retrac

No, you're right. The attack on the Death Star sequence, in Star Wars (1977), is one of the very first use of 3D computer graphics in film.

The tie-fighters and Death Star were drawn as wire-frame. And it was all wire-frame until about '81 - '82. Textured rendering was driven by rapid performance gains with parallel and vector processors. I can't think of any use of textured surfaces until the early 1980s, outside of some experimental things like "A Computer Animated Hand" (1972).

The Genesis effect in Star Trek II (1982) was considered mind-blowing at the time. Most people in the audience would have never seen anything like it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq_sSxDE32c They used a Cray X-MP supercomputer. A very expensive one minute of film.

What we would recognize as the early 3D graphics scifi style emerges in the early-mid 80s. For example, The Last Starfighter (1984): https://youtu.be/bkDzkjQodzs?t=32

Not bad writing. Framework for a decent thriller novel. An additional proofreader might be helpful.

> raw XY it or soft modem

How about analog raster scan? a.k.a. slow-scan TV? [0] Like how they returned the live television images from the Apollo missions. (They only had 1 MHz of bandwidth for everything - voice, computer up and downlink, telemetry, and TV. Standard analog broadcast TV was 6 MHz. So they reduced the scan rate to 10 frames per second instead of 60, and halved the horizontal line resolution -- that could fit in 500 kHz.)

Most modern SSTV standards are super-narrowband, designed to fit into just a few hundred Hertz for amateur radio. But what if you had the full 20 kHz of bandwidth of a nice audio channel? With 100 horizontal lines per frame, and 1 frame per second -- that is about 200 cycles per horizontal line, or enough to resolve, in theory, 100 vertical lines on each horizontal line. I.e., 100 x 100 pixels (ish) at 1 fps.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-scan_television

x86_64 is the only official Arch Linux. All other ports are unofficial. They are community projects where many of the members are the same as the main Arch Linux.

I think it's basically for the same reason as why they dropped 32-bit x86 support about 8 years ago. Not enough users. (That resulted in the unofficial Arch Linux 32 to maintain support.)

If the device can run PostmarketOS with a mainstream kernel, then it can run any Linux distribution. (I put Arch ARM on such devices, since I like that distro.)

That's the big hurdle though - mainstream kernel support.

For most devices, even if they can be rooted and jailbroken, you're stuck with the kernel they come with. Doesn't have a new feature you need? A horrible security flaw in the network stack? You're out of luck. Most "repurpose your old phone" approaches have this problem. You can make it a server but you wouldn't want to expose it to the public Internet.

Many cetaceans show similar dependency on their parents. They're also some of the few species where the females undergo menopause, like humans. (Elephants might have menopause, too.) Perhaps not coincidentally, maternal elders are very important for these species, often helping their children and grandchildren for decades after they are born.

If you are a scifi author, it's a mistake to give any hard numbers in real-world units. You will, most likely, greatly underestimate. Even trying to greatly overestimate, you will underestimate.

Commander Data's specifications in the Star Trek TNG episode The Measure of a Man from 1989: 800 quadrillion bits of storage, computing at 60 trillion operations per second.

100 petabytes. That's a big machine. A very big machine. But supercomputers now have memories measured in petabytes.

They never used "bits" again in any Star Trek script. It was kiloquads and gigaquads from then on.

My hearing aids provide some relief for my tinnitus when I'm wearing them.

I use Bluetooth with my phone and sometimes my laptop. My current hearing aids can stream directly from devices with Bluetooth LE audio; no relay dongle necessary.

But at home I often use telecoil. It's one of the killer features for hearing aids that no one seems to know about. Short-range (inches to a few feet) baseband analog radio.

I have a transmitter set up in the living room. If I come within a few feet of the couch I'll hear the television. Got another at my desktop computer in the office. I also have a loop I put around my neck when I play my electric guitar. Telecoil transmitters will plug into any standard line audio source.

Just as a tip, shouting or even just speaking more loudly is rarely necessary if someone has (properly configured) hearing aids. Just speak clearly. Ensuring proper enunciation so they can read lips is usually more important. Hearing aids will make it "loud enough" but they won't clean up the information.

Does she have primarily high frequency loss? High frequency loss is the most typical in the elderly and also from damage from noise exposure.

Different people have different voices. I usually find it easier to understand men because I hear the lower frequencies better, especially without my hearing aids but also with them. And it's always easier to understand people you know well compared to strangers.

I find small speakers to be awful. The high frequencies are distorted and tinny. Scratchy is a good way to put it. I have a very hard time understanding anything played through a smartphone or tablet speaker. The speaker is too small to reproduce the bass frequencies I can hear the best, and so it's just TSSST TSSSSSZZT sounds through my hearing aids.

I cannot wear my hearing aids at full volume at the dinner table or while working in the kitchen for this reason. Metal, plastic and paper are also common offenders. CLINK. CLINK. CRSZZST. It's almost painful and headache inducing if I'm tired.

Unfortunately those high frequencies are what carry speech sounds like sh, t, ch and so on. Without those it's like the adults talking in the Charlie Brown cartoons. "wah-womp-wah-wah-mhuh??"

Hearing aids can do two things for this: one is to take some of that high frequency information and remap it to lower frequencies. This is part of why they say you won't like wearing your hearing aids when you first get them. They're systematically distorting what you hear -- but in a way you might eventually learn to interpret.

The other is just to make it loud enough that it can be heard. And as you suggest that may be the limit of the hearing capacity if there's very little at the high frequencies the only way to make something high frequency to be perceived, is to hammer the ear with a 90 or 100 dB level of sound.

It's absolutely worth having them adjusted a bit. Also every manufacturer uses a different algorithm for speech frequency remapping. Some people have strong preferences by brand as to the hearing aid sound. (Phonak and Oticon certainly have different "feels" in my experience.)

Almost all hearing aids allow multiple "configuration profiles" where you can switch through them with the app or buttons. I have four: general, lecture, comfort, music. Comfort mode just nukes the high end and cranks up the noise reduction. That's what I use if I'm just reading alone in the living room, or when out at the grocery store, etc.

As to large groups, personally I've simply conceded I can't do large groups. If I try I will feel left out and get depressed over it. If people want to see me at a family reunion, for example, after I do a brief tour to say hi to everyone, they'll have to join me for a small group chat in the den or whatnot.

I'm completely lost in noise. The benefits for this kind of thing is part of why my audiologist pushed for hearing aids with directional microphones. And they do help. But it's not a fix. I'm still mostly lost in noise.

People rely on the (usually very large) dynamic range of hearing to be able to understand in those situations. In people with typical hearing the brain filters out the sounds too loud or too quiet to be what they are trying to listen to. But hearing aids act as compressors reducing the dynamic range.

I have worn hearing aids since childhood in the '90s. Moderate sloping to profound loss. Been through all the tech since the equalized analog era.

For a while now, like the last 15 to 20 years, since hearing aids went DSP, I had not been much impressed by each new generation. At the risk of sounding like a bit of an advertisement, that changed this year.

I have the new Oticon Intent. RIC style aid. They have some of the best spatial awareness I've experienced. They're capable of quite a lot of directionality - accelerometer and three microphones in each. I had to have the intensity of the directionality turned down a bit. It was startling me when I turned my head and I wasn't hearing things behind me enough. But that's at the expense of less signal due to more environmental noise.

The machine-learning based noise reduction is an improvement over the previous generations, too.

They have a music mode. It drops all the speech remapping and noise reduction and just makes it feel loud. It's some sort of perceptual algorithm: in my case as I turn up the volume it gets more and more treble, because only at the loudest volumes would I hear those high frequencies. All while being power limited at 95 dB SPL so I know I'm not blowing my ears. I used to wear over-the-ear headphones for that but I now prefer the hearing aids. It's nice to not worry about if it's too loud.

VAX were relatively small computers for the time. They grew upward in the late 80s eventually rivalling the mainframes for speed (and cost). But in the early 80s IBM's high end machines were an entire order of magnitude larger.

Top of the line VAX in 1984 was the 8600 with a 12.5 MHz internal clock, doing about 2 million instructions per second.

IBM 3084 from 1984 - quad SMP (four processors) at 38 MHz internal clock, about 7 million instructions per second, per processor.

Though the VAX was about $50K and the mainframe about $3 million.

The Bell System was, in modern parlance, fully vertically integrated. They didn't own the mines that the copper for the conductors was extracted from. And they didn't cast the copper ingots. Though they were interested in the metallurgy. Because they drew their own wire. And cables. And transformers. And vacuum tubes. And so on. It was all in-house. They even treated their own telephone poles. So something like a practical survey of various types of preservative treatments for wood was in the remit of Bell Labs just like the physics of a vacuum tube. Almost everything in science was in the remit when they had such a broad mandate. The Bell System had elements that almost resembled a kind of state within a state. (Part of why it was killed off -- antitrust violations.)

> The CPU (the Motorola 68000) initiates all communication in the case of the Macintosh

Minor nitpick but the video controller has direct access to RAM and when the visible part of the display is being drawn by the video controller, it does cycle-stealing DMA that preempts the CPU.

You can read in depth about it from Steve Chamberlain, the designer of an FPGA low level clone of the Mac Plus here: [0]

By the way but this why the compact Macs have CPU performance of about a 6 MHz 68000 when clocked at almost 8 MHz. About half the time the display is being redrawn. And about half the memory bandwidth is used up at those times.

Bit of a tangent but the Apple II used a similar approach for its video system. As the article notes, the 68K has a prefetch queue. So it's always reading ahead which is what you get from reading an open bus. But the 6502 is a simple CPU without that fancy prefetch queue, so if you read a non-extant address on the Apple II you get what the video system just read and drew in the previous half-cycle. It's possible to sync up the CPU with the video system this way; something otherwise impossible on the Apple II. [1]

[0] https://www.bigmessowires.com/2011/08/25/68000-interleaved-m...

[1] http://www.deater.net/weave/vmwprod/megademo/vapor_lock.html

> But I was, ironically, left with an impression that the Victorian era was more comfortable with male intimacy, and appreciation for male beauty, than our own.

This might not be an entirely faulty perception. Wilde was, I think, aiming for plausible deniability. To hide the homoeroticism amidst the pretense of merely intense platonic love. Because in that time such expressions were often permissible.

I've seen the theory phrased a few ways but here's one take. In sufficiently homophobic societies, the possibility that a man doing something we would perceive as homoerotic, is himself gay, is close to zero. Because no one would ever risk exposure. And so expression of non-sexual intimacies we would see as gay are not perceived as gay in those societies.

We see this shift in the recent literary tendency to "queer" platonic male relationships in historical literature. To use a slightly absurd example: are Sam and Frodo in the Lord of the Rings gay? It has been argued by some. (Put "Are Sam and Frodo" into Google and see what pops up on autocomplete to finish that question!)

I think it is the romantic (in the 19th century Wagnerian sense) and conservative worldview of Tolkien in action: the nature of the relationship is that of comrades-in-arms. And in that context certain intimacies that would be intolerable are otherwise not. That is why Sam says that he loves Frodo.

Another example the modern audience often just can't get over, is men who used to sleep together. In the most literal sense of the word. Platonic bed mates. Some guys did this even when other beds were available. Maybe they were cold. But maybe they were just lonely? if some women put on pajamas and have a movie-watching slumber party they probably won't get called lesbians. But men must tread carefully today at least in America for that kind of thing. There is just some mental block in our society with that kind of intimacy between two men. But perhaps not back then. (Or maybe Abraham Lincoln really was gay. But I kind of doubt it.)

Wilde is right on the transition point when it started to be conceivable that a man is actually a self-identifying homosexual and that male intimacy might therefore be coded as homosexual. He played with that ambiguity. And in his case, got burned.

India has shown some of the most interest to date, due to their lack of domestic uranium reserves. But it's been slow going their fast breeder reactor plans were delayed by like two decades. But it is built and it was loaded with fuel last month [0]

The French interest in breeder reactors and nuclear reprocessing also originates from a similar concern about lack of domestic access to raw uranium. Though Super-phoenix [0] was a more traditional uranium -> plutonium approach and not thorium. They gave up because just using uranium is way, way cheaper than synthesizing your own fissile materials.

[0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/indias-prototype...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

Here in Toronto, every once in a while, someone has a meltdown (if you'll forgive the expression) when they rediscover that there is a CANDU nuclear fuel manufacturing plant in their dense and quiet suburb.

Now CANDU reactors run on natural uranium. So they're forming metal pellets out of uranium powder. The main risk is direct chemical toxicity from the uranium, not the radiation. But for many people "nuclear fuel" might as well mean hot nuclear waste.

The mystical level of dread it inspires in some is hard to overstate. Just to avoid drama from the neighbours it's understandable they try to keep quiet.

I'm not sure about daily. But yes, human sacrifice was practiced in predynastic China. At least one polity in the late Shang (c. 2000 BC) seems to have staged enormous mass executions as public spectacles.

One of the questions sometimes posed to the ancestors on the Oracle Bone inscriptions (the earliest known form of Chinese writing) are questions like: is today an auspicious day to sacrifice the prisoners?

> A sizable portion of the oracle bones uncovered in Shang archaeological sites contain script specifically concerning human sacrifice (see figure 2 above).These written records are also corroborated by the discovery of numerous sacrificial mass-graves in those sites. In most Shang sacrificial rituals, only animals and valuable chattels (such as bronze wares) would be used as offerings. There were only two exceptional circumstances where human sacrifices were made: xunzang 殉葬 and renji 人祭. Xunzang 殉葬 (lit. “burial sacrifice”) refers to the practice in which personal slaves and servants of Shang king, upon their master’s death, were expected to commit ritual suicide or to “volunteer” themselves to be buried alive alongside with their master. While the practice of committing ritual suicide upon the master’s death has lingered throughout Chinese history, the second type of human sacrifice, renji 人祭 (lit. “human offering sacrifice) is practiced only during the Shang dynasty period, and also the most massive in scale in terms of number of people killed in a typical renji ceremony. The demographic pattern of Shang sacrificial victims is also quite interesting. Xunzang victims (or “volunteers”) were mostly personal slaves (i.e. house servants), and therefore in xunzang burial sites we could find a pretty even mix of male and female human remains. Renji victims, on the other hand, appears to be predominately male. [0]

[0] https://sites.psu.edu/kerenw/?p=102

Getting a bit off topic, but I feel like this task is something that ought to have special language support.

It's a kind of serialization/deserialization, or what I think Python and some others call "pickling". Same task. Turn these raw bit patterns into typed values.

Ada probably comes closest of the major languages to pulling it off. It has separation of the abstract/programmer's view of a data type and the implementation / low representation of that type.

Specify a bunch of records like:

    for Instruction use record
       Condition at 0 range 31 .. 28;
       ImmFlag at 0 range 27 .. 27;
       Opcode at 0 range 24 .. 21;
       CondFlag at 0 range 20 .. 20;
       Rn at 0 range 19 .. 16;
       Rd at 0 range  15 .. 12;
       Operand at 0 range 11 .. 0;
    end record;

Then aim a pointer at your instructions and read them as records/structs.

It works particularly cleanly with a nice RISC encoding like ARM. I'm not actually sure if that would work in Ada. The use representation syntax might not be generic enough.

The evidence is being expanded over time. And it feels like the scale on every dimension is always being revised upward.

For one thing, the Maya are just one group of peoples in the region. There are and were other peoples in the region.

There are a handful of fragmentary inscriptions - only three or four from two or three sites - in a script that isn't Maya [0]. It has a similar logogram + syllable structure to Maya. Stylistically it has the whole glowering angry sideways faces thing going on too.

It is obviously culturally related. No one can confidently decode it, at least partly due to the limited fragmentary nature of the corpus. But if you read it like it phonetically were Maya based on the subset of common glyphs -- it does seem a lot like it might be a Mixe-Zoque language. Or more accurately, something distantly related to the ancestor of the modern Mixe-Zoque languages.

While no one can read the text, one of the fragments has a date in the same long count calendar the Maya used which we can read: 7.16.6.16.18 -- September 1 32 BC. This aligns well with the context in which it was found, about 2000 years old.

There are yet another set of these head symbol glyphs associated with yet another site (Teotihuacan [1]) and yet another extinct culture (the area had long been controlled by the Aztecs by the time the Spanish arrived). It seems to be the writing system of another people who were prominent and ruled a large area from Teotihuacan at their peak around perhaps 100 - 500 AD. The language it encodes is not the Nahuatl of the Aztec. But it may be a distant relative of the ancestor of Nahuatl. There was an attempt at deciphering it published just earlier this year [2]

There are a few fragments of glyphs associated with the Olmec [3] which some think bear a resemblance to elements of the Isthmian script and the Mayan script and also the Teotihuacan angry head script. Olmec cultural elements seem to have worked their way into all the cultures of those who came after. We're now as far back as 1500 BC or so.

The scope and span! At least three different writing systems. Related. But associated with probably three different spoken language families. And this is over a span of two thousand or more years. Different cultures formed literate empires and city-building civilizations which lasted hundreds, even thousands of years, rising and falling, repeatedly.

The Long Count calendar is sophisticated and reckons an exact count of days from its epoch (generally agreed [4] to be August 11, 3114 BC). It was used regularly for some thousand or more years. It was possibly used by more than one culture / language group at the same time (Maya and whoever made the Isthmian inscriptions). The use of the Long Count is internally consistent: the astronomical observations and archaeological dating by other means generally all is in accord. Only people of the modern era have been so precise and consistent in their time keeping. And not as for long yet.

Getting a bit looser with it: I get an ever-growing feeling that the Mesoamerican civilizations had an intense sense of history and understanding of their own place in time from very early on.

Aside from just finding many more texts, the Holy Grail today would be to discover a bilingual text. Even a tiny fragment would, if nothing else, further confirm the depth of the cultural world that once existed.

[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lamojarra-inscriptio...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/29/world/americas/teotihuaca...

[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cascajal-text.svg

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calend...

Robert Nordier's port of v7 to x86 probably didn't get the attention it deserves.

It's what it sounds like: v7 Unix ported to x86. Unix v7 was portable enough and the PDP-11 architecturally similar enough to x86 that almost all the code works without change. (Many of the changes from v6 to v7 were to make Unix more portable; it was already running on at least 4 different architectures by 1980.)

I wonder if the obscurity is because the x86 v7 source was an archive inside an archive? Seems a minor thing but not having it to browse online is likely to be an off-ramp for most.

https://www.nordier.com/v7x86/v7x86-0.8a-all.tar.xz has releases/v7x86-0.8a.tar.bz2 (you'll want to use a -C prefix it explodes in the current directory). Source is in usr/sys and usr/src like normal for v7 Unix.

And yes, your modern Linux system's GNU tar is reading the ancient v7 tar format just fine. Neat, eh?

You might find the modern "file" command can still recognize the v7 a.out binary format too:

    $ file usr/bin/compress  
    usr/bin/compress: a.out little-endian 32-bit executable not stripped

Unix version 7 remains a sort of lowest common denominator almost half a century later.

Since no one else has noted it: they show rail lines and only rail. No roads on those maps. This includes some quite obscure ones like the railway between Labrador and Sept-Iles, Quebec. (It has almost no traffic and it serves a small town and a mine and it's not connected to the rest of the North American system.) Similarly they depict sections of rail in Canada that were out of service many years before this map was published. So they're quite out of date. To not show that Canada is linked by rail with the USA at Detroit is a definite oversight, too.

Seeing through the lens of railroads is probably an artifact of both ideology and the economic reality in North Korea. And maybe also the implicitly military purpose of these maps.

Very cool. I've been sketching out a relay computer myself. Mostly unbuilt but I have tested a variety of circuits implementing gates, latches, oscillators, flip flops, counters, registers all using only SPST reed relays.

I'm fixated on speed. I connected some reed relays in a 3 stage ring oscillator and it ran at 1.8 kHz. That has me thinking that with a pipeline 100 instructions a second might be attainable. Reed relay logic seems to be fast enough for a UART at 50 baud. Teletype interactivity is a stretch goal.

My program counter is also 12 bits! And I've also been using Digital to simulate parts of it. Great tool for that.

The current design is RISC-like with a 12 bit word requiring 4 cycles for most instructions. I have an old version of the design specified in gate level Verilog. I should publish that. Though I'm forever tinkering with the control such that it'll probably never be done. Karnaugh maps are like Sudoku.

I am deaf but not completely deaf. Some sounds I can hear and a lot of the sounds that are loud enough to come to my attention are annoying. Often not the same sounds that annoy other people, too.

I'm reminded of a conversation with my friend who is fully Deaf from birth and a signer. Hearing people are a foreign culture for him. It's tricky to navigate the hearing world sometimes, when you don't know what what noises things make and how they are perceived. (Stacking metal or ceramic dishes is an almost silent experience for me, for example.)

He noted that the sounds hearing people complain about seem related to control. Thunder? Not a problem. Natural and nothing you can do about it. The beep of a truck backing up? That's due to a person. It could be controlled. Rain? Not a problem. Sprinkler system? That's ultimately due to a person. It could be controlled. Microwave beep? Could have been controlled; you're supposed to hit the stop button at 0:01. Dog barking? Annoying because again, supposed to be controlled. Wild birds cawing at the crack of dawn? Filtered out and ignored. (Mostly, some people do complain about those.)

Realizing you don't actually have control and that the other person might not actually have control is surprisingly relaxing, I've found. I suppose that's closely related to the "radical acceptance" of the article.

For the first time in about a century there is uncertainty about the future of Canada's economic and security alignment.

It's like starting a business with your best friend. And now he's gone manic and has shown up at your doorstep at 2 am with a knife demanding the money he is convinced you owe him. Even if he gets better it won't be the same relationship again.

Most of what you think you are seeing at any moment is only imagined.

The retina is not uniform. Most photosensitive cells (cones) are near the centre of vision. Peripheral vision has little resolving power. Can't make out fine details. The reality of this is much more extreme than it subjectively feels like. The eye doesn't actually have pixels but if it did they'd all be focused at the centre. Like an image where 10% of the area in the middle had 80% of the pixels.

At the centre of vision the eye has enough resolving power to make out the tiny star shapes and see that they are rotating. Outside of that narrow zone in the peripheral vision they're perceived as coloured blobs, at best. Normally your brain would make this transparent to you. But this is an unusual pattern. Your visual cortex doesn't realize all the stars should be rotating. So only the ones you can actually see at any one instant seem to rotate.

Try to look at an object in the room with you, such as a lamp, without looking at it directly. Observe it out of the corner of your eye. The more you try, the less sharply defined it will seem. At the very edge of your vision you're only getting a handful of pixels worth of colour information. But because you know it is a lamp, it has the sharpness of a lamp's definition even though you cannot actually see that definition without directly looking at it. That's a related illusion.

This is why the eye scans constantly in those micro-jerking motions known as saccades. If a face were to pop up on your display, it would feel like a single instant recognition of a person. But before you experience that the eye would scan over the eyes, mouth, nose and so on, several times, in sharp flicking motions, over about 100 milliseconds, and these dozen or so little snapshots, as it were, would be stitched together into the whole image of a face. Even though only a tiny slice of the eye, or the nose, etc. can actually be seen at any one time, you perceive the whole face.

This illusion hacks that and reveals how narrow our high-resolution vision really is. The whole visual field feels rather high resolution. But only that tiny spot where they rotate actually is.

> There’s tacit admission of defeat in this, it’s basically saying America doesn’t have the political power necessary to offset globalization and its forces.

That is a core theme of the admin. They seem to be radically pessimistic about US capabilities. Otherwise-inexplicable conduct like the sabre-rattling about control of Greenland only makes sense, if you imagine the United States becoming an isolated regional power cut off from the world ocean.

You might be able to use that old floppy drive. But you won't be able to use that old Pentium machine the drive is in.

Because you will need several hundred gigabytes of RAM and a very fast IO bus.

The gold standard today for archiving magnetic media is to make a flux image.

The media is treated as if it were an analog recording and sampled at such a high rate that the smallest details are captured. Interpretation is done later, in software. The only antique electronics involved are often the tape or drive head, directly connected to a high speed digitizer.

And indeed that appears to be the plan Al Kossow has for the tape: https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2025-November/032765.htm...

As for CDs, I don't see the rush; the ones that were properly made will likely outlast human civilization.

While it isn't exactly communication, the Moon is not the only planetary body of which signals have been bounced off. Radar is workable within the solar system, including the moons and rings of the outer planets.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/radar-astronomy-used-to-resear... (1991)