided were interested in those places.

When advertisers realize they’ve been paying for ads in sanctioned countries, as Wenzel did, they face another obstacle. Typically, Google allows advertisers to exclude countries from their campaigns by searching the name of the country—but those six sanctioned countries don’t appear as options. Google declined to elaborate on why the system is set up this way, other than saying it was to comply with sanctions. But the result is that, in order to prevent ads from showing up in sanctioned countries, an advertiser has to upload a list of every country they do want to reach. If an advertiser wants to run a global campaign, it would mean entering a list of every other country in the world.

This was the advice Ryan Moothart received last year when he contacted Google about ads being served to Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Moothart manages Google Ad campaigns for the Seattle-based digital marketing firm Portent. Moothart says the Google customer service agents he spoke with were unsure why his ads were appearing in those places, but entering the countries he wanted to reach did alleviate the problem. Google also credited Moothart’s account for the charges he had accrued in those places.

A Google spokesperson says the company has no policy of reimbursing advertisers for these clicks, because that’s how the system is supposed to work. But several advertisers WIRED spoke with, including Weiner, said they’d also been refunded for these ads. One advertiser, who asked for anonymity because he didn’t have authority to speak for his company, says he received a $400 refund, but only after spending hours on the phone with Google representatives.

Got a Tip?

If you’d like to tip WIRED anonymously, we have a couple ways for you to do that here.

There are, of course, legitimate reasons a person in Iran or another sanctioned country might be a good target for an ad, even one marketing a US-based company or institution. Perhaps that person is only in Iran temporarily or is planning on studying abroad. Economic sanctions aren’t intended to create information blackouts in these countries, and in a lot of ways, digital ads are just information, delivered to you before you ever asked for it. According to Christopher Boehning, a partner at the New York-based law firm Paul Weiss who specializes in global sanctions, informational materials, including ads, are generally exempt from sanctions rules. “This exemption is consistent with US policy to allow for the free flow of information between the residents of sanctioned countries and the rest of the world,” Boehning says.

But for Wenzel’s clients, the goal of these ads isn’t just to spread information. It’s to jump-start sales or other types of commerce—activity they’re prohibited from engaging in in these countries. What frustrates Wenzel most, he says, is the fact that a company like Google, which meticulously studies user habits, hasn’t changed its settings to be more user-friendly and transparent about where ads are being served. Instead, the company continues to collect on all those clicks.

“Our clients are larger advertisers, who can afford to hire an agency to manage their campaigns. A lot of Google’s advertisers don’t have those resources,” Wenzel says. “If I’m a smaller company, and I think I’m only targeting the US, I feel like Google should do a better job of making sure that’s where those ads are targeted, especially in countries there’s no chance you’re going to get a sale.”

More Great WIRED Stories

Read More

Hexbyte  News  Computers Sexy weasels in Renaissance art

Hexbyte News Computers Sexy weasels in Renaissance art

Hexbyte News Computers

Hexbyte  News  Computers Renaissance era portrait of a noblewoman in blue and red dress holding a white ermine in her arms
‘Lady with an Ermine’ (circa 1490) by Leonardo da Vinci. Also known as ‘Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani’. Oil and tempera on wood panel, 548 x 403 mm. Collection of Czartoryski Museum, Krakow.

Do you want to give someone a memorable wedding gift? Why not take your inspiration from Renaissance art and give them a painting of a sexy weasel?

In the 16th century, weasels were a catch-all category for many of the furry, long-bodied carnivorous creatures in the mustelid family, such as ermine, sables, martens, ferrets, stoats and mink. These creatures often appear in Renaissance portraits of high-ranking noblewomen, and represent a fascinating language of sexual symbolism. Explore some of the hidden meanings of weasels below!

Hexbyte News Computers 1. Weasels as fertility talismans

Hexbyte  News  Computers Portrait of a young woman in ornate red dress, holding a small white dog and a flea-fur or jeweled weasel pelt
Portrait of a noblewoman (circa 1580) by Lavinia Fontana. Oil on canvas, 1150 x 900 mm. Collection of the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington D.C.

In the Renaissance, weasel paintings were ideal wedding gifts because they were considered to be fertility talismans. A portrait of a young bride wearing an ermine, sable or mink, for instance, was believed to bring good luck in helping her to get pregnant.

The marriage painting above by Lavinia Fontana shows a young Bolognese noblewoman wearing a red wedding gown. On the left, she pats a little white dog — a symbol of marital fidelity. On the right, she holds a weasel pelt with a sumptuously jeweled head — a popular accessory in the 15th and 16th centuries known as a zibellino or flea-fur. Here, the inclusion of the flea-fur represents the hope that this bride would be blessed with good fertility.

Hexbyte  News  Computers Painting detail of a jewelled weasel pelt being held by a Renaissance era bride in a red wedding gown
Detail from Portrait of a noblewoman (circa 1580) by Lavinia Fontana.

In the Renaissance, it was widely believed that weasels conceived through their ears and gave birth through their mouth. This ‘miraculous’ method of conception was thought to parallel the Annunciation of Christ, who was conceived when God’s angel whispered into the ear of the Virgin Mary.

In the portraits below, you can see how the brides are touching their wombs while holding a weasel pelt — hope that the Lord will too bless them with the ‘miracle’ of pregnancy. (Hopefully her husband knows better than to try and put it in her ear though…)

Hexbyte  News  Computers Portrait of a Renaissance noblewoman touching her stomach and holding a mink pelt
‘Portrait of Lucina Brembati’ (circa 1521-1523), Lorenzo Lotto. Oil on panel, 526 x 448 mm. Collection of Accademia Carrara, Bergamo.
Hexbyte  News  Computers
Detail of ‘Portrait of Lucina Brembati’ (circa 1521-1523), Lorenzo Lotto.
Hexbyte  News  Computers Renaissance portrait of a young woman in yellow gown with her hand to her womb, holding a weasel pelt or flea-fur
‘Portrait of Antea’ (1520), Parmigianino. Oil on canvas, 1360 x 860 mm. Collection of National Museum of Capodimonte, Naples.
Hexbyte  News  Computers
Detail from ‘Portrait of Antea’ (circa 1520), Parmigianino.

Hexbyte News Computers 2. Weasels and childbirth

Hexbyte  News  Computers Portrait of a woman wearing a red dress and a jeweled pelt of a sable or marten, with her young daughter peeking out from behind her skirt.
“Portrait of Countess Livia da Porto Thiene and her Daughter Diedama” (1552) by Paolo Veronese. Oil on canvas, 2084 x 1210 mm. Collection of the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore.

Weasels sometimes also appear in Renaissance paintings where the woman is already successfully pregnant. In these cases, the weasel can better be understood to represent the hope for safe childbirth.

Some believed that wearing weasel fur directly on the skin could also help ease childbirth. Letters between Christina de Medici, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, and her daughter Catherine, for instance, show that the Dowager sent her daughter an ermine or marten belt when Catherine was believed to be pregnant, claiming that it had helped her during the birth of her children.

In the portrait above by Paolo Veronese, Countess da Porto is pictured with her daughter Diedama, and is already pregnant with her second daughter Emilia. Over her arm is draped the pelt of a marten, which was thought to be particularly powerful for protecting women during childbirth.

Hexbyte  News  Computers Painting detail of a jeweled marten or weasel pelt over the arm of a pregnant noblewoman
Detail from “Portrait of Countess Livia da Porto Thiene and her Daughter Diedama” (1552) by Paolo Veronese.

Interestingly, there is a flea-fur in the Walters Art Museum almost identical to the one portrayed in this portrait. The white dove on its snout is a symbol of the Holy Ghost, further emphasizing the symbolic connection between the weasel and Christ’s miraculous birth.

Hexbyte  News  Computers A photograph of a weasel pelt with ornately jeweled gold head, called a flea-fur or zibellini
Jeweled marten’s head or flea-fur, adorned with gold, rubies, garnets and pearls (circa 1550). Walters Art Museum, Baltimore.

Hexbyte News Computers 3. Weasels and phallic symbols

With their long, powerful bodies and connection with fertility, weasels are also sometimes associated with other phallic imagery in Renaissance paintings.

One of my favorite examples is this portrait of Camilla Gonzaga, surrounded by her three sons while grasping a fine weasel pelt draped over her shoulder.

Hexbyte  News  Computers Renaissance era portrait of a noblewoman with a mink pelt over her shoulder, surrounded by her three young sons
“Portrait of Camilla Gonzaga and Her Three Sons” (1539-40), by Parmigianino. Oil on panel, 1280 x 970 mm. Collection of Museo del Prado, Madrid.

At first, there doesn’t seem to be anything particularly phallic about this weasel. Until you consider it alongside the companion painting of her husband, Count Pier Maria di San Secondo, who commissioned the portraits:

Hexbyte  News  Computers Side by side Renaissance portraits of a husband and wife
Portrait of Pier Maria Rossi di San Secondo (left) and Portrait of Camilla Gonzaga and Her Three Sons (right), by Parmigianino, 1535-1540. Oil on canvas, each 1330 x 980 mm. Collection of Museo del Prado, Madrid.

These two portraits were designed to hang side by side, as a tribute to Count San Secondo’s virility. In his portrait, the prominent codpiece and a strategically-placed sword handle are intended to be seen as tributes to his masculinity and the strength of his family line.

Camilla gazes proudly at her husband, surrounded by the sons he has successfully sired, while stroking her jeweled weasel pelt. The son on the left stares straight at his father’s codpiece with a strange expression on his face — perhaps pondering the ideals of masculinity he would be expected to live up to?

Hardly subtle.

Hexbyte  News  Computers Painting detail showing the husband's prominent codpiece and sword handle, in relation to the son's gaze and his wife's hand on her weasel pelt
Detail of “Portrait of Pier Maria Rossi di San Secondo” (left) and “Portrait of Camilla Gonzaga and Her Three Sons” (right), by Parmigianino, 1535-1540.
Hexbyte  News  Computers Painting detail showing a noblewoman with her hand gently fingering the jeweled head of a weasel pelt
Detail of “Portrait of Camilla Gonzaga and Her Three Sons”, by Parmigianino, 1535-1540.

Hexbyte News Computers 4. Weasels and purity

Hexbyte  News  Computers Renaissance era portrait of a noblewoman in blue and red dress holding a white ermine in her arms
‘Lady with an Ermine’ (circa 1490) by Leonardo da Vinci. Also known as ‘Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani’. Oil and tempera on wood panel, 548 x 403 mm. Collection of Czartoryski Museum, Krakow.

Leonardo da Vinci’s Lady with an Ermine (circa 1490) is the most famous Renaissance weasel painting. Like many others of his day, Leonardo believed that white ermine would rather give themselves up to hunters rather than risk soiling their pristine fur in the chase. The white weasel here can therefore be understood as a symbol of the girl’s purity.

However, the portrait depicts the pregnant 16-year old mistress of Leonardo’s employer, the Duke of Milan. The duke belonged to a society of knights known as the Order of the Ermine, so this weasel also stands in for him. Notice how sensuously she strokes the weasel, and how weirdly muscular it is. The ermine is both meant as a symbol of the girl’s purity and the duke’s virility. Cheeky Leonardo…

The white ermine is also used in this portrait of Queen Elizabeth I (circa 1585) below. Elizabeth I never married, and was sometimes called the Virgin Queen. Here, the white weasel is included to assert the political power associated with her purity and unmarried status.

Hexbyte  News  Computers Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I in ornate black dress with a white ermine on her arm
‘The Ermine Portrait of Elizabeth I of England (circa 1585), attributed to William Segar. Oil on canvas. Collection of Hatfield House, Hertfordshire.
Hexbyte  News  Computers Painting detail of a white ermine on the sleeve of Queen Elizabeth I
Detail from ‘The Ermine Portrait of Elizabeth I of England (circa 1585), attributed to William Segar.

Hexbyte News Computers 5. Weasels as status symbols

Mink, sable and marten fur was historically very valuable. So including a weasel pelt in a woman’s portrait was also simply a way of indicating their high social-standing and successful financial position.

These pelts were sometimes known as flea-furs, because they were believed to draw fleas away from biting the noblewoman’s skin. Unsurprisingly, scratching at itchy fleabites has never been a fashionable look for ladies.

Hexbyte  News  Computers Portrait of a Reniassance noblewoman holding a weasel with particularly vicious-looking teeth
Portrait of a lady (1520-25) by Bernardino Luini. Oil on panel, 770 x 575 mm. National Gallery of Art, Washington.
Hexbyte  News  Computers Painting detail of a noblewoman holding a brown weasel with vicious looking teeth
Detail from ‘Portrait of a lady’ by Bernardino Luini, 1520-25.
Hexbyte  News  Computers Portrait of an unknown Renaissance noblewoman wearing an ornate white embroidered dress, and holding a jeweled weasel pelt
‘Unknown lady’ (circa 1595), attributed to William Segar. Oil on canvas, 1040 x 830 mm. Collection of Ferens Art Gallery, Kingston-upon-Hull, UK.
Hexbyte  News  Computers Painting detail showing the jeweled weasel pelt in the hand of an unknown noblewoman
‘Unknown lady’ (circa 1595), attributed to William Segar.

However, in addition to social or financial success, weasels could also indicate reproductive success — an important measure of a woman’s value during a period with high infant and child mortality rates.

This is demonstrated in the portrait of the Gozzadini Family (1584) by Lavinia Fontana, below. The painting was commissioned by Laudomia Gozzadini, who sits on the right. Her sister Ginevra, on the left, gave birth six times before her death at age 28, with three sons who survived infancy. The flea-fur on her lap pays tribute to Ginevra’s reproductive success.

Laudomia, on the other hand, remained childless, dedicating her life to the financial interests of drama-filled Gozzadini family. She is pictured with the fur of a lynx, a symbol of barrenness, and a dog, a symbol of fidelity to her extended family.

Hexbyte  News  Computers
“Portrait of the Gozzadini Family” (1584) by Lavinia Fontana. Oil on canvas, 2500 x 1890 mm. Pinacoteca Nazionale, Bologna.
Hexbyte  News  Computers
Detail from “Portrait of the Gozzadini Family” (1584) by Lavinia Fontana.

So which sexy weasel would you choose for your wedding gift: fertility weasel, childbirth weasel, phallic weasel, purity weasel, or success weasel? This sounds like the beginnings of a very terrible, very niche Buzzfeed quiz.

Also, I refuse to put up one of those obnoxious “SIGN UP NOW!” pop-ups on the site, because I find them ridiculously annoying. But I would still really love it if you subscribed to The Museum of Ridiculously Interesting Things below, or followed me on Instagram or Facebook! If you’ve gone this far into an article about art and sex weasels, I’m almost certain there will be more weird stuff there you’ll be into.