Bill Gates takes part in Reddit's Secret Santa
redditgifts.com
redditgifts.com
This is also quite assuredly one of the best ways he could have possibly advertised for Heifer International.
So, yeah, he's a regular dude in a lot of ways. He's also still a ruthless billionaire who created a company that was known for crushing its competitors.
People are complicated, and just because he can be nice doesn't mean that he's not other things too.
In the 90s he was widely seen as the face of the evil empire of Microsoft by the technorati, completely cutthroat and unfairly crushing anyone that stood in his way.
But over the past decade, he's arguably been one of the single greatest contributors to good in the world. He's been a staunch and consistent advocate for the overall betterment of humanity. He's put his wealth and influence to use in beneficial, high-impact ways. He's directed his ruthlessness away from business and toward hunger, poverty, and disease. And it's making a very real difference in the lives of people around the world.
He's gone from somebody I viewed as a reviled caricature of a man to one I can't help but profoundly respect.
Yeah, people are complicated. In the Mr. Gates' case, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+jobs+yacht https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+jobs+plane
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Steve-Jobs-historic-Wo...
There's no need to get ageist with your buildings. Yes, Europe has old buildings. That doesn't detract from the fact that buildings in North America, even if they're fewer than 100 years old, can be considered "historic".
Though I am well aware of family residences to which I've some association on other continents approaching 500 years in age.
History and longevity are also not universally revered: in Japan the tradition is to destroy and rebuild temples frequently (every 20 years in the case of the shrines at Naikū and Gekū).
Jobs was a right bastard. Ask anyone who worked with him.
In person, however, Steve Jobs was apparently a tremendous jerk (he often parked in handicapped spots, to name just one small but telling example), whereas Bill Gates seems to be a pretty decent fellow.
Had Apple had the marketshare of Microsoft, I'm sure they were just as Evil, if not more.
There's a reason the FSF blacklisted Apple, but not Microsoft, for many years.
Mary Gates -- She's Much More Than Just The Mother Of Billionaire Bill; This Former UW Regent Has Made A Career Of Community Service http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...
Not saying other philanthropists had no influence, but the idea of giving back was part of Bill's (privileged) background from birth....
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation#Criticism
That's not saying that they may not be fair and relevant criticisms (but also not saying that they are - there's certainly pettiness in there). Nobody and no organisation is perfect, not by a long shot, and the inability to raise concerns at all with such a large operation would be a total failure of imagination.
http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-dodges-questions-on-why-h...
Monsanto might be evil but it appears that Mr. Gates believes allowing people to die from starvation is a greater evil.
If there's one company that is pure evil, it is this one.
As a plant scientist who has studied the history of agriculture, I can tell you that since the 1950s, farmers have freely chosen to purchase seed every year from suppliers. This was initially because hybrids became the best-yielding varieties, and hybrids only keep their best characteristics for one generation ("hybrid vigour"). Now it's because licensing requires it to fund the massive R&D spend that improving crop productivity requires. For the vast majority of farmers, it makes economic sense to buy every year. It's not a trap, and they aren't idiots being fooled by "big ag".
Monsanto have done some evil things in the past when they were a different company. Now they're a pretty decent company with a terrible PR problem.
That, and GMO as a concept is absurdly demonized. Like everything else, it needs to be done carefully and with suitable oversight, but people act like genetic engineering means "putting poison in it." As the population keeps rising and arable land keeps disappearing, we're gonna need GMO crops to keep large parts of the world from starvation.
Well, but isn't that pretty much it, in the form of pesticides? Does Monsanto do GMO that is not just roundup-readiness?
And pesticides aren't exactly an optional luxury, either. People can die if an entire region's crop is eaten by locusts or aphids or caterpillars or whatever.
The first, Bt crops, have the gene for a Cry protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted so that they are toxic to the larvae of lepidoptera (moths and butterflies). The Cry protein works by aggregating into crystals in the lepidopteran larval digestive tract which then pierce the lining of the midgut, killing the larva. It doesn't affect any other animals, including us, because the crystallisation requires strong alkalinity and the presence of certain bacteria that are unique to the lepidopteran larval midgut. Bacillus thuringiensis is also widely used in organic certified agriculture. So no, this isn't poison.
The second are glyphosate resistant plants. These have a bacterial form of the ESPS gene inserted that doesn't get inhibited by glyphosate. We ingest many different forms of the ESPS gene every day - it's in basically every organism - and it's harmless. Glyphosate is one of the most harmless pesticides ever invented, which is precisely why resistance is desirable. Using glyphosate means we don't have to use the much more harmful pesticides we used to use. So no, this isn't poison.
In summary: no, it's not poison.
Regardless of how people feel, the need to use toxic pesticides and insecticides are a huge problem in agriculture and Roundup-ready and Bt crops tackle those problems.
Next-generation GM crops will be much more geared towards disease and salt/drought stress resistance.
Diversion: Well, ultimately you can't win, every significant investment diverts from other things, but his endgame is to eliminate these diseases. Then the diversion will stop. It's worth bearing in mind that malaria wasn't nearly as high profile before Bill started attacking it.
Education: An awful lot of improvements to education are criticised for undermining public education. IMHO, public education needs undermining. (If you have no idea why I'd say that, I'm guessing you a) haven't got a child in a failing state school and b) haven't seen Season 4 of The Wire)
Grantee Communication: Looks like they agreed with the criticism and addressed it.
My issue isn't that they're undermining public education, but rather that they're actively making all education worse by doubling down on its worst aspects.
The only thing Gates has done w.r.t. education that I'm okay with is backing Khan Academy and the notion of flip teaching.
That said, I'm pleased that he's trying.
This might be a interesting read to soothe your cynical side: http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/12/12/working_for_extr...
You're probably living in the top 10% at least of humanity, what have you done for the world lately?
>you'd have a more mature perspective of the world instead of making flippant criticisms from the comfort of your living room.
So instead of disagreeing with the merit of my opinion presented, you just throw insults at how I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about. You have much to show me about maturity.
And point taken, I was indeed unnecessarily rude.
I donate much more than 0.01% of my earnings to charities and nobody calls me a hero.
Who the heck does this Bill Gates guy think he is?
Regular folks can't afford to do that without putting their financial stability at risk.
Nevertheless, I do respect Bill for his actions, and I believe all modern tycoons should feel responsible for making the world a better place through charity.
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
I think you do justice no favors by disregarding the microsoft employees (and acquisitions) that did the overwhelming majority of work to earn that wealth, not Bill Gates. Sometimes in violation of law, and sometimes via questionably legal business practices that forced many people who don't use their products to pay for them. But I guess in capitalism, owner-takes-all and might-makes-right, huh?
But if you want to run with your line of reasoning then no one in the US really qualifies as self-made, from the point of view of let's say a poor person in India. We're all rich to someone who makes less than a dollar a day.
I am willing to concede there is a common definition of the term that is less strict. However I've never heard a definition of the term where a millionaire by birth is "self-made."
I think those who think he is self-made clearly have a different definition of the term. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-made_man
"The appellation 'self-made man' or 'self-made woman' describes a person who was born poor or otherwise disadvantaged, but who achieved great economic success thanks to their own hard work and ingenuity rather than to any inherited fortune, family connections or other privilege."
Bill Gates was born with inherited fortune, family connections, and privilege. He was not born poor. That's not his fault any more than it's a poor child's fault that their parents are poor. But it is a fact.
A million bucks of wealth, with a conservative safe withdrawal rate of 3%, entitles you to $30k a year. This puts you in the 30th percentile of household income. That's not luxurious, but for zero work at all that's a much better outcome than someone who was born with nothing not working at all. A million in the bank puts you in the 96.3rd percentile of wealth in the US.
Say what you want about Bill Gates and his accomplishments, that doesn't change the fact he was born into wealth and inherently disqualified from being able to claim to be "self-made."
As though a person should be disqualified of their own accomplishments because of their circumstances at birth; as though a person has a choice where and when they're born. I can think of few notions more evil than that, whether applied to the rich or the poor. By your theory, a poor person is never self-made either, after all it was their impoverished circumstances that made them successful, not their own work ethic. It was the poverty that motivated them, drove them, and lifted them up; after all, the poor person had nothing to lose and everything to gain! It is thus there are supposedly no self-made persons anywhere (welcome to collectivism, where there is no individual achievement, only borg achievement).
Did that trust fund keep him comfy during those hard Albuquerque days, struggling to get Microsoft off the ground, pay the bills, pay the employees, while living out of a roach motel working 20 hour days and living on soda and pizza? My, what a glamorous lifestyle a trust fund delivers.
I guess Paul Allen isn't self-made either, because it was Bill's trust fund that was responsible for Microsoft. Whoops, you just robbed every self-made Microsoft employee of their credit.
Did that trust fund make him work harder? It should have made him work less hard.
Did that trust fund give him ambition? It should have made him slouch around, after all, what worries could he have? Why strain yourself so much if you're already rich from birth.
Did that trust fund make him spend his youth writing software, selling software, evangelizing software? Surely sitting on a beach drinking a nice beverage is more fun than that.
Bill Gates is self-made by the only definition that matters: he earned his wealth of his own ability, effort and self-motivation.
Does everyone with a million dollar trust fund automatically acquire an 12 figure net fortune? There are over nine million millionaires in the United States today. Lucky for them they all get to be automatic, non-self-made billionaires.
The truth is, Gates didn't need that trust fund - which he never used to begin with. It didn't create Microsoft, didn't seed Microsoft, didn't do any of the work, didn't make any of the decisions, didn't negotiate any of the deals, didn't hire any of the employees, and didn't pay any of the bills, and didn't do all of that successfully for three decades without destroying it all.
I'm curious if you're going to reply to the very well written comment by @adventured below.
Frankly, the evolution of rich web apps that we've seen over the past few years is exactly what terrified Microsoft in the 1990s and lead to the Netscape and Java antitrust suits.
I never understood what was the big deal on that matter. Netscape was a horrible browser and the only thing that MS did was shipping a free alternative on its OS. If IE would be that inferior people would still turn into the best solution. Right now IE is still free and ships within the OS and I still use Chrome on a daily basis.
Do some reading on it. Microsoft absolutely engaged in a pattern of predatory behavior that was only possible due to their dominant market position.
The way Microsoft tended to act with blatant impunity toward their competitors is a lot of why they were so hated in the 90s.
As a matter of fact, Netscape's business practices did more to block the distribution of Navigator than Microsoft's. For example, it wouldn't allow third-party sites to distribute it, and at one point it withdrew the standalone browser to try to force the adoption of its internet suite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communicator
Microsoft's biggest concern wasn't with OEMs bundling Netscape (because it was investing in making IE a better browser) but with the idea of OEMs removing IE, which Microsoft regarded as part of the operating system.
http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Stupidity-Marketing-Disaster...
In short, his thesis is that a lot of the successful companies got that way by f'ing up less than the competition, which in many cases managed to make really, really bad mistakes.
Microsoft played an important role, at least 10 years ago. I was involved in a Linux user group in Spain in 2001, and back then it was impossible to find a computer that didn't came with Windows installed (so the computer had the OEM license price included in the price etc) and in most cases changing the OS would void the guaranty.
Microsoft put a lot of pressure into hardware manufacturers to not offer anything but Microsoft Windows, and that didn't help. No surprise that PC is synonymous of Windows.
Linux often breaks when you upgrade it. The solutions may seem trivial to you and I, but non-technical people won't get it. I've had programmers ask me why their internet isn't working when they accidentally kicked their network cable out of the wall or ask me why they couldn't get a monitor to work when it was obvious that their computers weren't turned on. Imagine what the ubiquitous "grandma" is going to think when her graphics drivers stop working after an prompted update. Stuff like this happening in Windows and OS X is so rare that many average users have never experienced it.
Linux has come a long way. Ubuntu in particular is ridiculously user friendly compared to Linux from 5-10 years ago. But its still not ready. Not even close.
One main difference between linux and windows is that for the most part, MS isn't concerned about how 3rd party apps should install, upgrade, or remove themselves from the system, outside of security considerations. This burden however falls back mostly on distros in the linux world. Ye. I'd be curious to know how much of upgrade failures are due to userland apps as opposed to OS configuration issues for mainstream distros these days.
Also, Windows started with imperfections as well, but customers didn't have much choice at the time, and had to do with all the issues of DOS+Windows 3.11 and then migration paths to Win95/NT and then XP. The road wasn't exactly straight and flat at the time. MS always played the card of compatibility, which was a major factor for companies (who wants the extra headaches of migrating her apps on top of migrating the OS?).
Anyway, this topic has been discussed to death already, I'm pretty sure it all boils down to MS having been there before competition, and having managed to keep that step ahead (UEFI anyone?). Businesses can adapt if necessary, they just won't pick the hardest road if it doesn't make enough sense for them money wise, and MS made sure it never did.
That wouldn't be a problem if OEMs sold computers with Linux pre-installed and fully supported. Dells would run a Dell distro of Linux that's properly tested on their hardware.
That said, the only PC I ever owned, an HP, had things break after an update of Windows - the graphics card and audio drivers. never quite got them working right again, so I don't exactly have a favorable opinion of that famed easy usability of that OS either.
Regardless of Microsoft's numerous past and current transgressions, I don't think Gates has any ulterior motives with his current work and philanthropy.
Why shouldn't we skeptically evaluate non-profits and charities the way we evaluate the ethics and responsibility of for-profits? There are piiiiiiles of truly awful charities who take money in the name of doing good only to enrich themselves and let their ersatz causes languish unattended (see: http://cironline.org/americasworstcharities ).
I think it's awesome that Bill Gates donated to Heifer International on this woman's behalf. But I think maybe it's better if people spent more time learning more about Heifer and donating on its merits, than just because Bill Gates donated to it.
So, actually, i don't agree that advertising for charities and for-profits is that different :)
On the flip side, thanks to Bill's philanthropy, there are now billions of dollars flowing towards vaccines, mosquito nets, life-saving research, and other undeniably Good Things.
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, but if you could quantify and compare the impact of old Bill and new Bill, I'd say he's a net positive.
If you want to net it out into a number, the game is far from over.
Edit: lest my comment seem one sided: Gates could just be all scrooge mcduck with his treasure and there's not much anyone else could do to stop him, so I do give him a great deal of credit. I don't put much attention into casting people as good guys or bad guys; but the world is complex, and consequences matter.
At the time, Microsoft had no real choice but to arm itself with patents, just as Google is doing now.
We also don't know how it would have altered the technology landscape - whether positively or negatively. Thing could be far better, or far worse or anything in between.
I think it is a meaningless thing to try to evaluate, and can be debated endlessly. What we can do is judge the up against the standards we hold/held others too. By that standard, Microsoft was judged to have unfairly and illegally engaged in anti-competitive practices, almost putting them at risk of being broken up; and multiple competitors got substantial amounts out of Microsoft in separate cases, based on damages incurred.
That he is redeeming himself personally through charity now is great, but I've also seen little indication that he accepts that the way he illegally stomped on a number of competitors in the 80's and 90's was wrong, which tempers my excitement somewhat.
>One thing we have got to change in our strategy—allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples [sic] browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends [sic] on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.
So it's hard to tell how much of MS's monopolistic behavior should be assigned to gates.
Indeed he used his reputation for something that would go viral, and in the end helped that charity quite a bit.
It also suggests to me that he's not above having a little bit of fun too. I'm sure the gift took some thought, and this was more than "I'll have my admin think about it."
Your reality check is much appreciated.
It was a good wake-up call for me; I'd been pulling some of the same BS he had. I like to think I've treated my romantic partners better ever since.
edit: oh come on this is funny.
I won't name them clearly. One should be obvious even so, even today, as she went on to a pretty big career -- bigger than mine -- and was open about the relationship. The other -- a lesser peer to me -- is more forgotten, except by industry old-timers.
My epiphany was that one shouldn't string along women for long periods of time, even if in the literal sense one is not being deceptive.
He wound up marrying neither of them, of course.
classy as fuck, pal
He now seems like a nice guy, in large part because he can afford to be. He has no competitors, and his only agenda is to give away his billions. If I had that much money and was retired, you would rarely find me in a bad mood either.
I hear this a lot and I think it is grossly unfair. I lived through those times, and my company (Zortech) competed directly with Microsoft.
Microsoft is one tough competitor, no doubt about it. But evil and maniacal is frankly ridiculous. MicroPro, Novell, Lotus, etc., all failed due to their own decisions.
For in-depth information, see the book "In Search of Stupidity".
Selling IBM an OS that they hadn't actually written yet - you could argue no harm no foul, but MS's actions meant IBM was taking on much more risk in that contract than they realized.
At Zortech, we found selling against vaporware to be easy sales.
"This can be seen as a hack (and a violation of abstraction layers; there is intended to be a logical separation between operating system level SEH support, and language level SEH support; this special support in RtlRestoreContext blurs the distinction between the two for C language support with the Microsoft C/C++ compiler). This layering violation is not the most egregious in the x64 exception handling scene, however."
Judges thought differently, multiple times.
> Judges thought differently, multiple times.
Judges ruled that the practices of the company were illegal.
This is a very far stretch from saying "I think Bill [the person] could be fairly judged as evil and maniacal at times."
He was a big softie! For example, if you think what he did to Netscape was bad, you ought to hear what users of Netscape 4 wanted to do to Netscape...
If this comment doesn't earn a ban, there's something wrong with this community. Unbelievable.
As a different way of expressing the same thought: Bill Gates found out that Bill Gates was participating in the reddit gift exchange at the same time you did. Or more probably, is entirely unaware of his participation even now.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, likes puppies, Mom, and apple pie, but you need to be aware how public relations works if you're going to have any hope of mentally combating its power.
...Did you even read the post? It had a picture of Bill standing and holding the gifts, one of which was a note mentioning his participation in the gift exchange.
Come on, did you even see his AMA? Its pretty clear he's invested in reddit and online culture pretty deeply.
While I'm certain he has some level of image consulting done, I find it hard to believe that he's on the level of Woody Harrelson and other stars who use places like reddit as a quick promotional stunt that they're forced to do by the studios.
I'm glad I'm not as cynical as you. I'm not much of a Gates fan, but he's always been a manboy and nerd at heart. Now that he's semi-retired, I imagine he dicks around on the internet quite a bit. It would be crazy to be culture blind to places like reddit and still think you have your finger on the pulse of technology.
I know charities have to use modern marketing, but that left a sour taste when I found out about it. On the other hand, I suppose Bill's underlings conduct proper due diligence.
Personally I find the amount of good that Kiva does far exceeds the negatives that some people put forward, and while they're far from perfect they are a very well managed charity[2] that I have a lot of confidence in.
[1] They do include this information on each borrowers page though, it's transparent if you know to look for it, but a lot of people don't understand it.
Loan disbursal can happen anywhere from 60 days before to 90 days
after the loan is posted on the Kiva website. The disbursed date indicates
the date that the borrower receives their loan funds from the Field Partner.
Many of Kiva's Field Partners choose to disburse loan funds before
the loan request is posted on Kiva. We allow pre-disbursal because
it ensures that the funds reach the borrower as soon as they are needed.
Loan funds from Kiva lenders then go to backfill that amount and as a
lender you assume the risk of the loan. By doing this, our Field Partners
assume the risk that, if the loan isn't funded by Kiva lenders, the Field
Partner has to fund the loan without any funds from Kiva lenders."
I used Kiva during one of their "Free $25 Loan" promos. Unfortunately, several months before "my" borrower was able to finish repaying her loan, I received an E-mail saying that she had passed away. The thing is, Kiva still shows the final few months' repayment as having been received.
This made me question the numbers that I was seeing; while it's definitely possible that her family paid everything off, I'm not sure that I trust them.
I don't believe that anything malicious is going here, just misrepresentation.
For this reason I'd much rather support the microfinance institutions themselves (even though Kiva doesn't take a cut).
[1] http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...
GiveWell is a much better evaluator of charity quality. Since they spend much more time on analyzing each charity, they cover way fewer charities. They are quite strategic about prioritizing which ones to interview. http://www.givewell.org/international/process
They just need to count the number of donors who have selected 'baby goat', count the number of baby goats you've distributed, and make sure they're equal. Charge enough per goat to cover some reasonable management overheads. If donors are supplying more goats than you need, stop accepting the donations and ask them to choose chickens instead.
Organisations do things like this all the time. Orders are placed, orders are paid for, orders are fulfilled. Internet retailers manage this millions of times a day with very low overheads. What's the problem?
If a charity wants donations to a general fund rather than a specific use, they should be honest about that in their marketing materials.
Ringfencing money like that would be very inefficient unless you can perfectly balance supply/demand beforehand. What happens if a ton of donors donate goats but then you find that nobody needs the goats anymore but you could really use the money for something boring like employment liability insurance?
Amusingly, this exact issue, of Heifer International putting money into a common fund vs. buying a water buffalo as expected, led Philip Greenspun to make a blog post on Dec. 26, 2006 (which I just stumbled on yesterday) wherein he wrote, "We are trying to decide if this is the crummiest possible Christmas present."
Then he went on to he ask what it would mean to actually buy water buffaloes for poor families. It turns out, a guy named Robert Thompson, an American living with his Chinese wife in China, left an informed answer in the comments and, long story short, Greenspun and his business partner put up the money and Thompson, with the help of his wife and her family, bought a deserving family a real live water buffalo.
You can read about it (be sure to read comment #1, which is from Thompson) and/or watch the short film Thompson made of the buying and presenting of the animal to a Chinese family, which shows the impact such a gift can have:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2006/12/26/water-buffalo-...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/23/214875696/cash-cow...
> ps: Sorry for the apple ipad on my wishlist, that was really awkward.
For people my age he was "evil" personified during the Netscape/IE/Anti-Trust era. I wonder if people who came of age after that period see him more as a global good guy and philanthropist?
As for me, if he keeps this up I'm going to have to start liking the guy :-)
From personal experience, almost exclusively.
The difference is more marked outside the tech sector, too. None of my acquaintances in the 19-30 age range outside the tech industry consider Gates evil, and many love him.
Within the tech industry, I can think of one acquaintance within that age range who considers Gates evil -- and he is exactly 30.
It's difficult for people of my generation to quite understand Microsoft's wrongdoing during that period, when now the company's not nearly so powerful. The 'evil' all seems quite abstract and far away, while the Gates foundation seems to have much more direct results.
My results are skewed because I know an awful lot of people who work for charities and non-profits, who'll naturally have a better opinion of someone who works in the same (ish) sector.
Everytime Gates is mentioned on HN we get the exact same 200 comments detailing his alleged crimes. Gates bought a cow? Sure, but he killed Netscape. Gates built an AIDS research center? Sure, but he added the Office ribbon. Can't we all calm the fuck down and just appreciate 1 rich dude trying to do some good his own way?
"People always commented that although he was a ruthless businessman, how kind and considerate he was in his private life. But isn't that the same as most sportsmen? They are determined to win when competing in their sport, but once off the field are not expected to be the same."
I'd also include a personal write-up as to why I enjoyed each, without giving away any important details.
[1] http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/bill-gates-wired-essay...
I know he also really enjoys DVDs from the Teaching Company and has a pretty extensive collection.
Point. He is just being what everyone else us are here. a normal human being.
1. A pig foetus preserved in alcohol.
2. A selection of root vegetables, petroleum jelly and gloves.
Some celebrities "get" reddit, and some don't.
Some answer three questions and leave, and some stay for days.
Some see it as a promotional tool, and some are actually part of the community.
Some participate anonymously, some have AMA accounts, and some have both.
Most of all, even if you did know a good portion of them on and offline, you can't possibly extrapolate what the rest of the group is actually like in real life.
The idea that you can encapsulate an entire person into a couple dozen comments (on average) that they leave on a message board is absurd to me.
Going on to extend that abstraction to an entire class of people is even more ridiculous.
This was a great article, and a reminder that the internet allows us to make a difference in people's lives in ways we never could before.
GEEKS! When you're rich and famous, REMEMBER TO STILL DO COOL STUFF!