Scripturi Te Salutant

We who are about to write salute you.

[sirfrogsworth]

A friend posted that "decimate" does not mean to completely destroy something.

This is a linguistic myth I keep seeing thrown around on social media.

I am assuming they are referring to the word origin regarding the Roman military punishment for cowardice or mutiny. The troops were divided into groups of ten, and one man from each group was chosen to be executed by the others.

So people will say the accurate definition of decimate is to reduce something by 1/10th.

But words evolve. Many are far removed from their origins. And the modern definition of decimate does actually mean to destroy a large percentage of something. An argument could be made "completely" destroy is outside that definition. Perhaps "effectively" destroy would be more accurate. And then annihilate would be to completely destroy.

But the 10% thing is no longer valid.

Linguistics does not care if the word has "deci" in it. Definitions are always derived from how the word is used and currently understood among a large populace.

This is a kind of know-it-all gotcha that people use to feel smart. But it really only shows their ignorance of how language works. And then people like my friend assume it is true and perpetuate this myth. And then I have to decide if I should embarrass them with a correction or just let it go and save myself some anxiety.

It's okay to be frustrated with popular usage. I am constantly annoyed that "resolution" is now used to denote pixel dimensions instead of effective detail. And decimate has a fascinating origin story that can be explained without claiming someone is using the word improperly. Otherwise, you are shaming people for using terms you fully understand. They communicated effectively and that's really all that matters.

[prokopetz]

Like, I'm not arguing with you about whether it's the "best ever", but... look. If you can't think of a single thing you'd criticise about your favourite media, what that tells me is that your understanding of your favourite media is so shallow that nothing you have to say about it could possibly be worth listening to.

[foobar137]

I use this when interviewing programmers. If you can't name something you dislike about your favorite programming language, you haven't used it enough.

(For example: Java has three different APIs for everything now. There's three different UI APIs, three different I/O APIs, three (or even four) different time/calendar APIs...and for historical reasons you need to be able to use all of them. You still need the old Java 1.0 Date class because the SQL date object is a subclass of it, but basically every method on it is deprecated.)

[stitchlingbelle]

Ok, I'm not done with my Vorkosigan rants for tonight, sorry. But. I feel like a lot of people overlook the reason Aral proposed to Cordelia.

Like, yes yes, we love this bisexual disaster falling for the first tomboy he's ever met. Even Cordelia says it. "I've never bothered explaining to him that it was his compulsions leaping up."

But! I think the most important sentence in Aral's proposal isn't the "first sight" bit. It's "By the time we finished burying your officer, I knew."

What had he seen of Cordelia that was so convincing by the time they finished burying Rosemont? That she was clever, resourceful, brave under fire, sure. That she stood up for her beliefs even when they might cost her.

But I truthfully think the moment he decided he loved her and wanted her for the next Lady Vorkosigan was when she looked dead at him and said, "It must be like living among cannibals, to be a Barrayarran."

THAT'S it. That's the moment. Because if you listen to his stories on that trip, and the description Padma gives of his rantings, Aral is a man who knows that his society is incredibly fucked up. But he's surrounded by people-- even people who have deep principles-- who at best think it's unsolvable and more frequently think that Barrayar is fine. That it's problems are all external, or all because of one or two madmen.

Cordelia listens to him repeat the same belief that some lives are disposable that he's heard all his life and says that's fucked up. It shouldn't be like that. And to Aral, a man who desperately wants to do the right thing but who has been fed the most toxic definition of that imaginable, who has been struggling to go beyond it-- her clarity is like the sun coming out.

Aral fell in love with Cordelia not because she was the first woman soldier he'd ever met, but because she was the first person to vindicate his growing vision of what honor, what doing good for others, truly meant.

[foobar137]

At the end of Barrayar:

"You . . ." [Aral's] voice softened, "you are the only person I know who looks at Bothari and sees a hero. So he becomes one for you. He clings to you because you create him a greater man than he ever dreamed of being." "Aral, that's crazed." "Ah?" He nuzzled her hair. "But he's not the only man you have that peculiar effect upon. Dear Captain."

[larkstonguesinaspicpart1]

Reading hitchikers guide for the first time was really funny because it was like ohhhh THIS the writing that every unfunny nerd has been trying to emulate from like ‘00-‘12 . But good.

[milkchuggs]

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

#tbh my opinion on hichhiker's guide is that while i really enjoy it i feel like Terry Pratchett just kinda did everything Adams tried to do#but better and with more subtlety and greater depth of execution#So while i enjoy and appreciate it every time i pick it up im just kinda like#“whoah i should be reading terry pratchett”#and then i pick up praychett#and im like woah this guy was a fucking genius and did everything adams tried to do but more and better and in such a way to where its#hard for people to be annoying about it bc it possesses a lot of subtlty that#while adams is good he definitely lacks to the extent pratchet has#Also while pratchett practices absurdity he maintains a coherence of theme and idea that while carried by some overarching themes#adams definitley leans into the zany galaxy roadtrip at the detrement of coherence where pratchett generally succeeds

I think the key difference here is that Pratchett was a dedicated writer who wrote with intentionality and focus, whereas Adams was hurriedly throwing up half-baked radio play scripts in between his actual paying job of editing Doctor Who and then later procrastinating severely on forcing those scripts into novel and tv show formats while his agent tried desperately to figure out what pub he was getting drunk at so they could force him to come home and do some actual work.

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

#imma be so fr#comparing hitchhikers to any of pratchett's work is frankly insane#and makes me think you fundamentally misunderstood what at least one of them was trying to do#like these do NOT occupy the same conceptual space#this isn't one guy doing a thing okay and another guy doing it great#this is one guy doing one thing and another guy doing a vaguely related thing#you wouldn't say spaghetti is mediocre because fettucine is flat#like you recognize that that sounds insane right?

[foobar137]

I'll argue that point a bit.

The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic feel very much like a fantasy version of Hitchhiker's Guide. There's that same feel of "I'm going to throw every genre trope I can think of at the wall and make it funny".

The difference is that Pratchett developed further and became, well, Pterry. That's part of why, whichever book they recommend you start with, very few people recommend starting Discworld with TCoM. The first two books feel very different from the later ones. Even by Equal Rites the Discworld grew from "pastiche of every fantasy trope within reach" into something where the setting could drive the story. Hitchhiker's Guide never reached that point because it wasn't where Adams wanted to go.

No shade on either party. I love both. And there are fair comparisons to be made between them...you just need to choose the right points to compare.

[prokopetz]

Survival-themed cyberpunk RPG where instead of weapons having durability, you need to purchase subscriptions for each of your weapons, which deplete based on how much damage you inflict. Hit points exist in-universe as a value calculated by your weapons' built-in biometric scanners to meter subscription usage. You can top up a weapon's subscription credits at conveniently located kiosks, or "bank" extra credits beyond a given weapon's rated capacity by carrying gift cards.

[prokopetz]

If you hurt someone by hitting them with a rock or some other non-networked object, this is a serious felony – not because of the violence, but because due to a series of obscure legal precedents, using an object with no associated weapon subscription to cause measurable harm counts as circumventing copy protection.

[flying-butter]

What about beating someone to death with a firearm? Is that considered jailbreaking?

[prokopetz]

Assuming the gun has a linked weapon subscription, it just deducts from your credits in the usual fashion. Remember, you're being charged per hit point of damage inflicted, not per shot fired; the biometric monitors don't care how you inflicted them, as long as it was done using a weapon with an up-to-date subscription.

(Of course, the trick is, if you're firing the gun, it can helpfully prevent you from going over your credit limit by refusing to chamber the next round. If you're just pistol-whipping people senseless, you need to keep an eye on the readout manually!)

[kingofinfinitespace]

[dizzyhslightlyvoided]

(via op)

[foobar137]

What happens if you miss your target?

Option 1: it's free. (Boring.)

Option 2: You get dinged for the damage to whatever you hit. So, concrete's probably cheap, wood is more expensive.

Option 3: You get charged for maximum damage as a penalty.

[prokopetz]

Question for someone who literally grew up on the old internet: how were you supposed to find websites before the general search engine?

(With reference to this post here.)

In the very early days, the public-facing Internet was small enough that you could just, like, remember where everything was. Contrary to the modern Internet's rapid content churn and walled-garden siloing, early websites tended to have deep, statically preserved content archives and dense cross-site linking, so it wasn't uncommon to set about finding previously visited sites simply by retracing one's path from memory. Even simple bookmarking was sometimes derided as a crutch for people who were too lazy to learn how to navigate the Internet "properly"; indeed, once web browsers added built-in support for bookmark lists, some people refused to use them as a matter of principle!

Once the Internet grew to the point where this approach was no longer feasible, there was a period of a few years where various parties tried to construct human-curated, hierarchical directories of the entire Internet. This was, of course, doomed to fail, as the Internet was growing faster than it could be manually catalogued, but they gave it the old college try. Some popular search engines such as Yahoo actually started out as directories of this type, and only later added search functionality. Meanwhile, communities of interest adopted a more targeted approach, with dedicated "links" pages containing curated recommendations for other, similar sites becoming ubiquitous on personal websites, while users who lacked the time or expertise to offer curated links could participate in webrings and other volunteer-operated directory services.

(The idea of cataloguing the whole Internet according to a topical hierarchy led to some fascinating taxonomic decisions. At one point, Yahoo's directory had a subcategory specifically for sexually explicit Dungeons & Dragons resources, or "netbooks", as they were called at the time.)

[valtharr]

This is all very interesting, but my main takeaway is that people tried gatekeeping surfing the web!

The more things change etc...

[prokopetz]

Basically all of online culture between 1985 and 2000 was founded in the idea that Internet users were a different and fundamentally better class of human being from normal people.

[foobar137]

There's a shirt reading, "The Internet is full. Go away!" in the Wikipedia article, and it wasn't an uncommon sentiment among the old-timers.

[prokopetz]

Inadvisable tabletop RPG gimmick #137: erotic RPG with Rolemaster style critical success and critical fumble tables, except divided by kink types instead of damage types.

[esoteric-merit]

I know you too well to think you don't know that Kink Dice are already very much a thing :p And now I wanna hear your nerdy reasoning as to why they're insufficient for the shenaniganeries you imagine.

[prokopetz]

Your kink dice must have lots of sides.

[waters-and-the-wilde]

'put it down as a Winterfair gift. from his wife'

[nighthaunting]

thought too hard about MRI machines today and had this come to me in a vision

[beesmygod]

mri accident is literally one of my biggest anxiety freakouts. i dont care about being in the tiny loud tube, im so scared of a secret piece of metal i dont know about in my body will tear through me like a knife through butter. what if i ate a quarter in my sleep

[neutral-wizard]

Quarters George who eats a $10 roll of quarters every night is shredded into a fine mist my the MRI

[its-grape-juice-i-swear]

TIME TO POST ONE OF MY ALL TIME FAVORITE IMAGES!!!!

Back when I worked at the hospital, I had to take MRI training and it was my favorite thing every time. It was only like 10 minutes long and went a little something like this:

Hey. The MRI is basically a really big magnet and by basically I mean it is and we literally never turn it off. It's like really big. Really really big and powerful and The Magnet is always on. We don't turn it off Ever, for any reason. We mean it bro, The Magnet is literally always on. It's crazy strong and will definitely kill you. So don't bring any metal into the MRI room, man. You will fuck up the machine (because The Magnet is always on) and then you will die (again, because The Magnet is always on). Here's some fun questions for you to test your understanding!

1) The ______ is always on.

2) The Magnet is ______ on.

3) How often is The Magnet on?

4) The Magnet is always __.

5) The Magnet is always on. T/F

6) The Magnet is usually on but we know to turn it off for you because you're a very special boy :) T/F

7) My weak fleshy body can survive the wrath of The Magnet. T/F

8) Look at this 500 lbs steel hospital bed, which The Magnet has crumpled into an origami crane. Imagine if that was you.

9) Is The Magnet ever off?

10) Sometimes we turn The Magnet off. T/F

Thank you for taking MRI training. We hope you learned that The Magnet is always on, because it is. It's on Right Now and it will be on every time you come to the MRI. Have fun and remember: The Magnet is always on!

I love you MRI training. The Magnet is always on.

[sirfrogsworth]

Being dumb does not make a thing last longer. Often the dumb versions are even shittier. There are even dumb phones that cost more than smart phones while having worse components. So they charge you extra for making something dumb.

And there are products available that can last 10-20 or maybe even 50 years.

But I can guarantee if I told this person how much a long lasting refrigerator costs, he'd be like, "I'm not paying that for a fridge."

This is a multifactorial problem without an easy solution.

We are addicted to cheap goods. Many don't recognize the value in saving up for a more expensive thing that will be cheaper in the long run. They buy the $100 mattress instead of the $1000 mattress. And then just keep buying the $100 mattress over and over.

There is also the fact that product research is much more difficult than it used to be. In the past, you could count on brand reputation. "This company makes good stuff, so if I buy from them, I know I will get a quality item."

But modern manufacturing splits things up. You can get an awful Dell laptop or a great Dell laptop. But you have to watch 20 reviews to figure out which is which.

Weirdly, Apple is one of the few brands where you can purchase a product and be assured of a certain baseline level of quality. I know Apple-haters will scoff at that, but that is exactly the reason I bought a MacBook Air. I was taking care of my dad and had no energy to figure out which Windows laptop wasn't a piece of shit, so I just got the cheapest MacBook. And... it's fantastic.

It doesn't make me like Apple as a company much more, but I will give them credit for building long lasting products with decent quality control. And doing it across their entire product line.

Whereas you have a company like Samsung, who makes wonderful top tier phones and horrible appliances and decent TVs and some of their soundbars are shit and some are wonderful and... you get the idea.

I don't really know the solution here. If cheap goods are available, that is usually what people are going to buy. And many of us can only afford cheap goods. But there are a lot of people who buy the cheapest thing when it is possible to save up for a little while longer and get the next cheapest thing and it will last 10 times as long. But they don't always have the time or energy to figure out what the longer lasting things is because they are broke and poor and working 2 jobs.

Capitalism.

It sucks.

[foobar137]

This is a significant part of why I buy Apple stuff. People complain about how expensive it is, but the thing is, Apple doesn't generally make cheap shit.

That low-end MacBook Air may cost twice as much as a low-end Dell. But it will probably last more than twice as long.

And you can't tell if just spending more money will be better! I bought a nice Asus laptop - not at all a cheap machine, a Core i7 with a real GPU. I bought another for my son. They lasted no more than a couple years, and there was no easy way to get them fixed.

Which is another advantage for Apple - the ubiquitous Apple stores make it simple to get them fixed, or at least evaluated for repair. Which means they can last even longer.

Boots theory is a thing, but it can be hard to tell which are the good boots and which ones are just expensive. So if you've got a manufacturer you can trust to make good ones, you buy from them.

[hirtenstar]

[netscapenavigator-official]

You should be starting a recipe book. I don't give a shit if you're only 20-years-old. The modern web is rotting away bit by bit before our very eyes. You have no idea when that indie mom blog is going down or when Pinterest will remove that recipe. Copy it down in a notebook, physically or digitally. Save it somewhere only you can remove it. Trust me, looking for a recipe only to find out it's been wiped off the internet is so fucking sad. I've learned my lesson one too many times.

[foobar137]

I have a folder of recipes in Google Docs. Each doc starts with a link to the source, if possible. Then it has the recipe. Then it has any notes I've made while making it.

Advantages of this method:

It lets you add notes! Often a recipe isn't for the right number of people, or you change it in some other way. Some recipes I've completely rewritten to fill in all the things I learned while cooking. There's a lasagna recipe that includes notes like "add this much sauce - NOT MORE - or you'll run out by the time you get to the top layer."

It's easy to share! I've shared the folder to my kids so they can all try to make their favorite recipes.

It's available everywhere! I can check a recipe while grocery shopping to confirm I wrote the right size of tomato sauce can on the shopping list. (Just did that yesterday, actually; I did.)

Disadvantages:

Google Docs. Cloud storage in a proprietary format that is hard to back up. I need to do an export every now and then to make sure I have a current copy in a readable format.

Obviously, yours doesn't need to be Google Docs. But ponder the options for where you want to keep it.

[delenda-est]

[themiscyra1983]

I will topple your empires and your kings. I will drain the wealth from your coffers, and elevate your serfs and servants until they stand on the same ground as the mightiest of emperors. Women shall freely speak their minds, unbound by the fetters you have set, and the lines between man and woman shall be hopelessly blurred and shattered into a thousand facets. Your children shall fall into one another regardless of sex or class or wealth and none shall raise a hand or a word against them. The age of crowns and boundaries and divine right shall end, and it shall fall to each human to choose their - wait - why - why are you cheering

[foobar137]

This is the future liberals want.

[impishglee]

“nothing tastes as good as skinny feels”

damn you must suck at cooking. check out some youtube tutorials man. i believe in you.

[foobar137]

I have found something even better than kudos.

It's better than somebody commenting on your fic, even.

That's a citation from an actual academic paper. Somebody cited one of my fics.

But there's more.

They used my fic as an example of AO3 tagging. And...bluntly, it really feels like they included my fic in their paper because they liked it. They call it 'clever'.

I'm in awe. This is just...stunning. I'm still trying to comprehend this.

The full paper, titled "We Need Diverse Fanfiction Studies: On Shipping Fanfiction and CYA Literature"

And, the fic in question.

[foobar137]

Genesys Dice Stats

So, after the post on @prokopetz's blog about statistics and dice rolling and the difficulty of modeling rolls for Fantasy Flight Star Wars/Genesys, I wrote up some Swift code to do just that. It's ugly code right now, and I plan to clean it up a bit and post it somewhere.

Part of the issue is that there's a huge number of distinct results from any given roll. As an example - a stock roll where a character with an attribute of 3 and a skill of 2 rolls against an average difficulty task has 171 distinct results that can come up.

But, I've been working on grouping these results meaningfully, like this:

Pool: proficiency, proficiency, ability, difficulty, difficulty 51640 (70.041%) : Total Successes 14322 (19.425%) : Total Successes with Advantage 21564 (29.248%) : Total Successes with Threat 8928 (12.109%) : Total Success + Triumph 0 (0.000%) : Total Success + Despair 14478 (19.637%) : Total Failures with Advantage 2376 (3.223%) : Total Failures with Threat 2974 (4.034%) : Total Failures + Triumph 0 (0.000%) : Total Failures + Despair 2961 (4.016%) : Total Fully Cancelled 73728: Total Results, 171 Distinct Results

Some interesting things come up from this. First off, there's 50% more success-with-threat than success-with-advantage. This actually makes sense - most sides that give successes don't also give advantages, and the difficulty dice that aren't giving you failures are instead giving you threats. (Similarly, failure-with-advantage is six times more likely than failure-with-threat, and 2/3 of failures have advantage.)

About 75% of the rolls with a triumph are successful. This is slightly higher than the base success chance of 70%. Again, this makes sense - you know there's at least one success that was rolled.

4% of the rolls completely cancel or are entirely blank.

The problem from here is that it's hard to produce, like, a chart of results. Even if you just focus on total success rate, you still have six dice types to take into account, and six-dimensional charting is not my forte. Although there is the advantage (FSVO) that there generally aren't more than about 5 dice of any one type in the pool.

The next step is probably to see if the code runs on Linux, and clean it up for posting somewhere. After that, I may create some spreadsheets of results.

[prokopetz]

While we're talking about AnyDice, do you know if there's a way to accurately test the probability of multiple outcomes on unconventional dice? The below link is an abriged test of an implementation of FFG's Genesys dice I found on a forum thread; the tester was trying to work out if the implementation was even correct, and testing for 2 Advantages AND two Successes on one ability dice (which is impossible, but AnyDice gives 1.56%). The ability dice is a d8; only one side has 2A and only one side has 2S, and they're different sides. The intuition is that because the advantage sides and the successes sides are defined in different orders, the same index for success and advantage should be used which will never see a 2 on both arrays. AnyDice just outputs the intersection of the two 1-in-8s, 1/64 = 0.015625. Do you know of any way to get the intuitive output, or is this just a reflection of AnyDice being a probability calculator and not a dice roller? https://anydice.com/program/3aeb3

Yeah, no, that's completely wrong. What you've got there is is a script to generate the results of rolling two dice, one of which has only success symbols and no advantage symbols, and the other of which has only advantage symbols and no success symbols. That's where your unexpected intersection is coming from.

The problem here is that, because each die can have multiple kinds of symbols on it, potentially including multiple kinds of symbols on a single face, and we care about the total number of each kind of symbol, our odds become a sum of vectors rather than a sum of scalars. I'm not aware of any widely available dice probability calculator that can elegantly handle dice which produce vector results.

We can cheat a bit in this particular case, though, because the fact that we don't need to deal with negative numbers means we can convert a vector result to a scalar result by assigning each symbol a power of ten.

For the sake of argument, let's assign each "success" a value of 10, and each "advantage" a value of one. This, a face with one "success" symbol becomes a 10; a face with two "success" symbols, a 20; a face with one "success" and one "advantage", an 11; and so forth.

In the table of results, we then examine the digits individually, with the "tens" place being read as the number of success symbols, and the "ones" place being read as the number of advantage symbols.

Expressed in this way in AnyDice terms, a Genesys skill die becomes:

output 1d{0, 10, 10, 20, 1, 1, 11, 2}

In the resulting table, you'll see that your anomalous intersection has vanished; there's a 12.5% chance of "2" (that is, two advantages with zero successes), and a 12.5% chance of "20" (two successes with zero advantages), but no "22" (two successes with two advantages).

Note, however, that this only works correctly with up to four dice; with five or more, there will be some outcomes where the number of advantage symbols exceeds nine and "overflows" into the successes column, polluting your results.

Clear as mud?

[animeengineer]

One solution to the overflow problem is to add another digit, e.g. 100 instead of 10, 200 instead of 20, etc. The goal is to prevent a carry from one set of digits from getting into the next-left set.

I love watching people reinvent Galois-field algebra.

[prokopetz]

Quite so. There's no general solution to this problem – while the assignment of symbols to powers of ten is arbitrary, it will always be possible to construct a dice pool which causes an overflow, no matter what assignments we choose – so the best we can do is choose our powers of ten to prevent overflows for any dice pool which can plausibly be rolled in actual play. I don't know the exact arrangements of symbols on the full Genesys dice set off the top of my head (there are many more types of dice than the one described here), but I imagine assigning "success" = 100 would cover most cases.

[prokopetz]

@krozzus replied:

We will reach a point where the DM will be expected to solve a millennium problem on the fly

To be fair, it's less complicated than it looks – we're only having to go to all this trouble because we're working around the fact that there isn't currently a dice probability calculator app that can handle dice which produce vector results (which is just a fancy way of saying that the same face may have multiple different "numbers" on it which need to be summed separately). It wouldn't be terribly hard to build one; I'm actually kind of surprised that's not a thing already, with systems that use custom multi-symbol dice and/or extract multiple distinct pieces of information from the same die becoming more common these days.

[detentescapement]

I was wanting to implement it, honestly, then I got sucked into trying to optimise basic dice rolls out of multiset enumeration. Which, as it turns out, isn't easy.

[prokopetz]

Bah – set theorists. Just perform convolutions of the die's generating function like a normal person!

[detentescapement]

Yes, that's what I'm trying to do, precisely because multisets are... well, take a look at Anydice and you'll see how it fails to perform a lot of tasks (highest n of a set of exploding dices, for instance) quickly, despite being extremely well optimised.

The problem is that to perform convolutions on a generating function, you need to be able to express the generating function, which is fine for stuff like dice, weighted dice, exploding dice, ... but quickly get complicated for, say, taking the n highest or lowest of a pool.

[prokopetz]

You know, I'd genuinely never thought about what the general case of a generating function for an X-keep-Y dice pool would look like in practice. I guess I've never actually played a game that uses X-keep-Y dice pools large enough to warrant that approach. I'd love to see what conclusions you arrive at if you manage to get it working.

[foobar137]

So, because it's the kind of neurospicy that I am, I wrote up a quick program to do some Genesys dice calculations.

There's one main problem with output from this sort of thing:

The combination of large dice pool sizes and up to four output symbols per roll (triumph, despair, either successes or failures, and either advantages or threats) means that you have a lot of results in any given pool and no obvious way to display them.

For example: a typical character with an ability of 2 and a skill of 3 rolling against an average task - that's a pool of five dice (two proficiency, one ability, and two difficulty) with 171 distinct results. (And that's after cancelling successes/failures and advantage/threats.) The single most likely result (one success) comes up about 6.5% of the time. The result pool contains at least one net success 70% of the time.

It gets worse when you add in boost/setback dice, or challenge dice. That 171 results doesn't include a single despair, for example, since there's no challenge dice. Changing one difficulty die to a challenge brings the number of results up to 273.

I hope to clean up the code (making it so you can change the dice pool without recompiling, for example) and post it somewhere but I suspect the hyperfocus will wear off before I get to that point.