Another Bill posted:

mila kunis posted:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tk-emlups-te-secw%C3%A9pemc-215-children-former-kamloops-indian-residential-school-1.6043778

Remains of 215 children found buried at former B.C. residential school, First Nation says

The community took it upon themselves to hire a ground-penetrating radar tech to inspect the grounds and found 215 bodies buried. The police do not appear to be getting involved. Good poo poo.

mediaphage posted:

he should really be in prison.

Fidelitious posted:

I read it as making fun of our government's pathetic attempt at truth and reconciliation, rather than the concept itself.
Not only was the TRC significantly limited in scope (residential schools mostly), but they've barely implemented 10% of the calls to action since the release of the final report.

It has been pointed out that even having 'reconciliation' in the name is a bit of a stretch, implying that there were ever good relations between colonizers and indigenous peoples and that the schools were just a sad interruption to said relations.

Entropic posted:

The fact of the bodies isn't or shouldn't be particularly surprising, we know what was going on. But there's a combination of ugly things going on the Canadian pysche when it comes to residential schools:
- The white public has generally assimilated that the schools were "bad" but haven't really confronted how bad. By and large, we haven't believed the stories native survivors told, or we assumed the worst stories were hyperbole. I think a lot of people think of the residential schools as being basically just strict boarding schools. If pressed they'll acknowledge that there was particular racist cultural supression going on by punishing kids for speaking their own languague and things like that, but most people's mental image is of traditional victorian boarding school or something. For decades survivors have been saying that a lot of kids just didn't come back from those schools and the full scope of that claim and its implications was not believed or was ignored by the general public.
- There is still very much an attitude among a lot of people of "well, sure, we mistreated them, but before we came along they were living in the woods like savages and probably had a good chance of dying young anyway so we basically did them a favour".
- The residential schools are thought of as being "something that happened in ye olde past times" in the general Canadian consciousness despite the fact that the last ones only closed in the loving 1990s.
- None of this was even mentioned in Canadian elementary / high school history classes until shockingly recently. I certainly heard nothing about it in the late '90s.

Arcsquad12 posted:

I could do without the crocodile tears from politicians and public health officers. What good is fake grief and an affected tremble in your voice when tomorrow you'll go back to business as usual.

Vintersorg posted:

None of this stuff was ever taught.

This quote is coming up again and maybe something can be done:
We named a goddamn road after this vile piece of poo poo. It's time to rip this poo poo down.

Vintersorg posted:

I do sometimes wonder how other cities/provinces view it. Here in Winnipeg the CFL is nearly as big as the NHL in terms of passion and fan engagement. Bombers are a big loving deal.

GonadTheBallbarian posted:

Oh, was that disqus? The company changed that a few years back and it was bullshit. We nuked our comments sections entirely over the removal of the downvote function

Calumanjaro posted:

I wonder what the rules are for closing CBC comments, I have a few guesses:

i) An indigenous issue or person is mentioned in the article.
ii) Article is about a woman under the age of 18.
iii) Issue affecting racial minorities.
iv) Issue affecting LGBT.
v) Article about the police.

I also wonder if there was a memo sent that's like "Close comment section on the following types of articles:"

flakeloaf posted:

Patrick Brown probably came closest, yeah?

Arcsquad12 posted:

Paul Manly and Elizabeth May just put out a statement laying the blame for Atwin leaving squarely at the feet of Annamie Paul's chief staffer.

Really do wonder how long Paul stays on when she's pissing off her organization this much and refusing to do anything about her chief staffer harassing caucus members.

Normy posted:

Mumilaaq made a fiery farewell speech that is worth watching and sharing.

https://youtu.be/7mqJGG7yUGw

infernal machines posted:

My general impression from cases like Forcillo's was a general unwillingness to punish police for using their "professional judgement" in the line of duty, even when that judgement was absolutely terrible and the sole cause of the offense.

That may be absolute bullshit, it's just the impression I got from the reporting on his trial.

quote:

A Mining Startup’s Rush for Underwater Metals Comes With Deep Risks
DeepGreen built a nearly $3 billion valuation on the dream of gently excavating the ocean floor. Now environmentalists want to block its plans to go public.

By Todd Woody
June 23, 2021, 10:33 PM CDT Updated on June 24, 2021, 2:35 PM CDT

A seabed mining startup, DeepGreen Metals Inc., has successfully sold itself to investors as a game-changing source of minerals to make electric car batteries that can be obtained in abundance—and at great profit—while minimizing the environmental destruction of mining on land.

But there’s strong scientific evidence that the seabed targeted for mining is in fact one of the most biodiverse places on the planet—and increasing reason to worry about DeepGreen’s tantalizing promises. Bloomberg Green’s examination of corporate and legal filings, regulatory records and other documents raises questions about DeepGreen’s business plans. Previously undisclosed agreements with developing island states in the South Pacific show the company’s political and financial leverage over its partners, who are dependent on its expertise to exploit their seabed resources and obligated to ensure DeepGreen’s compliance with international environmental regulations.

For years, the Canadian-registered startup has been pitching a solution to climate change that can be found 13,000 feet below the sea. That’s where potato-sized polymetallic nodules rich in cobalt, nickel and copper cover the ocean floor by the billions. DeepGreen Chief Executive Officer Gerard Barron calls these nodules “a battery in a rock.”

The deep ocean holds the world’s largest estimated reserves of minerals, potentially worth trillions of dollars. While seabed mining remains technologically and commercially unproven, rising demand and prices for metals crucial to decarbonization are already unleashing a gold rush to the bottom of the sea. The minerals can be gently extracted, at least according to DeepGreen’s public relations campaign, thus avoiding the toll of terrestrial mining and powering the transition to a clean-energy future.

In a statement, DeepGreen said it doesn’t view mining on land or underwater as sustainable. “The only path to sustainable metals is to build up enough metal stock to shift away from mined to recycled metals,” says Dan Porras, the company’s head of communications and brand. He added: “Our stated objective is to inject enough primary metal stock into the system to enable this shift… and exit primary extraction as soon as possible.”

Scientists say DeepGreen officials have mischaracterized the ocean floor as less vulnerable to harm from mining. It’s “a very deep, dark, very monotonous kind of place,” the company’s chief ocean scientist, Greg Stone, said in a 2019 podcast interview. “We're not talking about vibrant coral reefs, we're not talking about herds of tuna or whales,” he said. The impact from nodule mining? “The longer-term disruption, if you can even call it that, would settle down certainly within months.”

The podcast host was skeptical of this light-touch mining. “It sounds like I'm helping you guys brainwash,” he said. “All we got to do is go pick them up? It can’t be like that.”

It isn’t. Scientists have discovered in recent years that deep-sea life where DeepGreen would mine persists on timescales that dwarf human existence. Nodules form over tens of millions of years, accumulating metallic elements that precipitate from seawater. They are worlds onto themselves: a single nodule can be habitat for scores of species, including millennia-old corals, tubeworms and sponges that incubate the eggs of ghost octopuses.

“Nodules are absolutely central to the functionality of this ecosystem,” says Diva Amon, a deep-sea biologist and scientific associate at the Natural History Museum in London. There’s growing evidence that beaked whales dive 2.5 miles to this region of the abyss to forage for prey, holding their breath all the while. Half the larger species there depend on nodules, researchers say, and only a fraction of those animals, have so far been discovered.

But DeepGreen executives in public statements tend to focus on the hazards of mining on land while minimizing the harm underwater, as Barron did in April appearance on Bloomberg TV. “Most of statements by DeepGreen are on biomass, not biodiversity,” says Porras, the spokesman, referring to the cumulative weight of living organisms in a given area. “This is why DeepGreen executives describe the abyssal plain as ‘one of the least inhabited places on Earth’ or ‘the equivalent of marine desert.’ ”

In March, DeepGreen announced plans to go public by merging with a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. These lightly regulated companies carry risks for investors. But the risks here are planetary in scope, with scientists warning of the potential destruction of ocean ecosystems that play a little-understood role in the global carbon cycle and climate change.

So far DeepGreen’s success with investors, who have valued its SPAC merger at nearly $3 billion, is a sign of strength for the nascent deep-sea mining industry’s case for nodules. DeepGreen’s SPAC, Dallas-based Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corp., raised $300 million last year and institutional and strategic investors have committed $330 million more to the new deal. The combined business, which will be renamed The Metals Company, will be headquartered in Canada.

But environmentalists are moving to challenge the merger. In a June 1 letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, an environmental group called Deep Sea Mining Campaign asked for an investigation into what it says is a failure to properly disclose potentially catastrophic environmental risks of seabed mining in the SPAC’s S-4 registration statement.

DeepGreen’s drive to brand itself as a company that would mine with what it calls “the lightest planetary touch” is a test case for disputes between investors, regulators and scientists over how to navigate the potential for untested climate solutions. The company seems to know the allure of guilt-free mining. As Barron put it to an interviewer in 2019, “Whether you invest in a company like DeepGreen or not, everyone's a sucker for the story.”

DeepGreen is one of just 22 entities with permission to prospect for minerals in the deep ocean. It’s the only one soon headed to public stock markets. Licenses are issued by the International Seabed Authority, an autonomous and obscure United Nations organization headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica. The agency is charged with regulating deep-sea mining while, contradictorily, ensuring protection of the marine environment. The ISA is now finalizing regulations that would permit DeepGreen and other companies to apply for licenses to begin mining the seabed.

Through a partnership with three small and impoverished South Pacific island states—Nauru, Tonga and Kiribati—DeepGreen holds prospecting rights over nearly 90,000 square miles in a vast stretch of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

In an extraordinary display of DeepGreen’s influence, Nauru broke UN protocol by ceding its seat to Barron at a February 2019 meeting of the ISA Council in Jamaica, allowing an executive to address the organization’s policymaking body. “Personally, I get very uncomfortable when people describe us as deep-sea miners,” Barron told the delegates, who appeared dumbfounded by the breach of procedure. “We are in the transition business. We want to help the world transition away from fossil fuels with the smallest possible climate change and environmental impact.”

It’s a message Barron uses frequently as he travels the world to promote “metals for the future.” One day recycling will dramatically reduce demand for mining new minerals, but not until “we build up a stock of billion new batteries,” as he told the ISA delegates.

Part of DeepGreen’s objective is just getting this message out. “While we’ve got a great team of mining people and oil and gas people, this is a communication challenge,” Barron told me at that ISA meeting. “That’s why we hired a head of brand.”

Scientists, environmentalists, the European Parliament, and some national governments are calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until its ecological consequences can be better understood. In March, BMW AG, Google, Samsung Electronics Co. and Volvo Cars endorsed the moratorium and pledged not to use deep-sea minerals. Demonstrations against ocean mining are also heating up. A Greenpeace vessel in April intercepted a DeepGreen ship conducting mining research in the middle of the Pacific. At the June G-7 meeting in Cornwall, England, hundreds of surfers paddled out to demand a ban on seabed mining.

On Thursday, in the hours after this story was published, more than 300 ocean scientists and marine experts from 44 countries released a statement calling for a “pause” in seabed mining “until sufficient and robust scientific information has been obtained” on the environmental impacts. An even stronger call for a mining moratorium came from the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, an alliance of 80 environmental groups, which credited Bloomberg Green’s investigation for “underlining the risks posed by the emerging deep-sea mining industry.”

Opponents, however, face the dilemma of confronting a company that says it cares about sustainability. “We are with @Greenpeace—we must protect the oceans,” DeepGreen wrote on Twitter in 2019. “If the data shows polymetallic nodules are not a safer solution for the planet and humans, @Greenpeace can count on us to stand with you to stop #DeepSeaMining.”

Arlo Hemphill, a senior oceans campaigner with Greenpeace, calls this “next-level gaslighting.” Greenpeace also says it has concerns about DeepGreen’s business. “They’ve thrown on a green cape and say all the right words but their sole intention is to make money,” says Hemphill.

Before deleting his Linkedin profile, former DeepGreen environmental scientist Jason Michel Smith wrote a post in late 2020 warning people not to trust the company. He said he was fired after conflicts with executives and “combating an anti-science private agenda on the daily.” Recent attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.

“The company has minimal respect for science, marine conservation, or society in general,” Smith wrote. “Don’t let them fool you. Money is the game. It’s business in their eyes, not people or the planet.”

Porras of DeepGreen says the company retained a third party to independently investigate Smith’s allegations, an inquiry in which he says Smith declined to participate. “While the report is privileged and cannot be publicly shared, the statements have been independently confirmed to be without merit.”

At 54, Barron sports the look of an aging rock star—long hair, graying beard, and a unvarying uniform of jeans, boots, T-shirt and leather jacket worn whether addressing the ISA Council or taking an Instagram selfie with surfing champion Kelly Slater holding pair of polymetallic nodules.

The SPAC registration statement describes Barron as a “seasoned entrepreneur with a track record of building global companies in battery technology, media and future-oriented resource development.” His mining career started with a lucky investment.

In 2001, Barron founded Adstream, an Australian ad tech company that would grow to $100 million in annual revenues, according to the registration statement. That same year he invested in Nautilus Minerals, an early deep-sea mining company headed by fellow Australian David Heydon. “I originally invested in Nautilus not because I knew mining but because I just sort of thought it sounded cool, and I sold out at the right time,” Barron told me in Kingston.

In 2017, the trade publication Mining.com reported that Barron walked away with $31 million on his $226,000 stake after the Canadian-registered company went public in a reverse merger in 2006. Heydon departed in 2008, and then three years later founded DeepGreen in Canada.

Other Nautilus investors didn’t fare as well. The company filed for bankruptcy in February 2019 after burning through $686 million without mining an ounce of metal. That left the poverty-stricken South Pacific island nation of Papua New Guinea out the $120 million it had invested in a joint venture with the company to excavate hydrothermal vent fields for copper, gold and silver.

Barron’s background with DeepGreen also includes murky fundraising relationships.

Between 2015 and 2020, for example, DeepGreen raised at least $75 million by selling securities directly to private investors, Canadian and U.S. securities filings show. In a December 2017 offering, DeepGreen sold $17.6 million worth of securities and paid a sales commission of $252,288 to a company called Victorem Ventures Limited. The same company also earned a $102,500 finder’s fee on a securities DeepGreen offered in the U.S. in late 2017, according to an SEC filing.

The Canadian securities filing, which was signed by Barron as DeepGreen’s CEO, declared that Victorem had no relationship to any DeepGreen insider. But corporate records in the U.K. show that Barron incorporated a company called Victorem Ventures Limited in 2015 and served as the sole director and shareholder until it was dissolved in October 2018. The Canadian securities filing listed Victorem’s address as a villa in Dubai, but did not provide a phone number or email address. DeepGreen subsequently submitted an amended filing that used Barron’s DeepGreen email address and his U.K. phone number as contacts for Victorem.

DeepGreen’s Porras says that while Barron was CEO of the startup when the securities were sold, he didn’t hold that position when Victorem performed the services that earned it the commission and finder’s fees. The registration statement says Barron served as a strategic advisor to DeepGreen from 2013 to 2017.

As DeepGreen tries to go public, it has mounted a vigorous campaign to raise funds. In the SPAC registration statement, DeepGreen pegged total capital costs for a single deep-sea mining operation and an onshore metals processing plant at $10.6 billion with annual operating costs of $1.8 billion after 2030. Barron, who earns a $565,000 salary running DeepGreen, which has 24 employees and contractors, would own up to 6.9% of the merged company’s shares.

Matthew Gianni, a founder of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, fears the SPAC could unleash a wave of capital investment in deep-sea mining. He notes that an independent unit of shipping giant A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S holds a significant stake in DeepGreen. The company did not respond to a request for comment. “Barron is a wildcatter who may provide the political and financial impetus for the big players to jump into deep-sea mining,” says Gianni, a longtime observer of the ISA.

When the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea established the ISA in 1994, it declared the seabed to be “the common heritage of mankind,” with rich and poor nations to share equally in any spoils of seabed mining. Previously confidential agreements between DeepGreen and Nauru and Tonga show the company’s influence over the countries.

Mining contractors must secure sponsorship from an ISA member state that is required to exert “effective control” over the contractor and is responsible, along with the ISA, for its compliance with environmental regulations. Sponsoring states in turn can collect royalties and fees.

Most sponsoring states work with government-run mining contractors or companies headquartered in their countries and controlled by their citizens. Western startups like DeepGreen, however, have also sought sponsorship from tiny countries that have access to mining concessions the ISA reserves for developing nations. Over the past decade, mining concessions from South Pacific microstates have traded hands among a small coterie of Barron associates, corporate filings and ISA records show.

One of DeepGreen’s mining contracts is sponsored by Tonga, which has a population of 106,000. Tonga’s sponsorship agreement with DeepGreen’s wholly owned subsidiary, TOML, was previously held by Nautilus and before that by a company controlled by Heydon, the former Nautilus CEO. The sponsorship agreement, which was disclosed in the SPAC registration statement, allows DeepGreen to unilaterally assign the mining contract to another party and declares the agreement is governed by Canadian law. Any disputes must be arbitrated in British Columbia, 5,700 miles from Tonga.

The nation of Nauru is involved in a similar arrangement with DeepGreen. The license was originally acquired by a Nauruan-registered company called NORI, founded in 2008 by Heydon before subsequently being bought by Nautilus. The cost of securing the mining concession in 2011 was a $250,000 fee paid to the ISA. DeepGreen became the owner of NORI the same year.

DeepGreen now estimates it will earn $95 billion from one area of the Nauru concession over 23 years of production, according to the registration statement. The startup expects to pay 7.6% of those revenues in royalties to Nauru and the ISA.

Just as was the case in Tonga, the sponsorship agreement between DeepGreen and Nauru shows the government exercises little control. It permits DeepGreen to transfer the mining contract to another entity “without reason and without prior consultation.” The sponsorship agreement also bars Nauru from nationalizing NORI or expropriating its assets and requires the government to guarantee the transfer overseas of NORI’s earnings.

“DeepGreen’s subsidiaries’ local operations are regulated by our sovereign partners under their national laws,” Porras says. “Our subsidiary companies have negotiated and agreed with our relevant partners to a neutral jurisdiction to govern certain relationships for the benefit of both parties.”

Nauru is an 8-square-mile island with a population of 11,000 people that had been ravaged from decades of phosphate mining overseen by the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. Long plagued by corruption, Nauru’s revenues chiefly come from hosting an Australian refugee detention center, though that income has fallen dramatically recently. DeepGreen’s last round of funding exceeded Nauru’s GDP. The government of Nauru did not respond to a request for comment.

“How could a small country like that have effective control over a multinational company?” asks Pradeep Singh, who studies the ISA as a research associate at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany.

He notes that Nauru and Tonga could be potentially liable if a seabed mining disaster happens on their watch. “What wasn’t really anticipated by the Law of the Sea was that multinational companies would go out on their own and partner with the developing countries.”

That’s where DeepGreen’s promotion of its robotic nodule collector might offer reassurance. A new rendering shows a sleek design created by a Danish architecture firm. The curvy DeepGreen collector resembles a cross between an Apple computer mouse and a Roomba, in stark contrast to mining machines from rival contractors that roll across the seabed on tank-like treads. Porras says the collector is under construction and testing is expected to begin later this year or early 2022.

“Directing a jet of seawater across the tops of the nodules, the collector gently frees them from sediment and lifts them on compressed air bubbles to a production vessel at the surface,” DeepGreen says on its website.

The reality would likely be far harsher. All marine life on nodules would be killed, says Amon, the biologist. Microbial life in the sediment would also be in peril. “The bacteria are probably one of the most important components of this ecosystem,” she says. “Even if they were able to delicately remove the sediment, that is still where the majority of the animals live and constitute a massive part of the seabed’s biodiversity, including many rare species.”

“This is completely unproven technology,” Amon says. “It seems like science fiction.”

McGavin posted:

No poo poo they're campus Conservatives. Can you imagine becoming a Conservative late in life? Like, you make it to your 40s with a functioning brain and then suddenly realize that you want to make life worse for everyone around you? That's some Captain Planet supervillain poo poo right there.

Madkal posted:

I agree with this and I can see how having stuff like a stable career and kids can lead some to....not reject certain ideals but not support them either. I've seen people who in their 20s were shouting for more housing and safe injection sites turn in NIMBYs because they bought a place or worry that the social housing place is too close to their kids school.

Vintersorg posted:

"People are waking up!" God I hate this stupid loving right wing poo poo.

flakeloaf posted:

We're still good with craft beer chat though right

Arivia posted:

Maybe you could do IK poo poo, since you’re a regular here and already a mod? (cspam but I don’t think anyone here is gonna think you’d be bad in this thread)

enki42 posted:

Immunocompromised people can almost always get vaccinated, it just doesn't do all that much. They generally can't have live virus vaccines, but I don't think any of the COVID vaccines are live virus ones (certainly not anything you can get in Canada).

PT6A posted:

Who cares?

Put a warning label on it, put a gross picture of a fat alcoholic or a diseased liver like they do for cigarette packs, go plain packaging, it will not change anyone's behaviour or affect anyone in any way. We all know that smoking and drinking are addictive and dangerous.

quote:

In 2017, public health researchers and the Yukon government agreed to test cancer warning labels on all alcohol containers in the government-owned liquor store in Whitehorse. But less than a month after the cancer labels were put on, they were taken off under pressure from the alcohol industry.

[...]

However, evidence of the effectiveness of alcohol labels is growing, including the results of the Yukon labelling study. It continues to be cited by researchers and governments around the world because, despite the alcohol industry's intervention, the study found information had an impact on people's behaviour.

Stockwell says even though the cancer labels were only in place for four weeks during the study, people remembered them. Combined with the other labels that remained on alcohol containers for a total of four months, researchers found that by the end of the study alcohol sales dropped by about 7 per cent.

Another key finding, says Stockwell, is that the more people knew, the angrier they got.

Dr. Erin Hobin co-led the study with Stockwell. A senior scientist at Public Health Ontario as well as a collaborating scientist with the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, Hobin says the study's labels were effective because they were well-designed. They were intentionally colourful and used a bold font, which helped make the message clear to consumers.

Hobin says the Yukon study also found that the more aware people were about the risks related with alcohol, the more likely they were to support increases in its price.

"Which generally is not a popular policy among the public or policy makers, but is a policy that is well-established for reducing alcohol harm," Hobin said.

pokeyman posted:

and our governments' indifference and lies. Let's not pretend we're doing a great job and there's any reason to trust the people running this clown show.

In theory we could maintain enough hospital capacity to handle x% of the country remaining fully vulnerable to severe covid. Anti-vaxxers aren't preventing us from having adequate healthcare. What was the tweet I saw the other day, something about how eradicating cholera meant building sewers and water treatment facilities everywhere. Where's our covid infrastructure push?

Like yeah, keep asking the anti-vaxxers in your life when they're gonna get their shots, a lot of them will come around. But as a bloc they're nowhere near our main problem.

eXXon posted:

I do that except it still fogs up glasses if I'm wearing them, just at different rates depending on the mask and how I shape the nose bar. So I would definitely find some kind of fit testing with a variety of masks useful.

quote:

My glasses fog up when I wear the N95. Does this mean that it is not working properly?

Not necessarily, provided that you have been fit-tested and passed on that model, and that you have performed a user seal check immediately after donning the N95. When we breathe out, the inside of the N95 becomes positively pressurized. This means that the pressure inside the N95 will be greater than the surrounding air, and the air from inside will rush out. A large majority will pass directly through the material, but some may go around the outside of the N95.

When you breathe in however, the inside of the N95 becomes negatively pressurized. As a result, the N95 will collapse closer to your face and incoming air is forced to enter through the material.

The air we breathe out is warm and moist, and a small amount can fog up glasses. If you find your glasses tend to fog up, try adjusting them prior to entering an isolation area. You may also find it helpful to put antifog solution on the lenses to prevent them from fogging up.

If you wore your glasses during your fit-test, you probably noticed them fog up at that time as well. If you passed your fit-test, this will have demonstrated that even though they fogged up, the N95 provided sufficient respiratory protection.

https://med-fom-pediatrics.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/04/Respiratory-Protection-Program-FAQ142.pdf

Aoi posted:

I've ordered both my boxes (roughly a year apart) of N95s from bonafidemasks.com. They're super reputable and extremely competent, with the head of the company personally responding to customer concerns and so forth. Located in New York state in the US, so it takes a little longer due to customs, but that's the only downside, and it's a small one.