, ,


( A seven-minute read)

Perhaps the biggest issue in the June 23 referendum was the question of whether 43 years in the EU have helped or hurt the UK economy. Of course, the referendum completely ignored that when Britain joined the EEC as it was known then as the sick man of Europe.Image associée

One can not know exactly how much the EU directly benefited Britain, but a 10 percent rise in prosperity is a reasonable estimate.

I would like some political ( descendants of the two world wars)  to tell me or explain to me why now in a world that is in turmoil Britain wants to turn itself into a hermit kingdom squandering its wealth and ingenuity for an idealised notion that you are still a mighty power that the nations of the world want to trade with on your terms.

Governments and Countries can’t be run like businesses.

Societies are built on a commitment to social and economic justice, not by the free market, but by equality of opportunity.

From the outside, the whole Brexit process has highlighted your indifference to seeing that there are going to to be enormous repercussions due to a fog of denial and self-delusion.

Today one in 20 UK residents was born in another EU country.


Some Eurosceptics say Britain stands a better chance of growth if it looks beyond the sluggish economies of the EU. But this is a claim about the future, predicated on trading relationships that do not yet exist, rather than an analysis of the past.

UK trade with EU partners grew faster after 1973 than it did with the remaining countries in the European Free Trade Association, the grouping to which Britain previously belonged.

For almost half a century, Britain has benefited from greater openness to world markets, which has fostered economic dynamism. Economists have demonstrated that the main cause of that change was membership of the EU, which brought with it gains from trade, foreign direct investment, competition, and innovation.

This is what Britain is turning it back on.

The UK is one of the largest recipients of research funding in the EU. Over the period 2007 – 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion

Many Eurosceptics raged against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU.

Nigel Farage has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — more than £20bn a year.

But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims.

A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 reduced the bill and London sent £13bn to Brussels in 2015. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget.

That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a percent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.

Another often-quoted figure — the reported £33bn cost of regulation — comes from an impact assessment by Open Europe, a think-tank, of 100 EU rules.

But it is based on only one side of the balance sheet.

The benefits of the regulations are “much higher” than the costs and “clearly not all of [the costs] would disappear after Brexit”.

Most economists have little doubt that Britain’s membership of the EU has translated into more trade.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of isolation"

For crying out loud it’s not Isolation that Britain needs but a large dose of common sense and cooperation.

Get a grip.

It is time for young of the nation to unbottling their responsibilities to England by demanding a re-run of the Referendum without the pursuit of personal pleasure.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.







( A one-minute read)

The UK government wants the EU to give it a transition period even if talks on the future relationship break down. This would prevent Britain from crashing out in March 2019 with no arrangements in place.

But what does transition really mean?

A change or passage from one state or stage to another. This is true for both parties.

A change of one subject to another in discourse.

A period of time during which something changes from one state or stage to another.

A change that results in a change of physical properties.

A change of public opinion or political sentiment.

A change of nature, purpose, or function of something.

The very word conjures up the word disagreement.

For this reason, alone there should be no transition period.

An implication period of the final agreement is the only route to follow.

A two-year transition will result in further destabilization unless agreed under EU terms with the final deal to be sent off to the EU Parliament for ratification.

Europe is already in a catatonic state, and only a shock on a grand scale can force the more visionary of its leaders to act to save it.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of transition"


Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of transition"

This is what is exactly what will happen if the EU agrees to a transition or implication period on completion of its negotiations re England’s departure.

Unfortunately, England has completely forgotten that it is not the European Union wanting to leave England.

However, your sacrifice for the European common good could achieve European reform  – though it could also result in the disappearance of the United Kingdom itself, with the possibility of Scotland and even Northern Ireland seeking independence.

England has no idea of what it wants now nor when it entered the EU and it never will till it sheds the shadows of the Empire.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks cucked in the bin.







, , , , ,


( A seven-minute read)

The vast majority of us now live in cities far removed from nature, walking around with our faces in smartphones connected to the cloud by algorithms sporting fancy names like Twitter, Facebook etc.

I am sure you have read or hear that we are now connected more than ever in our history, but most of this connectivity is false. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change effects"As amazing as this seems, this is just the beginning of what we can expect.

Mobile technology has seen a meteoric rise in adoption since the debut of the first iPhone in 2007. Seven years have given us significant advancements in mobile technology, but relative to the span of recorded human history, seven years is still a short time.

We’re barely skimming the surface of what we can expect from technology.

This very moment we live in a world in which news is broken in under 140 characters and people are more driven by bouncing icons on their mobile phones than what can be experienced outside of their 3.5” screen.

Google attempts to understand our behaviors to deliver more relevant information and content to better connect with users through their various services.

As connected as we are now, there is still a fundamental disconnect between people and the companies that attempt to reach them through these technologies.

We may one day reach a point where true conversations can happen between man and machine, but for now, it is still up to the people, the marketers and brand ambassadors of the world, to drive this human connection.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of disconnect"

So what does all of this mean?

The world used to be really small. People were limited to what happened in their city or village and every now and then, if the event was truly important, the news spread far enough. They wrote letters that would take months to reach their final destination if ever at all. The information was kept by few. You would hear from countries directly involved in the recent history of yours and you would barely ever make it very far from home. And even if you did, it was not an everyday thing or an everyday decision for anyone.

This was the life less than 100 years ago.

And to put things in perspective, humans have been on earth for around 200.000 years and the Earth herself is 4.543 billion years old.

So we can agree that the way we live now is fairly recent.

“We are now so disconnected” with the madness being amplified year after year with so much information it leaves us with 3 choices:

You will listen to it as if this had nothing to do with you what so ever.


You hide under your blankets. Forever. And deny it. Live in the bubble. Proclaim that all is well. Refuse to see the disconnection to the point that you are unable to move or function.


We can take a stand, and make a choice.

We can listen enough to know and make an informed choice and then we can choose to do something about it.

This is where the greatness is found.

There are no absolutes in science but we have to begin to trust the science of climate change.


Because it is untestable that this is the best planet we know, and it is clear beyond any doubt that the risk to us all is climate change.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change effects"

The move beyond the land and our disconnection from nature are impressive… but it is also one of the main threats facing us all.

With or without the Paris climate agreements:  We are still pumping 70 million tons of CO2  into our atmosphere a day.

Rest assure that climate change will not all happen at once.

It must now be treated as a continual threat with no debate.

We exist by nature consent not the other way around and the sooner we learn it the better.

It is the time that we put sustainability on all Education syllabus.

It is the time for all of us to demand that all-weather forecasting slots on our televisions screens at least once every three months addressed climate change.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.











YET we are more connected today than ever before and this has its madness and its greatness.


So we are DEFINITELY more connected than ever before.





( A one minute read)

Dear Youthful England,

In a few weeks, your unelected Mrs. T May and her Tory party will be negotiating your future away.

There will be no compensates for a Brexit. It will make it harder to go to university, harder to get a job, harder to start a family and harder to buy a house?


The generational chasm that is being created by Brexit will come to define your modern democracy.  A total negation of the will of young people.

An act of self-mutilation with almost mythical status marching down the isolationist path in a world that is in the grip of the 4th revolution called technology.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of young england 2017"

We all know that the EU needs reform. To be sure, stopping Brexit can’t be an end in itself.Image associée

In a world that is supposed to be more connected than ever before this reform will happen due to social media not by reactionary ideology.

As Mrs. May is trapped by the economics of self-service it is time to become vociferous and push Jeremy Corbyn off the fence on Brexit:

The Nigel Paul Farage of this world was summed up in a radio interview by a listener comment. ” You have spent more than 20 years of your life in Belgium, and for all that you do not speak a word of Flemish, German or French.”

The Youth of England will be summed up by not speaking.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of young england 2017"

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.














, ,

( A seven-minute read)

It appears that Theresa May has little or no understanding of the mean of the word Union or for that matter Nato Motto, “animus in consulendo liber”

(A satisfactory translation of the phrase has not been found, although a French version“l’esprit libre dans la consultation” comes close. Renderings in English have ranged from the cryptic “in discussion a free mind” to the more complex “man’s mind ranges unrestrained in counsel.”)

It is complete hogwash to be saying England wants to leave the EU’s common foreign and security policy as early as next year but would show flexibility around the UK’s red lines to secure a new security treaty. Dropping out of the single market and refusing to adhere to judgments of the European court of justice (ECJ) means the country would no longer be able to participate in joint institutions such as Europol, EU police databases or EU military missions.

So would someone please explain to me what she means when she says ” participated in EU agencies while also having its “sovereign legal order.”

If you are no longer in Europol and you have ditched the EU’s common foreign and security policy how can you “respect the role of the European court of justice”

On the other hand it seems to me that all the talk about a European Army/Security and its joint headquarters is another attempt to set up a new bureaucratic structure in order that European officials can continue to exist in comfort, producing paperwork and public declarations, just as they do in the EU and the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE).

Many Europeans have argued that the members of the European Union can exert greater influence in the world if they act together rather than separately; and that following the decline of Europe’s major powers, individual states’ power can collectively create a more powerful and credible European voice on the world stage.

The EU rarely manages to speak with one voice in any meaningful way.

There may well be a massive chasm between Europe, England, and US in terms of military capability but the fight against militants needs not more troops, but extensive and professional law enforcement agencies, a wide network of agents and other anti-terrorist structures.

They cannot be an army with rockets, tanks, bombers, and fighters – you do not fight against terrorists with heavy military equipment.

Having a joint court to arbitrate between states is a pragmatic solution to security cooperation.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"

One way or the other, Europe cannot afford two parallel armies for several reasons. Firstly, even now, a number of states are in no hurry to allocate 2 percent of their GDP to NATO’s overall defense budget, which relies mainly on Washington paying 75 percent of the total. Also, there are not enough human resources for the new army.

Furthermore, in an army, which is based on a unity of command and unquestioning obedience to the commander or boss, there cannot be any independent structures in principle. Otherwise, it is not an army, but a bad collective farm of bewildered soldiers receiving orders in twenty different languages.

So would someone tell me on what principle an integrated European army should be created?

In 2000, the EU announced proposals for an army of 100,000 (60,000 of whom could be deployed at 60 days’ notice for up to a year at a time). Britain’s Conservative Party commented at the time that this would effectively destroy NATO. Either troops already committed to NATO will be counted twice, or, in the worst case scenario, troops will be withdrawn from existing NATO missions.

But if a European army is created all the same, how will Russia react?

The Russians will work with it as they do with NATO. Let us just hope that the relationship will start with a clean slate and become a friendly one.

Sovereignty, however, cannot be traded for influence.

The ability to project power, whether regionally or globally, depends on several factors, including leadership, credibility, military capability, popular support, and dependable allies. The EU lacks all of these qualities.

The EU has no standing army. Instead, under its common security and defense policy (CSDP), it relies on ad hoc forces contributed by EU countries for:

Joint disarmament operations
Humanitarian & rescue tasks
Military advice & assistance
Conflict prevention & peacekeeping
Crisis management, e.g. peacemaking & post-conflict stabilization.

Since the Maastricht Treaty of 1991, the European Union has sought to forge a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) precisely to take the lead in times of global crises. Since January 2007, the EU has been able to carry out rapid-response operations with 2 concurrent single-battle groups, each comprising 1500 soldiers.

The EU failed to comprehend the sheer complexity of the problems of an EU Army because of its own institutional and military limitations, and the very different historical perspectives and poli­cies of its 12 constituent members.

For example, Austria, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, and Malta have chosen to pursue neutrality. It is highly improbable that these countries which don’t even belong to NATO will enroll their citizens in a European military alliance.

Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty clear STATES  that any further co-operation in the area of defense should be consistent with Nato commitments.

Even though terrorism is a serious issue, centralizing security and defense policies on the European level isn’t a useful way of fighting such a diffused and complex threat. If a Foreign policy is an attribute of statehood that must remain at the nation-state level if it is to be meaningful or effective.

Is it not pathetic to witness Mrs. May linking an economic deal to crime-fighting measures and to the sharing of intelligence.

It’s like a naughty school child sharing a secret for a smartie.

Without group security goals, building a common defense policy is neither realistic nor useful.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.



( A Ten minute Read)

The idea that globalization has become unmoored from geography – and Britain is about to reap the rewards – is wishful thinking.

All evidence points to the opposite conclusion:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the european union"

In fact, Britain is not about to enter a “post-geography trading world”.

Brexit will damage the UK’s flagship services sector, rather than liberating it.

In this day and age of technology services are increasingly delivered electronically, with financial transactions, advertisement mock-ups, and architectural blueprints sent to clients over the internet.

While this is true trade between two countries is greater if they have larger economies, and less if they are more distant from one another.

It is inconceivable that to this day it is not understood by the British people that the EU is the UK’s natural trading partner; that the single market has done more to raise trade in services than free trade agreements (FTAs); and that any barriers thrown up as a consequence of Brexit will be hard to offset with lower barriers to trade with the rest of the world.

The EU is a rich, large market that is on the UK’s doorstep, and its single market has proved more effective at reducing barriers to services trade than bilateral free trade agreements. The EU’s rules have led to an estimated 60 percent boost to services trade between EU member-states.

When it comes to goods and agriculture, the idea that trade is detached from geography is flat wrong.

Products and services are increasingly bundled together as one, services find themselves bound to the physical geography of manufactured goods.

While technology has certainly made interactions at a distance easier, these interactions still often require both parties to be in the same place:

Services are largely delivered by people and nearly half of the UK’s exports are now in services.


While it attempts to negotiate a new relationship with the EU, the outcome of which is highly uncertain, all of this undermines the government’s ‘global Britain’ narrative.

Britain is becoming a semi-detached member of the EU, outside the euro and the Schengen zone, and increasingly eurosceptic.

One does not need a crystal ball to see that the EU needs reforms, but there can be no half-way house between a free trade agreement and full membership of the single market. Nor can there be ‘Managed divergence’.

IE: The UK and EU commit to regulatory alignment in some sector while allowing the UK to diverge from new rules in others in the future.

This amounts to cherry-picking, which the EU has made a red line.

The EU-27 cannot agree to a system where the UK converges when deemed to be in its interest, but diverges in those sectors in which it could gain competitive advantage with the rest of the world.

It would be a political feat for the EU and UK to agree which rules are crucial for maintaining a level playing field, and which matter less. Certain rules matter for the operation of several different markets (chemical regulations have an impact on other markets for products that use those chemicals, as well as on the environment), and some are highly specific to a particular market.

Since the economic impact of regulations is very hard to identify objectively, any disputes could prove impossible to manage.

If the UK chose to diverge from one part of the EU’s insurance regime, should the EU have the right to curtail market access in the sector as a whole?

There is no getting away from that a free trade agreement would lead to more checks and paperwork on UK imports at the EU’s border – especially in highly regulated sectors like agriculture, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and cars, which would no longer be subject to the EU’s rules.

It is also not possible to do services-only trade deals.

So what’s left on the table is a fudge-

or- What’s in it for me?

One way or the other finding a solution is entirely dependent on EU goodwill with or without a transition period the time is ripe for EU reform.

The EU’s institutions, the European Commission is losing the trust of some governments because of the perception that it is increasingly dependent on the European Parliament.

It should return to an equidistant position between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament.

National parliaments should play a greater role in EU governance.

It is time to transcend the traditional battle between communautaire and inter-governmental thinking.

The EU cannot succeed without both federal institutions and a major role for governments; they must work together.

As long as the European Union is made up of independent nations with their own elected governments, their problems are going to be essentially local and they will need local solutions. Squeezing them into the same monetary straightjacket has clearly failed and adding a fiscal union would just exacerbate an already unsustainable situation. Governments need the flexibility to deal with their own problems.

History tells us citizens will not accept taxation without representation.

Fiscal union would, therefore, would not be a major step towards a true political union. Fiscal union would entail a ballooning of the EU budget – provoking endless bickering among the 27 (or more) member states on how to share it out, not to mention the expanded scope for graft and bureaucratic inefficiency.

It’s a recipe for gridlock.

All human comments appriciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.





, , , , ,


( A two-minute read) Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of computer algorithms"

Do you ever stop to ask yourself why you should trust the information or decisions that algorithms produce?

AI smartphones will soon be standard, using machine learning from the cloud and sooner than later smartphones will have personalized algorithms that will run even when offline.

These algorithms will be own by the companies that both sell and manufacture the phone and will, therefore, carry inbuilt biases depending on which platforms they are attached to.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of computer algorithms"

Imagine a cheap little device that can compute as much data as all the brains in the world. It will have a deep and irreversible affect on everyone and there is no way of predicting what exactly will happen as the developers of such a device will have no idea what it is doing.

How far do we want to go- Robots that obey no matter what with us blind human as their allies.

Today the world faces a number of hugely complex challenges, from global warming to conflicts to nuclear weapons to rampant inequality. But one the real seismic change is how we are going to respond to each other when we all trusting algorithms to make decisions on our behalf.

Now is it the time to put in place world standards and regulations that govern the use of all biological data.





All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.



( A two minute read that could save your humanity)

There, not a day that Artifical Intelligence is not in the news – Social Media, Davos, TV, Magazines, Flipboard all telling us that we are going to be replaced by Robots.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Creating a common future in a fractured world.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of robots working in factories"

It seems that we are all to be made redundant, to live in a world run by Algorithms that have no conscious while our imaginations run wild.

In my last post ( Soon there will be no need to wait for the return of Jesus) I said: ” If you are expecting some kind of warning when computers finally get smarter than us, think again.”

You only have to look around you to realize that if we as a species continue to ignore the warning signs life its self will be hacked.

Then the question will be who or what should own the data.

Should it be a few Corporations that live in the cloud or should data that is biological in its nature be owned by all of us?

Algorithms without any human values or responsibility for their decisions are already making decisions on our behalf.

If this continues unabated without any form of regulation we are going to have a world of vast inequality and bias.

The programmes that will drive machines like robots in the near future will carry the contamination of the values of there owners.

Our ideas about responsibility are out of date.

Does our conscious rule what we are responsible for.

If we are just biological Algorithms is it our intelligence that gives us consciously or is it our imagination that is the governor or the other way around.

A question that has many answers but would you befriend a robot that has no responsibility.

If you had Alsimers you might as there is no end point in your life.

This is why we need to ensure that all Robotics ware their nonhumanity on their sleeves so we are fully aware of what association we have with AI.

We need new stories new thinking to match the new technology,

This Fourth Industrial revolution requires a solution that is global not a race to the bottom in a fragmented world.

It’s time to get our faces out of our smartphones and become smart before it’s too late.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.












, , , , , , ,


( A four-minute read)

If you look at the direction the world is going in life itself is about to break out of organic life into to nonorganic life.

If you were expecting some kind of warning when computers finally get smarter than us, then think again.(filistimlyanin/

In reality, our electronic overlords are already taking control, and they are doing it in a far more subtle way than science fiction would have us believe.

Another word we will have different biological classes of people with new types of gods with new tec religions that produce new bodies, brains, and minds.

There will be no more going to heaven.

It is these invisible computations that increasingly control how we interact with our electronic world. There will be new stories, new thinking to match the new technologies.

Algorithms will be the new form of Communism.

These days we die not because it is in our DNA or Genes but because of Techo problems.

Calico a Google subsidiary is a research and development company whose mission is to harness advanced technologies to increase our understanding of the biology that controls lifespan.

Its ambition is to solve the problem of human health/death.

It’s all being done right before our eyes.

Algorithms can now detect personalities via human language conversation.

What’s next? Will WW3 be launched via algorithm?

Perhaps not but inequality will be the norm with Fundamentalism gone.

The power of algorithms has spread far beyond Wall Street and now touches all of us–starting with today’s young innovators.

Algorithms are doing a lot more than automating stock trades.

Most people don’t know that there are algorithms that decide how customer service calls get routed or how customer service requests will be treated. When people call these big companies like their health insurer or telecom company, they’re actually being categorized, sliced, diced and parsed by a bot.

It’s incredible to think that the words someone chooses on a given morning will forever change how that company treats him or her.

These algorithms don’t just affect people involved in computer science.

No-one would doubt that Google system has made searching a whole lot easier, but at what price? As algorithms spread their influence beyond machines to shape the raw landscape around them, it might be time to work out exactly how much they know and whether we still have time to tame them.

Algorithm change because they know they’re getting gamed.

Algorithms are aimed at optimizing everything.

They can save lives, make things easier and conquer chaos but are they putting too much control in the hands of corporations and governments, perpetuate bias, create filter bubbles, cut choices, creativity, and serendipity, and could result in greater unemployment.

How far Google’s data-crunching algorithm go in harvesting our personal data and shaping the web will be the Story of the Future and because our brains are becoming more and more reliant on the internet for memory

The Google story could well be the god of the future.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.






, ,

( A two-minute read)

We now have a car in space at a cost of $90 million. That’s $639.80 per pound thanks to Elon Musk’s Falcon Heavy SpaceX rocket. The next most powerful rocket, the Delta IV Heavy, runs about $350 million per launch.Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 4.58.03 PM

It boasts 27 engines, more than any other working rocket has ever used, which together create a combined 5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. Falcon Heavy is capable of taking 68 tonnes of equipment into an orbit close to the Earth.

With a world in turmoil, the new age space race is upon us.

Next, we need traffic lights.

Space debris is rapidly becoming one of the biggest problems we face – there are more than 150m objects that need tracking to ensure as few collisions with working spacecraft as possible.

The amount of kerosene in three Falcon 9 rockets is roughly 440 tonnes and RP-1 has a 34% carbon content, which is a lot of carbon dioxide when burnt.

However this amount of carbon is a drop in the ocean compared to global industrial emissions as a whole, but if the SpaceX’s plan for a rocket launch every two weeks comes to fruition, this amount of carbon (approximately 4,000 tonnes per year) will rapidly become a bigger problem.

Now for a bit of history:

For the 1967 Apollo mission to the moon, Saturn V rocket’s first stage carried 203,400 gallons of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons of liquid oxygen, totaling over 500,000 gallons of fuel for getting out of the atmosphere alone. The second stage carried another 260,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and 80,000 gallons of liquid oxygen. The third stage carries 66,700 gallons of liquid hydrogen and 19,359 gallons of liquid oxygen.

All told the rocket that achieved one small step for a man and one giant leap for mankind held just under 950,000 gallons of fuel.

Falcon 9’s first stage uses 39,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and almost 25,000 gallons of kerosene, while the second stage uses 7,300 gallons of liquid oxygen and 4,600 gallons of kerosene. Combined, it makes lean mean 75,900 gallons of fuel.

On the other hand.

The Saturn V’s first stage lasted 180 seconds So. The first stage consumed 1,400,000 pounds of RP-1 and 3,178,000 pounds of LOX.

That’s 4,578,000 pounds of the expanded chemical in total.

The mass of most rockets is more than 95% fuel.

 Let me congratulate Mr. Musk and remind him of his own words ” Only a carbon tax—not innovation, conservation, or renewable energy—will accelerate the transition from carbon-producing fossil fuels to sustainable energy.”

My point is:

Perhaps it might have been better putting his energy and all that energy into something with a bit more imagination.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.