Stop Telling Everyone What You Do for a Living
wsj.com
wsj.com
But of course the conversation doesn't have to specifically be about either job through progression.
But only if you know the person well enough to have the context of it. What a person's job says about them is very different, for example, if they love their job vs hating their job.
Anyway, I feel largely the same about work. I love talking about what I do, but not with people who aren't listening and who are just asking to form an opinion of my social status. So 9 times out of 10 I just sort of mumble something and talk about something else, just like in grad school.
Every once in a while you get the hyper-interested person who asks a ton of follow-ups but they’re at least usually actually listening.
Of people I know, the most niche I can think of is doing work with programming mitochondrial DNA and my answer for her job would simply be "I'm a scientist studying cells for <insert-medical-company>."
But this is fine, no? If it helps start a more enjoyable discussion afterwards. When you don't know the ones you are speaking with at all.
Though I indeed avoid focusing on work when starting a conversation. I usually try to phrase the question as "What do you do in your life?", which is more general and allows answering hobbies. I'm more interested in what people like than what they are possibly forced to do to fund it, or their opinions. Usually people will answer their what they do for a living but they will get another, more explicit question. I'm interested in knowing whether they will indeed answer by what they do for a living though.
And if they do something meaningful or enjoying for their living, it's actually interesting.
Asking these is always intrusive, you might not think so if you are fully comfortable talking about what you do or where you're from etc, but that's not all people.
it's a discussion starter. The point is to start the discussion. It often works.
> Asking these is always intrusive, you might not think so if you are fully comfortable talking about what you do or where you're from etc, but that's not all people.
Ok, that's another argument than "it's lazy". I can see it, especially when people are unemployed, they often feel ashamed.
On the other hand, isn't it a risk with any personal question? Aren't people used to handle these questions anyway?
(I otherwise agree that asking about the job is not the best thing to do anyway)
Anything can be a discussion starter, even "weather is nice", and a lot of it is less privileged/entitled/profiling/inquisitive sounding.
Actually, "what do you do" is as often a non-starter for me if the person tells me about something I am not interested in and it sucks to have to feign interest. It's much better to ask something pertaining to a shared interest. If you actually pay attention you may notice things around the person that reflect their interests, ask about that.
> On the other hand, isn't it a risk with any personal question?
Nah, only those that concern social status, something you cannot change about yourself (origin) or something that could put you in danger (where you live). In a casual setting I don't see any point of those questions except to assert oneself. If you don't expect it you would be uncomfortable but would have to suck it up and reply or be confrontational and reveal insecurity. Sure sometimes it's fun to think of creative ways of answering this questions without answering them but who are you to put me on the spot to do it in real time while watching me? We are all just trying to have a good time.
I can't hold conversations about drinking in a pub discussing girls for very long. They seem insignificant.
However I did make lifelong friends by accidentally talking about Europe's energy policy, satellites and also the MySpace effect on youth.
Sizing social status is painful - I totally agree but when people are genuinely interested in going into depth of topics which highly resonate it produces an amazing effect.
Over the last decade or so, I've found that I'm asked this question far lass than I used to be. I don't know if the times have changed, or if it's that I'm older and so generally am meeting older people now.
Either way, I welcome this change.
They generally do, but when you drop something like "I'm a research chemist" on them, they freeze up. In most jobs, there's a certain commonality of experiences. Oh, tell me about your craziest customer stories, or the worst meeting you ever flew across the country for, or whatever. When you have a job that doesn't fall into an "office work" category... that isn't going to work out. Since most people aren't great or even good conversationalists, they're going to fire off a lame joke and hope it's not a total disaster.
I'm an anesthesiologist. If I never hear another family member say "you're going to need a really big hammer to knock him/her out", I'll join the church of whatever god made that happen. In purely social situations, though, I know it's a conversation-killer, because most doctors don't know much about what I do, let alone laymen. So I have a small repertoire of ways to redirect the conversation back to "let's get to know each other a bit" topics. I think anyone in an unusual (but not, on its face, fascinating) job does.
This seems like something you could work on instead of implying it's other people's fault for asking you about a topic that they don't know they aren't interested in yet.
If you have a punchy 20 second description, and then ask what they do, you'll have pivoted away unless they want to bring it back.
Though when doing a PhD, it's a worthy goal to be able do give a quick description. It also forces you to think about the goal / meaning of your work. Some topics are more easily summarized, but still.
We do science for people, it's only fair to be able to present them your work more or less roughly.
I had something for people not into computers, like: "I work on a method to find and understand computer bugs quicker and better." (Familiar with bugs? you don't like them? So you know it's useful!)
And then I could develop for the curious.
"Programs are written with code that tells the computer what to do, step by step. Like a cooking recipe. There are tools to see programs do things step by step so you can notice some step is wrong. On big programs this gets tedious. My approach helps starting this step by step investigation closer to the problematic step."
If still curious: "How? There's another method that looks at the step that looks at these steps and check they are correct with respect to some given rule. For instance, if you have a bag of objects, no step should try to remove an object if the bag is empty. This technique usually tells you something is wrong but does not tell you why it happen. I combine the first method with the second one: when some rule is broken, you are left exploring the program step by step at the point the rule broke, which is way better than doing it from the beginning". And go further / present the caveats if I feel whoever is listening is still curious.
For the people who already actually interacted with some code, I would also drop the technical words that are probably familiar to them. If you don't know whether they already actually know some stuff, they usually say the technical words themselves, to clarify.
For people who asked politely, they would receive the one sentence summary but often they want to know more if you piqued their curiosity. I had something like a progressive image of the thing that gets more and more precise to stop at the right time.
By the way you probably started skipping paragraphs in my comment at the point yours was satisfied. I made several paragraphs to allow you to do so.
Also (aiming for helpfulness not pedantry),
> "if you peaked their curiosity"
you meant "piqued", a homophone (different word w/ same pronunciation).
I edited and fixed my comment.
Well, gladly!
I worked on combining Interactive Debugging with Runtime Verification (and we called it Interactive Runtime Verification). Interactive debugging is the usual step by step debugging you know, offered by your standard IDE or debugger like GDB.
Runtime Verification evaluates properties from a stream of events, the program execution being usually seen as a sequence of events (there are ways to represent concurrency / parallel executions too, a bit more complicated than a mere sequence in this case).
GDB offers a comprehensive Python interface [1] that lets you add breakpoints, watchpoints and catchpoints to inspect what's going on during the execution, and you decide whether to suspend the execution on conditions you evaluate. In our cases, the conditions are the runtime verification properties. See this like conditional breakpoints on steroids.
For instance, take a program that manipulates a queue. One property you don't want to break is "the program never remove an element from an empty list". Another one is "the program never pushes elements to an already full list". To evaluate these properties, you describe the property in terms of parameterized calls to functions new_list(n), push() and pop(). In a C program, the calls could "succeed", the execution continues but with a memory corruption. Which could be hard to detect. So instead, you have this runtime verification stop the execution for you at the point where the bug happens, instead of the likely crash.
So we implemented this idea, with features like checkpointing (thanks to the (limited) native experimental GDB checkpointing feature, or CRIU (Checkpoint and Restore in Userspace - the thing behind Docker container checkpointing and migration) [2], which does this very well) as a Python extension to GDB. This implementation theoretically supported any language supported by GDB, including C and C++.
Building on this implementation, we made a second version that supported distributed programs, and also supported Java programs. The debugging capabilities of the JVM are awesome / endless.
These implementations allowed benchmarking. Unfortunately, we focused on benchmarking the performance of the instrumentation, but what would have been very useful is to validate the method itself with human studies. This PhD should have been at the edge between computer science and human studies. It's not. Instead, it's very theoretical, with some formalism trying to define an interactively verified execution, and doing proofs that the instrumentation does not affect the execution.
Sounds amazing? What's the catch? Finding actual properties that relate to day to day bugs is hard. When developing a program, specifications are not given as LTL properties by the client, it's more like "I need this, be creative", and it's team work, and more often than not bugs are created by misunderstandings, moving targets, not having the full context when making changes, unforeseen interaction between more or less complex, more or less supposedly unrelated stuff, etc. Those can probably be seen as formal property violations but that's probably a bit far fetched. I guess a bunch of researchers loving formalism or performance evaluation having no clue about software development were not going to go very far in this. Still, it's a topic probably worth researching nonetheless.
See:
- the git repository of the implementation (it's free software) [3]
- the first "serious" paper presenting the idea [4]
- the PhD manuscript if you like verbosity. It's also the only place where we speak about the distributed version, I could not manage to publish this part [5]
[1] https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb.html/Pytho...
[3] https://gitlab.inria.fr/monitoring/verde
I could see how a conversation could go very sideways if you're responding to "oh what do you research?" with details that are "in the weeds."
This reminds me of a time when I asked someone where they lived and they started giving me detailed directions to their house. The context of the conversation and our relationship made me expect a town name or maybe neighborhood. The unexpected over-sharing made me get really uncomfortable and I thought of a reason to end the conversation immediately.
I enjoy talking shop a great deal -- but I absolutely hate it when I've been going on about something that has caught my fancy and then notice that I've been boring the person I'm talking to to tears.
So I mostly don't talk about my work unless I'm just with other software people.
What I find especially annoying is that the fact that 'what do you do' is being asked by someone else - so it follows that if they were not interested in that topic, they would ask another question. Which means it's not the social responsibility of the person answering.
But wait, also, there's nothing cringey about someone having a hard time relaxing and talking more broadly. Everyone has a hard time in SOME social setting, and its not a big deal. This article reads like a designer clothes ad - making you feel bad to make you buy (or do) something.
Now I'm done whining, I think a much more constructive framing would be a title/topic like "Asking what people do for work isn't always best. Here are some alternative icebreakers". Or "Fit the mood - making smalltalk without work". That would have been a much better article.
I had a good friend with whom I mostly kept in touch over the phone and online for many years, and I didn't know their name until they died and I got a call from their relatives. I still don't know what their profession was.
Just connect and engage with people, and have fun. It's a lot easier to make friends when you drop these arbitrary filters of age, profession, place of origin, gender, and so on. And in some ways, in the time I've spent not trying to get those details anymore, they have become irrelevant to me.
I absolutely agree btw, people are more than just their job. And most hate, or are disinterested, in their work. I’m interested them _them_, not their occupation.
But it’s no secret that many, especially here, make their occupation a fundamental aspect of themselves.
Every class together, bike trails, considerable conversation.
Never came up, neither of us thought to ask. We laugh about it now. We both are better at it now, but it is probably a great example of social inept people finding one another and being just fine.
It's one thing to advise people what to avoid, and a completely different thing to give ideas what they could talk about to break the ice instead.
Otherwise it's like: "So, do you like coffee?" "No." "Ah. ... [tumbleweed] ... so, what do you do for a living?"
To those that dont - you are truly the people I actually want to have a conversation with.
Maybe it's because I'm not 16 years old, or maybe it's because I don't frequent night clubs in hot metropolitan areas anymore, but that strikes me as very odd that most of the people you end up talking with bring up those two subjects.
> 16 years old
Back then they asked what your parents did for a living
I always find interesting how people try to tell how their jobs are interesting but in the end we all know it is boring as hell.
It's amazing how we are willing to do shit stuff so we can be able to pay our bills.
My dad is too lazy for work and I don't even know what job my mom did for a living before she retired. I mean, I knew the company she worked for, and that it was an office, but I don't know her job title or responsibilities. Why would I? Who the fuck talks to their kids about their work?
No one I ever knew asked or cared about those types of questions.
- what do you do?
- where do you live?
- are you married?
- have any kids?
They're asking about your money and your sex life.
If a stranger asks you “are you married and do you have kids?” and you respond by telling them about your sex life, they will end the conversation with you.
How, exactly, is asking what your salary is not asking what your salary is?
This is probably the segue I hate the most and consider a deal breaker for any future interaction. A lot of people DO ask directly how much money do you make.
Are you talking about romantic partners?
Given how commonplace virtual "meet"ings are these days, I rather like the idea of a new homophonic homonym for in person "meat"ings.
(Yes.)
Haven't asked anybody an open-ended "So what do you do" in the five years since, and it feels refreshing.
What do they talk about instead?
"What do you do" or even "what do you do for fun" tends to be a leading question because you want to talk about yourself, what you do, what you like or understand what you can get out of it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being at a conference, say, where we're all somewhat defined by a subject or interest and someone asks what you do. It's just very dull when it feels like they're aching for you to finish so they can explain how great they are. Or they're immediately angling for the opportunity to pitch to you, or make money from you, or tell you how further ahead in life they are.
IMO, by all means lead with a question about someone's work. But take a genuine interest in their job and their life. Ask questions. See if you can go for ten minutes without mentioning yourself. If they're not a fan of their role and you're genuinely taking an interest in them, it's incredibly easy to pivot into "what do you do when you're not studying gorillas in the Congo?!"
"Oh, you're in gambling industry? You build online gambling websites? What makes you passionate about it? What are your values that led you down to this path? Oh, just that the pay is good? Okay man, I can totally see that, yeah..."
I have yet to meet a bland accountant.
They are also rather valuable contacts, since other people tend to owe them for solving their little crisis couple years back and such.
Much like software I suppose - there's not much to say about yet another simple CRUD app with nothing more to it.
If I met an accountant I’d ask them if they saw the Monty Python skit [1] or Accountant humor, or any number of things. I am too curious about everything to skip this question.
So for them, telling about their jobs is kinda meaningless. There's a million other things you can say about yourself that would tell me a lot more about you than the job you do.
I feel like it’s everything but the title. That always sounds so weird. Your job isn’t director or whatever, it’s doing things. And even if you’re signalling, there have to be better ways of getting across you’re a neophyte or a big shot.
While I agree with the sentiment of this article, I strongly disagree that no one cares. As a curious person, I often have a ton of questions about someone's occupation. For me, it is fun to hear people talk about their job.
I just don't like asking about occupation early-on in the conversation because it sometimes feel like socially categorizing people.
Even if the job doesn't have a technical angle that interests you, you can always talk about the human aspect of things: frustration with their management / the funny things that happened to them / stories they heard from their customers / something in their job they are passionate about / how they feel about their job / the things they have learnt while working in their domain.
I think I am using those conversations to try to imagine what my life might have been if software engineer didn't exist. It is pretty much the only thing I was really good at. I am insecure about how much harder my life might have been without it.
As another comment said - in Europe it's not that common to ask what people work with. It's definitely not the first thing people ask. It comes much later, if at all. Fortunately. I got so fed up of trying to explain what I did that I started to reply "I'm a carpenter", if anyone asked.
Strip down any technical aspect of your daily job to figure out its actual social function. It has one. Whatever it is it'll help you figure out how telling what's your job to people, and even maybe to yourself.
On the other hand, if someone tells me they work in marketing I instantly know that they are completely untrustworthy and only value enriching themselves at huge cost to society.
On the gripping hand, I don't really like meeting new people anyway, largely because of tedious bullshit conversational maneuvering wherein someone is trying to suss out how best to sell me something, get something from me, or if I'm open to participating in their echo chamber bullshit.
Then we can decide whether we are above or below the other person in the status hierarchy, which is roughly as follows:
- Architect
- Artist/Designer/Creative
- Lawyer/Doctor/Teacher
- Executive/Manager
- ...
- ...
- Bar staff
- Engineer
- Software Engineer
- Waiter
- Driver
- CleanerI think this is a highly subjective list.
Very much so! More than is possible to describe here. Of course I mean real architects - of buildings and so forth.
The occupation of the participants is an interesting angle. I wonder if it has been studied at any length.
And also perhaps with good reason, as an architect you are keeper of the magic and mystery of the 'queen of the arts', whereas as an engineer you are just there to fix the tv/computer/iphone/whatever. As an architect you are part of polite conversation about what the world is/was/could be, whereas as an engineer you would not even get an invite. As an architect your life is (supposedly) parties and beautiful people, as an engineer board game nights and trappist beer (steady now!).
Of course the tech boom has upended things somewhat, but, in the the UK at least, we have been managing to keep a lid on that particular nonsense.
I find it interesting because it reveals so much about a society (and why the UK simply couldn't grow a real tech sector). Here in America some sneer at the terms architects or engineer being used to refer to people in tech, but nobody would consider computers and iPhones to be beneath buildings. Then again, it was all engineered right here; an All American creation.
Doctor
Lawyer
Software Engineer (if you mean "Computer Systems Analysts and Scientists")
Teacher (Postsecondary school)
Architect
Engineer
Executive
Teacher (Elementary or Secondary Scool)
Software Engineer (if you mean "Computer Programmers")
Teacher (Kindergarten)
Manager
Designer
Artist
Driver
Waiter
Bartender
Cleaner
Which gives a clue why you should never call yourself a computer programmer.
Furthermore, it is one of the last professions to resist gender re-balancing, so social events etc are going to be somewhat barren.
- Artist/Designer/CreativeI've always found it difficult to talk about, e.g. food. "Isn't this food great?" "Yeah, it's delicious"! Similarly with the weather, or any other conversation where you're basically just repeating what's obvious to both of you.
Of course some people prefer it this way, and genuinely enjoy small talk -- they don't feel a need to be talking "about something". Far be it from me to piss on their parade. But if you don't understand this need, consider yourself lucky.
* Damn, she made these biscuits big as hell. Love these biscuits.
* Not sure what 36 is doing on the sideline like that.
* Hey man, that hat looks baller.
* Yeah, last weekend I saw a dude in stilts
To me, that is not small talk. It's nothing: it's filler sounds made to break silence.
Small talk would be: "what did you think of the food? I've never had potatoes cooked that way before."
Give the other person something to go on, at least.
> [T]he question is extremely open-ended. The answer could be a book, a movie, a relationship, a class, a job, a hobby, etc.
Notice how “job” is in there. You can still give a non personal answer if you wish.
So if you want to get deep into a conversation with someone about what they've really been thinking about lately, it's not going to happen as a repones to this conversation starter. At best, I think this kind of conversation starter is so open-ended, it's on par with "what's up?"
"What have you been thinking about lately?"
"Eh. Not much, you?"
I’m in the “introduces himself by his field, leaving out his title and firm name” camp. When possible, I leave out the field too.
If I keep it to the broad job function that layfolks will understand, the topic usually quickly shifts to the next thing if it doesn't strike a chord with the other party. And that's cool. It's all just small talk jumpoffs until something both clicks for the two people in the convo.
Personally I think waste management is one of the coolest things to do. Everyone generates waste, and it is fwcking so much up for us.
An old Indian word for a sweeper (lowest caste sweeping roads with a broom) is Mahader - meaning ’the Greatest’.
I’ve done work at waste water treatment facilities, land fills, incinerators, to name a few horrible places; and as terrible the surroundings may be, it grants a special self esteem, wealth and ‘ordinary’ status will never fully give you.
I'm Danish, so it was not until I started discussing plans for moving to one of the coasts that I realized that I should expect another life there.
"So what do you do?"
1 - "I work for the fire brigade, in the technical bit, I'm not a firefighter. It's good fun though, you get to go and play in the fire station every day!"
2 - "I work on communications equipment for the fire brigade, all the radios, phones, networking stuff, that kind of thing"
3 - "I look after all the paging, radios, phones, networking, control rooms and anything else with a network connection for the third biggest Fire and Rescue Service in the world. It's pretty involved, with a lot of responsibility."
Be a little careful with this one. I asked a similarly worded question at an event over Easter got the answer "Burying my husband."
Thankfully the lady was good natured about it and we managed to pull the conversation around, but for a minute or two I thought I'd stepped on a landmine.
I think in future I might lead with, "what do you enjoy doing?"
I always make a point of never asking people what they do for the same reason. Indeed there are people I have now known for years and I have no idea what they do for a living.
At previous employers I was more specific about what I do for a living: walk around a park, go to phone meetings, stare out a window. In those cases I generally only wrote software as a personal hobby.
The conversation ends up a lot less awkward than going off script after talking about what you do for a living.
However I know some people with whom this opener would really light a spark.
Also, as someone who is in the dating market - it’s one of the first questions I ask because outside of physical attraction, how much money they make is the easiest dealbreaker to filter on. If they’re not even remotely close in my socioeconomic bracket - there’s no point in pursuing anything romantic and I’ll make sure to push the interaction into a more friendly area when that comes up.
I’m a man btw. Money matters when you’re buying $3m homes.
I don't want to hear about office politics, but I want to hear about your suppliers and customers, how do you decide what to sell, what to buy vs build, what weird regulations or norms exist in your industry, who are the experts in your industry and how did they become experts.
The productive part of our days are at least as interesting as the leisure parts.
The crowds don't want to be enlightened, they want to be entertained.
5 years after my mom had a stroke, he moved out and served her papers while she was visiting her dying mother. Shortly after and during the pandemic, his mother was dying and he stole roughly $1m USD from his family. I blame myself for not being more suspicious of him and allowing my mom to rush into retirement and cohabitation out of the area.
---
I'm also annoyed by the assumption that I must work for someone other than myself: it's orthodoxy of the meek who play it safe while handing piles of treasure over to others.
Outside of work, who really wants to be reminded of or talk about it? It's one of the problems of attempting to socialize with coworkers: they can't leave the office at the office. When I'm not working, I don't want homework.
---
PS: Never get involved with investors, cofounders, or spouses you don't completely trust and know for years. It's marriage. Keep liabilities away at arm's reach at least.
There's no way of knowing for sure that your question will be one the other party wants to answer so it's always going to be some kind of stab in the dark and you just have to interpret the reply and move the conversation on to other more neutral things (in the UK weather is one) until you find something they like talking about. You encourage them to talk about that a bit and talk a bit yourself.
The main thing is not to persist with a subject that they dismiss - or any subject about yourself too long. Then let other people into the conversation.
If you go into a conversation with someone and you have any prejudicial reaction to their looks or what they say then you'll probably mirror it. If you make yourself internally respect them regardless of what they do or look like (or earn) then it will show in your words. Disrespect will show and screw it all up.
If they can't appreciate my job, I will simply did into their so deep that by the end of the conversation, I have rough idea of what function does their job perform and where are the pain points for them.
I usually weave in some personal job-related stories for them to relate to my job a little bit better. Usually they are left stumped, because nobody ever digs and then gets them. Especially not an Aspie programmer.
It's also easy to find some of their efforts you appreciate and then compliment them on those.
I think it's better to state the field you're in rather than your job title. For example, if you work for a bank, say "finance".
Secondly, when i tell people that i am a technologist, it almost feels like one of those groupings of jobs like "doctor", "architect", "lawyer", etc. Sure, maybe that's more for my ego, but who cares. ;-)
It involves stating the type of position someone has, the tier company someone works at, which somehow demonstrates the persons value = (position * tier). Then because this is the norm people this is how people befriend each other, or how they attract love interests.
I'd just chalk it up to human nature.
(which, BTW, is training neutral networks to predict float numbers)
I always thought it's a great question to ask because if someone is doing something for 8 hours a day, I'd assume (or hope?) that they'll at least enjoy parts of it. Or else they would have switched jobs a long time ago - or so I thought.
I've got close friends I've known for 20 years and I don't really know what they do for a living except for a vague idea of the field they're in. I don't care, since that doesn't define who they are.
I'm 100% positive, through first hand experience, that both Indian and Chinese society put a heavy emphasis on the type of work one does. To the point where marriage may simply be out of the question for an individual if they don't hold a good enough job.
Or maybe, instead of trying to immediately show off next time one meets some new possibly interesting person, one could just listen first. And punctuate its own silences with smiles, and kind gestures.
I don't talk about work--theirs or mine--with my neighbors, yet curiously I know what an awful lot of the adults on my block do for a living.
If that's work for you, that's work for you. It's not for everyone.
If you're not proud of what you do for most of the time - I'm sorry. That sounds like a really horrific, genuinely awful place to be in.
Anything is better than talking about my job at MIT studying the black hole physics of advanced NLP models tasked with designing CRISPR experiments for enhancing woolly mammoth meat.
I also collect rare trinkets and enjoy seeing the sights of different places.
I come for news, not to be preached AT.
The news has this authoritative Father-like tone lately. It's unearned and patronizing.
A journalist is not filling in part time for a Bishop.
Only insufferable humans cares about your title or the company you work for.
[1] I tried, it's hard.
It sounds like you are over generalising from a limited set of experiences.
> reflect on why it's so hard to come up with something alternative
Same with this one. I for one find it easy to talk about things other than my work, but also find it that people enjoy when I tell them about my field and have a ton of questions.
The key is to live an interesting life and be a good story teller. These are both things which can be improved on step by step if that is your desire.
Definitely not, having a job where your values can shine is not the norm. And I don't know what your field is but most jobs, especially in the software development space are nothing to write home about or worthy of discussion with people outside the software bubble.
As always, individual experiences could sometimes deviate from the norm but that doesn't change the fact that most jobs are of little interest to other people. And reflect negatively on one's character when used to project status, like a lot of people do.
I don't use it very often, but when I do I always get a great response.