Our World Is Going Full ‘Black Mirror’
backchannel.com
backchannel.com
What I don't agree with is the targeting of a single ideology. If they are doing this in the name of sanitizing content, fine, but sanitize hate speech from all sides.
That said, my preference would be for them to provide better tools for people to manage content of hate or abuse. Of course then we get the echo chamber effect.
Twitter reserves the right to kick out whomever it feels violates their policy. As a corporate entity, they have that right.
legitimate use of force
Next question.
The purge of SA happened after Hindenburg threatened Hitler with martial law if Hitler didn't reign in SA (though Hitler had his own motives for going along with it - they were a threat to him as well), which were seen as particularly nasty and brutal.
Comparing yourself with the people that other parts of German society at the time literally saw as worse than Hitler is perhaps not quite what to go for when trying to elicit sympathy.
He should at the very least then not complain if people call him a nazi.
Meanwhile, it's not the partisan purge you think it is:
Kevin Allred posted "would conservatives care as much abt the 2nd amendment if guns killed more white people? a question meant to expose double standard" https://twitter.com/KevinAllred/status/798751660340195328
and gets the police coming to him https://twitter.com/KevinAllred/status/798729156557205504 and twitter ordering him to take it down (but not the quote??) https://twitter.com/KevinAllred/status/798925131288641536
EDIT: It seems that the poster above may have left out some important details. According to an alleged screenshot linked below, the tweet actually said: "Will the 2nd amendment be as cool when I buy a gun start shooting at random white people?"
This is not obviously just an abstract political point. It could understandably be interpreted as a direct threat.
Here are the since deleted tweets. I'll let you come to your own conclusions.
(Now we have a truth problem don't we? I could be lying, the guy posting the screenshots could be lying, the original poster could be lying. Turtles all the way down)
I mean, there's some MSM coverage of this which says essentially what I did: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rutgers-professor-psych-...
This is exactly the kind of misinformation bubble that people are talking about. Kevin Allred is clearly misrepresenting his original tweet.
But the left has the ability to get you fired if you question their assertions too much. So their falsehoods are actually more effective
Then again, who'd believe the results? :) Who fact checks the fact checkers?
"But the left has the ability to get you fired if you question their assertions too much."
Would you expand on this?
The latter view is rarely argued in academic circles so I've never seen it rigorously defended. But it is passed off as fact to the general public.
Now I am not able to correct this later group because if I do so, not only will they attack me as racist, but the former group will not defend me. In fact the former group will say "the only reason you would present this fact in isolation is because you want to imply black people are genetically inclined to crime". This would most likely result in disciplinary action in my workplace.
We already have the answer to that question and it is a resounding YES. When the Black Panthers decided to open carry in California in the 70s (I think it was the 70s) conservatives freaked out and passed legislation (led by Reagan I believe) to limit the rights of Californian citizens to open carry.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXpi3F0E5ro
[2] http://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twit...
Unless of course, you voted for him.
I'm just gonna leave this here, he says it better than I could:
Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. I absolutely will not play nice.
I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.
The idea that a free person has the right to self-defense is based in something you are. For some people, banning the ownership of guns is an attack on who they are. This is true for some people who don't currently own guns as much as those who do.
I'd proiritize a little better imo.
Being placed on a registry = bad. - Have you supported or opposed gun registration? - Did you support blocking purchase of guns based on your presence on a no fly list?
If your answer to either of the above two questions is yes, I'd advise you to strongly consider what drove you to that perspective?
If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.
If your answer to those questions was no, then congratulations on logical consistency.
Now, in terms of defeating calls and/or support for such a registry to you think it would be better to dismiss the fears that people have and insult them...or to have a civil discussion with them on why it's a bad idea, the constitutional problems it creates, historical outcomes or how it's virtually unenforceable?
The above video makes the point that dismissing and insulting rather than playing nice and engaging is exactly the problem. You can be against the registry and still have a civil debate. Slinging insults and avoiding the discussion entirely is the problem.
One of my favorite quotes:
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov
So, no, sorry, a registration by ownership ( gun/car/fuzzy pink socks ) isn't the same as a registration by Religion.
This really should be obvious, but for some reason, it isn't.
I really wish I had the answer to that...
The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ).
So, examples.
Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes )
Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc )
Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous...
I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )
Yes, it was. These things do affect other people. Negatively? That's a subjective opinion, but all of these things are unique by case anyways. What do I mean? The fairytales of one person may result in some delusion that affects their family and relatives, and they abandon their social responsibilities to chase the white prince/queen/whatever. Also, one's religion has an affect on one's actions. If your religion says "kill the infidel", then complete adherence to such religion endangers others.
I'm not arguing that people should be registered, but the idea that ideology != affecting people is incorrect.
>> I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.
At least you can admit that. That's more than some people can say. +1
Also, regarding the Asimov quote...I'd challenge you to think nothing is so black and white. If you believe one person is merely ignorant, that the summation of what they've experienced in their own life that created the way they see things is dismissable is worth less than your own...you may want to look a little deeper.
Even somebody cooking meth has a story and a reason that drove them to it. You might not like it. You might not find it justifiable...but it's that person's reality and if you're not willing to understand the perspective of a person you view as ignorant then you are feeding your own.
> You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination.
Where did your interlocutor claim that being on any registry is historically followed by extermination? You're broadening their position to introduce contradictions that don't exist in the original.
It's like claiming that someone who doesn't support one kind of tax because that kind of tax has a history of causing very serious problems and very little benefit must necessarily oppose all taxes. If you want to prove that they should, based on their stated position, oppose all taxes, you'll need to demonstrate that all taxes cause very similar balance of benefits and problems to the one they oppose.
The idea I have seen is that self-defense is a god given right, and fundamental to being a free persion. This seems to be held as much as a philosophical, religious position as anything.
Telling a person who has that belief and thinks of themselves as a good person who doesn't mean harm to others that they can't be trusted not to kill other people, is no different from saying the same thing about a Muslim.
I completely understand why a Muslim registry sounds good to a lot of people. That doesn't make it a good idea.
(For what it's worth, the no-fly-list is an abomination, poorly thought out and poorly implemented.)
It's not like his career was ruined. He was simply the wrong person to lead Mozilla.
It's important to note that the "campaign against gay marriage" was not just about a future ban, but specifically about the annulment of marriages already registered in California. How would you feel about someone who tried to annul your marriage without ever having met you? To me, that explains why people felt so strongly about his actions.
First, he was the CEO at the time of the controversy - a much more symbolically important leadership position than CTO. For many companies, their CEO is the face of the company, which makes any controversy much more damaging.
Second, he contributed money to a political campaign that was socially unacceptable to a large enough group of people that they made an enormous amount of noise about it. As a result, he stepped down (whether willingly or not behind the scenes, it was publically a willing resignation) because, in his words, "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." [1]
Isn't that the way the market is supposed to work? People boycotting Mozilla (i.e. "voting with their feet") led to the corporation responding to its consumers' desires.
What's the relation to a state registry based on religion, again?
Also, there is a difference between tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and tolerance of open attempts to strip others of rights. The political campaign he funded was very much the latter.
--
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
60m people, many in counties that voted for Obama twice... And the left wants to call them all racists and bigots because they weren't as motivated by LGBT and gender issues compared to supporting free speech (fuck safe spaces), avoiding more neocon foreign policy (Syria, Yemen), and blocking free form globalization?
Good luck. There was once a time when democrats led the charge on these issues. WTF happened?
There are legitimately bigoted things that came from Trump supports and arguably Trump himself.
I don't understand this rising hatred towards "safe spaces", but maybe I don't think of them like you do. To me, I see a safe space as something like a home, where someone can relax and be themselves. Every single person should have access to a "safe space".
If your idea of a "safe space" is something different please let me know.
I'm pro-choice BTW, but it isn't a top issue compared to the others. Call me a bigot as much as you want, it won't change my vote.
Ok, then what.
How about in a general case then?
I was a member of a free thinkers group there and we were derided for being open atheists/antitheists on an "inclusive" campus. I think there should be places for open discussion that makes us uncomfortable especially on college campuses.
And while I do find demonizing people and shutting the door to conversation to be morally reprehensible, I find demonizing people and basing policy on such demonization to be worse.
I too hope that we can have conversations about controversial ideas (I hold many of them myself), but I don't think saying eliminating safe spaces is a way to accomplish that.
I completely agree that this is a huge issue, but many Trump supporters seem to fall right into this behavior as well, basically going "if it's not on Breitbart, it can't be true!". In fact, his whole campaign was engineered to convince people that everyone else is lying while only he tells it how it is (while framing his arguments with blatant lies left and right)
If not, then have you considered that your perception might be influenced by mass media and your own echo chamber?
I live in Chicago and worked for the Progressives, so I feel pretty good about my lens. I also don't read any of that alt right garbage.
Edit: I would argue that the tribalism and unwillingness to listen is represented by small, but noisy, factions on both sides and that by and large people voted according to rational concerns. If we can purge those extremes from both our respective parties, we'd be better off and much happier.
Term safe space is being perverted by people who can't cope with feelings caused by reality of every day occasions - they're "triggered" for every thing they feel non happiness.
It's a direct result of being pampered from primary schools on with "everybody is a winner" trope. America is specially obsessed with happiness and if somehow someone is causing icky feelings, these people scream about "safe space" - it's what they've been let all these years anyway.
When a YALE student can't debate with a proper tone with the teacher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ZVEVufWFI
He said a lot of things freely, and a lot of them are interpreted by many as racist or otherwise categorized as bigotry.
I can see the viewpoint that supporting Trump is much more about supporting bigotry than it is about supporting free speech, based on his words and his promises. I have more trouble seeing the viewpoint of the inverse, at this point still.
Boy are you in for a shock when you see his shortlist for SoS.
People mostly choose their candidate and make justifications after the fact. I do believe that the rhetoric of the left probably drove conservative voters away, but that has nothing to do with what "Free Speech" actually refers to and a lot more to do with cultural values, hating the liberal elite for being liberal more than being elite, and a vague sense of "feeling attacked."
But good reasoned discussions will never work on most voters. Facts might make them sheepish for a while if confronted, but they'll soon retreat to news which assuages their confirmation bias. Only large-scale demonstrations and emotional reactions are going to work against that. Make these people feel like they're in the out group, for once.
I believe you are seeking to find offense where there is none.
Except for the odd wealthy white nationalist exception, it's Washington insiders and lobbyists all around.
Seems to me you bought a can of snake oil.
I suppose it is entirely possible I misunderstood the point the guy in the video was trying to make. I certainly didn't mean to come across as offended.
And it continues now, I was just reading someone saying that the choice of Bannon is great because it upset liberals. Apparently that's the only qualification you need to run the government of the world's largest economy and military.
This logic, if liberals hate it it is good, is going to be the ruin of the republic.
Also: remember that Bill Clinton, when he left office, was one of the most liked presidents in history [1]. And, that was even after the impeachment hearings. The mid-late 90s were a very positive period. So, considering those two things together, the Republicans were extremely successful.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
Which that is the standard strategy for running for office. Discredit your opponent. It goes both ways. Clinton tried many approaches (even some shady ones) to try to discredit Trump. She did a number on Bernie with the DNC's help.
Speaking of the discrediting, even Obama did a fantastic job discrediting Hillary. (Despite turning around and endorsing in this last election.)
Take me, for example. I was a big supporter of Clinton in 2012. I even donated to her campaign. But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her.
So, whatever they did, it was very, very effective. It really sapped a lot of supporters motivation, at the very least.
George Lakoff has written some interesting books on the topic of reframing. I recommend reading some of his work. I'm sure that the science has evolved considerably since 2004, when I first read him.
Yes. This is SOP.
> But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her.
Don't take this the wrong way, but to me that sounds like cognitive dissonance. If you believe that it was actually unfactual information, I would suggest researching what influenced you badly and try to identify that next time.
Most of this stuff has remained the same since Robert Caldini wrote about it in his book Influence. It's just the tactics and strategies on how to apply them.
a little unusual since she didn't run for office in 2012
You think too little of Hillary. She broke the glass ceiling on that one and did it nearly all be herself.
It was important details like that that were intentionally left out of the reporting to make her look worse.
Edit: Not that it should matter, but I voted for and contributed to the Sanders campaign. I wanted him to win, but I also believe in facts.
I downvoted you for a very good reason.
Were any of those indicative of corruption?
Using DKIM to "prove" they are real only works if you assume the attacker doesn't have access to the private key. If someone hacked the mail server, then they probably have the private key.
I'm saying it didn't happen, but I'm saying that everyone needs to be a little more critical in their analysis of the "evidence" presented.
You say that "all those emails have been denied by their senders". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Would you mind linking it? I've been following the news rather closely, and I've never heard any sender of a leaked email say something to the effect of "I did not send this". The only thing they say is that they won't comment on veracity.
Also, the Wikileaks organization has never leaked forged documents before and have never lied. The Clintons and their cronies are caught in lies repeatedly. While it's not proof, you have to take things like credibility into account when evaluating who's lying this time.
However, for me, my mind was already made up before any emails were leaked based on the Clintons' previous scandals. If it were proven that the email leaks were entirely fabricated, I would definitely update my opinion of Wikileaks, but my opinion of the Clintons would remain unchanged.
I wanted to limit the scope of my comment to contradicting guelo's specific assertion that "A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals". It's important to me that you (the public) understand why your liberal candidate lost. And it's not to spite liberals; it's because the DNC chose to prop up a very seriously compromised candidate. My hope is that next time they can offer a better alternative, rather than blaming their loss on a how terrible American voters are.
The DNC screwed this up, and I have not heard one word from the Democratic party establishment admitting it. Alternatively, if they refuse to accept responsibility, I'd also be happy with the death of the Democratic party, and maybe something less corrupt could be born in its place.
I voted O in '08 and fully recognize he picked up a big bag of burning shit. Too bad he turned out to be the same as the old bosses and kept their cronies in key positions to wage war on the economy & invigorate armed conflicts around the world.
edit: i predict Trump will have an ineffectual four years and the next group selected to be elected may pander to the common folk a bit better.
I disliked and dislkike Trump. But my mind recoils at the thought that the Clintons' shenanigans will reap them the White House as a reward. The thought of that injustice makes my blood boil. My vote was a blocking move against Clinton.
I don't mean responses like "duh, CNN, Maher, Oliver, etc. say he is so duh", or "duh, he was the editor for Breitbart". I mean actual behavior that you can point to.
These accusations come off as "He plays for the other team, and calling him racist will marginalize and demonize him, so that's what I'll do". Willing to be proven wrong though.
Edit: curious, why downvote this instead of actually providing evidence?
Because this is not the place for this discussion.
I downvoted the comment you replied to as well, for the same reason.
Also, he turned Breitbart into a white ethno-nationalism website.
As for Breitbart, I think the "white ethno-" prefix may be unjustified, at least from what I have seen. It is, however, absolutely nationalist, as in anti-globalist, and pushes an agenda targeted at people who feel their standard of living has been reduced due to trade and immigration policies. The Guardian provided a fairly benign review at [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/19/reading-breitb...
That said, the way I interpreted the CEO statement was that it is symbolic of the depth of penetration of immigrants in the tech labor pool. If that large a percentage of CEOs are immigrants, imagine the numbers from the top to the bottom of the org charts. None of these CEO jobs are going to people straight out of college, they are working their way through the industry.
I've been in this industry for 20 years, at all levels. I haven't seen too many entry level positions that Americans can't be easily trained for, yet there is a nonstop push to massively increase annual H1B limits. At some point, someone has to ask why we can't fill that need with the people we have.
No doubt immigrants would still likely be over-represented at the higher echelons because a person willing to move across the world likely has more drive to get there, but it still seems like we should feel a civic duty to use what we can from home before increasing the numbers coming in.
As for bad people supporting someone, bad people support everyone, so that's not really an argument. People, good or bad (or like most of us, good and bad) want to feel that their concerns are heard. I think most of the people championing Bannon are concerned about their standard of living being reduced over the last 30 years, and feeling that trade and immigration policies have been the largest contributors to that decline. They feel Bannon gives them a voice. I have no doubt that plenty of bad people may also feel that Bannon speaks for them, but that doesn't mean he actually is.
Sure and those are valid concerns. However they are oftentimes framed through a racial lens which Breitbart plays to all the time. To wit, Breitbart continously pushes the "black on black" violence talking point whenever police shootings, police reform, or hell anything related to black people. Like, just look at this article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devasta... - does it ever go into the context of these shootings or try to assess them critically? No, it just parrots statistics and then labels Black Lives Matter protesters as "blood-lusting junkies"
Breitbart also continuously uses "racial statistics" and relies on the work of cranks http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/alt-right-r...
>Bannon didn’t just make Breitbart a safe space for white supremacists; he’s also welcomed a scholar blacklisted from the mainstream conservative movement for arguing there’s a connection between race and IQ. Breitbart frequently highlights the work of Jason Richwine, who resigned from the conservative Heritage Foundation when news broke that his Harvard dissertation argued in part that Hispanics have lower IQs than non-Hispanic whites.
>As for bad people supporting someone, bad people support everyone, so that's not really an argument
When high profile American nazis say that this is a good decision and will push Trump in the right direction, I tend to get worried. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-ameri...
I see your point, though, in that it would be sort of like having Farrakhan's press secretary or speech writer being appointed as chief strategist for Obama. The right would go apeshit.
P.S. The state I voted in was close.
Again: I'm not saying you should have voted for Clinton. I agree that the anti-democratic strategies of the "Democratic" Party deserve punishment. I'm saying you could have voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, who would have been, at least, not a fascist.
Edit: Just to avoid confusion, by this I mean that though I would have been happier with Johnson or Stein in the White House, realistically either Clinton or Trump would win. Not voting for Clinton would have been good, but voting for Trump is a better way to ensure Clinton doesn't win, which was my primary drive.
We disagree on this point. I believe that Clinton is the most corrupt politician the US has ever seen.
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to when you talk about Trump's corruption, but if you're referring to his buying and bribing of politicians, I don't consider that corruption. It's wrong and illegal, sure, but the private citizen bribing politicians is not betraying the trust of the electorate in the same way that the politician is.
(Seemingly similarly, I go against the societal grain in that I don't think that people who sleep with married people are doing anything wrong; they're not the one who made the commitment.)
All of you who are raging against the censorship and unfair power of the PC and SJW movement have an absolutely legitimate complaint. I too have been prejudged and attacked by SJWs who made incorrect assumptions about me based solely on my skin color and gender. THAT SAID, do you realize what you've done by voting into power an authoritarian reality TV star with a history of chronic bankruptcy, loose business ethics (habitually stiffing contractors), and erratic behavior?
I'm sure you're satisfied that the SJWs are suffering now, but have you internalized the gravity of having Donald Trump in an executive office that has grown immensely powerful after the Bush and Obama administrations and 9/11?
Best case scenario is that Trump does a Nixon and uses our security apparatus to crack down on his enemies, such as the media and "traitor" Republicans. I think this is very likely. Worst case, and I say this honestly and with good faith: I can only hope we'll get to the end of these 4 years without seeing Russia occupy one or more of the Baltic republics and/or significant parts of Europe fall to far-right authoritarian/strongman parties, probably accompanied by significant violence.
What would happen then? Are you all prepared to fight in WW III just to spite a bunch of whiny college kids?
You all assume that everyone who opposes Trump is a "lib" or "SJW" or "Democrat". I don't give a rat's ass about any of those. The end of political correctness and social justice crusading would delight me, and I'd be very happy to see both major parties dissolve and a genuine multiparty system spring up in their place (yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen).
Finally, if you're a libertarian and voted for Trump, and you thought the Bush and Obama admins were bad (and they were!), just wait. Things are going to get crazy now. Any President-elect who is Tweeting 3 a.m. rants at a specific newspaper is not going to be a president who respects the 1st Amendment (and for the record, I'm a strong supporter all all the amendments, including the 2nd). Go look at what his base has been calling for on Breibart and r/The_Donald: shutting down unfavorable media outlets, hanging Soros (a US Citizen!) for treason without trial. Seriously, go check out r/The_Donald and tell me what kind of vibe you get.
How are they going to round up 3 million illegals? Random ID checks? Profiling?
I think a lot of people voted out of frustration (understandable), but gave the extraordinary power of the US Presidency to quite possibly a more unstable personality than Nixon (not understandable, and totally irrational).
Good luck to us all.
If this is about to happen, is only going to be as a reaction to the leftist policy in recent years - similar of Trump/Brexit. Merkel is probably next.
Can't we encourage people to react toward freedom and liberty? Toward less government control over our lives, and not toward some authoritarian charismatic who promises to save us all? I agree things have sucked for lots of Europeans, but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face, eh?
I still want to watch Black Mirror at some point; I'm lucky that I have a terrible memory for spoilers ;)
It was eerie to watch a video about Klout score : https://klout.com/corp/score
The guy mentioned how people with high Klout scores would get free upgrades, etc.
Not everyone is "reeling" from the presidential election and choosing now to look at the parallels because of it is, well, a bit myopic considering this things have been taking place for so long that suddenly they just realized there were a ton of parallels between the show and reality?
Jared Kushner's dad was jailed by Chris Christie...[1]
But sure, go on about that not paying attention part...
Unfortunatelly for the USA, what now passes for the left do support economic policies that would have been considered "hard right" merely 50 years ago. Instead, they have devoted themselves to the task of policing other people's moral opinions.
When no respectable politician will hear the pledge of the downtrodden, anyone can pick up the mantle and wipe out any and all opposition.
"Hi, my name is Donald Trump. Nice to meet you!"
I find it pretty shallow as well. People compare it to the Twilight Zone all the time and I really can't see it. Black Mirror isn't really as deep and it deals with the issues it tries to examine pretty poorly.
Oh wait, it's a terrible show that isn't accurate in any way.
[EDIT] for the record: I'm not among the downvoters.
BTW, never seen he show, came here to get some edification. What I got is more one-sided equality for all who agree and a lot of people who see the future b/c the media told them which portents are truer than others.
edit: he or she.
edit 2: manfromuranus's(lulz) opinion provoked posts of disagreement and what alternatives are available. Again, a meaningful discussion with substance.
manfromuranus provoking meaningful discussion does not make that post worthy. If I post trolling nonsense and someone calls me out with an informative post, I somehow don't deserve downvotes? That's some ends justify the means logic there.
As for MFU's post, yeah, I cannot defend it in itself. It is solely his opinion that was not supported in any meaningful way.
While I kind of agree with your ham-fisted comment, I'm going to disagree with your statement quoted above. The article does link similar technologies that show how this is happening. It shows direct similarities between the show, and real-life products and systems that either exist, or are looking to exist in the near future.