The Paradoxical Universe

A paradox is a statement or idea that contains an inherent contradiction. Some examples are:

The paradox of choice: Buyers want choices, but too much choice is overwhelming and prevents buyers from making a choice.

The paradox of tolerance: A society that tolerates everything must also tolerate intolerance. Is a society that tolerates intolerance tolerant or intolerant?

The chicken and egg paradox: The classic biological paradox: which came first, the chicken or the egg? I’ve always wondered why chickens were chosen for this paradox. No one asks if the kitten or cat came first, the puppy or the dog, or the baby or the adult.

The machine-tool-construction paradox: This is similar to the chicken and egg paradox. Every machine that exists was built using tools made by other machines. How could the first machine have been built if there were no machines before it to make the tools needed to build the first machine?

Perhaps the simplest paradox is the sentence: This sentence is false. If it’s true, then it’s false, and if it’s false, then it’s true, in an endless loop. 

A visual paradox – how does the water keep flowing?

Going in circles

One cause of this paradox is the fact that “This sentence is false” refers to itself in a strange form of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a flawed argument where the conclusion of the argument is assumed to be true, and which then uses this conclusion to “prove” the premise.

Examples of circular reasoning are:

John must be guilty because he was arrested. This argument assumes that only guilty people are arrested, and that if someone is arrested, they must be guilty.

You should obey the law because it’s illegal to break the law.  By definition, if you don’t follow the law, you are committing an illegal act, so this statement does not argue anything.

All circular reasoning takes the form: A = B because B = A. The sentence “This sentence is false.” is a one-sentence version of this form.

Circular reasoning

This is not a heading

One way to resolve “This sentence is false” is to declare it is not really a sentence, or at least not one with any meaning.

It is possible to group words together into a sentence that has no meaning. Noam Chomsky provides a good example: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. This sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless. Therefore, we could say that the sentence “This sentence is false” is null and void. We thereby sentence this sentence to exile in the land of forbidden sentences.

However, this smacks of circular reasoning, because we’re effectively saying: This sentence is not a sentence because it’s not a sentence. Our desire to resolve this and other paradoxes reflects a larger world-view, that there should be no contradictions in life. However, our entire world is based on contradictions and paradoxes.

Let there be light

One of the most ubiquitous things in our universe is light. However, there is a fundamental contradiction in the nature of light. Depending on how you observe it, light is a wave or a particle. This contradiction in light’s structure is known as wave-particle duality

Wave-particle duality relates to another area of physics, quantum mechanics, which has more paradoxes. A principle of quantum mechanics is that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time, a completely paradoxical existence.

It’s big, relatively speaking

Quantum mechanics is the study of the very small: atoms and their components. General relativity, by contrast, is the study of very large objects like planets and galaxies.

Because we live in one universe, there should be one set of rules governing everything. However, there are fundamental contradictions between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

In quantum mechanics, time flows consistently, whereas in general relativity, time can be bent using matter and energy. Quantum mechanics is based on the uncertainty principle, which states that you cannot know the exact speed and location of a subatomic particle at the same time, an idea incompatible with general relativity, where speed and location are both known.

Let’s get small

Quantum mechanics also includes the bizarre concepts of Planck length and Planck time, both enormously small units of measure.

A Planck length is 1.6 × 10−35 meters or 0.00000000000000000001 times the size of a proton. If an atom was the size of the earth, a Planck length would be the size of a proton.

Planck time is one 10−43 of a second. One unit of Planck time is to a second what a second is to 300 billion trillion years, a time far greater than the age of the universe.

Planck length and Planck time are thought to be the smallest possible intervals that can be measured. If you tried to go any smaller, the laws of physics would break down.

There are also limits on how large space and time can be. Although the universe is very large and very old, it is not infinitely large or old. It is estimated to be 93 billion light-years wide, and 14 billion years old.

The fact that space and time, the most elemental aspects of reality, have an upper and lower limit implies that there is a cosmic minimum and maximum resolution to the universe, much like a TV has a minimum and maximum image resolution, beyond which it cannot go.

Whether these limits are by design or simply an inherit aspect of our reality remains a mystery.

Magnified TV resolution

Applied science

Scientists are trying to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity into a grand “theory of everything” that would resolve the fundamental differences between them. Still, despite these differences, each area has led to amazing discoveries.

Applications of quantum mechanics include lasers, electron microscopes, solar cells and quantum computing. General relativity is applied to cosmology (the study of the origin and evolution of the universe), the study of black holes, nuclear fusion (a potential limitless source of clean energy) and GPS (Global Positioning Systems).

The application of GPS is particularly salient. A GPS helps us navigate through new and strange territory; to find our way. This is exactly what a grand unified theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics would do – decode exactly where we fit in the universe.

Scientists have made enormous advances using both these areas, despite the fact that they contradict each other. There is no conflict between progress and contradiction. Science takes the best of both worlds, large and small.

Feeling conflicted

Contradictions are useful not just in science but in life. We live with, indeed we thrive, with contradictions.

We must be assertive but flexible. We must be independent but social. We judge but are compassionate. We seek challenges but also comfort. We must fit within society but also question the status quo and change it. We have free will, but are strongly influenced by others and outside forces.

Through these contradictions, we grow and mature. We do not need to choose one or the other – we need both.

Intelligence 2.0

Both science and humanity are facing their own paradox with the explosive growth of AI (artificial intelligence). DallE and MidJourney AI create astounding images from descriptive text. ChatGPT gives detailed, coherent responses to questions and requests, including general queries, poems and short stories.

Here is an example of an image created using MidJourney:

Have cake, will eat it too

Depending on what output you are observing, AI sometimes produces superior output than a human can, and sometimes does not. To resolve this paradox, we can have AI and humans working together.

A chess player working with an AI will play better than a person or an AI separately. Doctors work with AI medical systems such as IBM’s Watson to diagnose diseases.

There is a particularly remarkable example of humans working with AI. Music historians, musicologists, composers and computer scientists created an AI to analyze Beethoven’s unfinished 10th symphony and all his other works. Based on the patterns the AI found, it generated a musical score on what it thought the remainder of the unfinished symphony should be. The musicians constantly reviewed and updated the AI’s score using their extensive human musical skills. You can see a portion of the remarkable final result here.

We can go even further. Humans are not only working well with AIs, they are combining different AI systems together to produce complex new forms. People have used ChatGPT to write descriptive stories, then copied these descriptions into an AI image generator, creating completely original graphic novels. Similar combinations of AIs can create sounds and videos. In the near future, we may be able to use a single AI to instantly create entire movies with coherent stories, images, music and sound.

I think, therefore I doublethink

As we’ve seen, in science and in life, we use contradictory approaches to solve problems and answer difficult questions. This is doublethink, the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts simultaneously, a concept from George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984.

Doublethink is illustrated in a scene in the novel where Winston, held captive by O’Brien, says that two and two are four. O’Brien calmly responds:

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

Doublethink surely is not a good thing, then, is it?

It depends – in fact, you can use doublethink to describe itself:

  • Doublethink is a dangerous form of thinking that leads to contradictory ideas.
  • Doublethink is a productive form of thinking that leads to new ideas and tangible benefits.

Both of these things are true, and not true.

The Big Question

Science uses doublethink to describe the nature of light and reality. But could doublethink answer the question of what gives life meaning and purpose, and whether God exists?

On these ultimate questions, the main belief systems include:

Theism – The belief that God exists and is the source of all meaning and morality.

Atheism – The belief that God does not exist. Life has no meaning or we must invent one.

Agnosticism – The belief that we cannot know if God exists or not. Life may or may not have meaning.

HumanismThe belief in the worth and dignity of humans individually and collectively, rather than God, with an emphasis on critical thinking, reason, individual freedom and free thought, and the scientific method.

Ignosticism – This is similar to agnosticism in that it states that it’s impossible to know if God exists. However, it goes further by saying that the question itself is meaningless, because it’s impossible to know exactly what God is or what the nature of his existence could be.

All these views have their strengths and weaknesses. For me, the three most compelling are humanism, agnosticism and theism.

But which one of these is “correct”?

Pick a door, any door

Quantum theology

I suggest a new belief system, quantheism, which states that depending on the observer and the situation, God exists or does not exist.

When we observe the awesome complexity of the universe, the planets, stars and galaxies, the incredible variety of life, and the sense of community and history within our faith, God flows into existence.

When we see that most people, including millions of children and other innocents, suffer in poverty, misery, war, natural disasters and disease, often dying young, God slips out of existence.

When we recognize the challenge of knowing that there must be a right and wrong, but not having an outside source of morality, God flows into existence. When we observe that people can behave rightly or wrongly regardless of whether they are religious or secular, God fades away.

When we struggle between these two views, we are agnostic, and God moves into a quantum state, neither existing nor not existing.

Theism provides an order and structure to the world, a sense of wonder, a belief that there is more out there than what we experience with our physical senses; it give us a sense of hope, of connection to an infinite guiding force, and the knowledge that this life is not all there is.

Humanism gives us rational thought, the scientific method, personal freedom, tolerance, self-determination, and personal responsibility.

Agnosticism gives us the freedom to doubt, and freedom from absolutes.

So am I a theist, humanist, or agnostic?

Sometimes I am a theist. Sometimes I am humanist. Sometimes I am agnostic. Sometimes I am all of them at once.

It is not easy to become sane.


The Doc Particle

Never has something so small attracted so much attention. In July of this year, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest particle accelerator, claimed to have discovered the oddly named Higgs-boson particle. (And it only cost them $10 billion to find it.)
This tiny particle is also known as the God Particle because it could explain why things exist.  Discovery of the Higgs-boson particle helps prove the existence of something even more bizarre: the Higgs field. This is an invisible force field which covers the entire universe, allowing subatomic particles to have mass. Without mass, electrons, protons and neutrons wouldn’t be able to form atoms, and therefore nothing would exist.
This discovery could lead to some amazing things. If scientists could actually control the Higgs-boson particle, we could travel at the speed of light and change matter. Science fiction would become science fact.
The idea that there’s a force holding everything together is fascinating. We think that things just are – that they exist in a simple, natural state. The fact that things may not be so simple, that it actually requires a force to hold everything together and give a structure to all matter, is mind-blowing.
But the question for technical communicators is this: what is the force that holds all content together? By content, I mean any organized collection of information that forms a document, help system, website,  or any other form of visual communication.
Whatever this force is, it must be as powerful as the Higgs field, for without this force, content would descend into a universe of chaos, with thousands, if not millions, of elemental pieces of information flying off in every direction.
  • Topics would have no context or structure.
  • Concepts would have no meaning.
  • Indices would include non-existent entries.
  • Tables of content would cease to exist.
  • Tasks, the backbone of many user guides, would describe inaccurate or irrelevant steps, and would omit key steps.
One shudders to think how it would all look, but having an engineer write a user guide gives a fair approximation.
So just what is the force that holds all this content altogether? The answer is so obvious that you would not even suspect it – it is technical communicators. We are the force that holds content together. We create it, shape it, fine-tune it, and then re-shape it again until it forms a living system of information that is practical and meaningful to the end user.
We have seen the God Particle of content, and it is us.

Trinity, One Two Three

People are innately drawn to things in threes; to objects in triplicate. There’s the classic Christian trinity, where God is divided up neatly into three parts: the father, the son, and the holy spirit. But there are many other trinities:

  • mind, body and soul
  • thinking, feeling and acting
  • work/life/play balance
  • the division of pregnancy into three trimesters
  • animal, vegetable and mineral
  • Christians, Muslims and Jews
  • protons, neutrons and electrons
  • the First, Second and Third Worlds
  • sex, politics and religion
  • family, friends and co-workers

In addition, Starbucks Coffee developed the idea of “the third place” outside of home and work, where one could simply relax while drinking $6 lattes. Clearly, people are attracted to threesomes, but why?

It could be that three represents a careful, comforting and symbiotic balance. While it’s true that just two things can “balance” each other (picture two equal riders on a see-saw), extending the number to three seems to add that extra element of desired symmetry. Each of three balances out each other in a psychologically pleasing way.

DITA, an XML markup language that is revolutionizing how content is stored, created and managed, also uses a trinity. In DITA, all content is stored as individual, modular topics. There are three basic DITA topic types in which all content can be classified: concepts, tasks, and references.

  1. A concept topic describes what something is or why you would perform a task. It gives the idea behind something; the background information that the reader needs to know.
  2. A task topic gives detailed, step-by-step procedures for a specific action. It can include pre-requisites and expected results. It is one of the most common topic types.
  3. A reference topic contains technical material, specifications, lookups and other detailed information, often in a table form. Examples include command references, allowed values, lists and catalogues.

Now, what’s very important to remember is that you should never mix the content of each of the parts in this holy trinity together, for you will surely burn in content management hell.

For example:

  1. In a task, do not include a detailed explanation of why you would perform this task. Maintain this background information in a concept, then, if necessary, link it to the task topic.
  2. In a concept, do not include procedural steps. Keep these steps in a task topic.
  3. If there are many possible values to choose from in a task, do not include them in the task, but in a reference topic instead.

You can see, therefore, that this trinity of topic types covers all your information needs.

And it’s as easy as 1-2-3….

He Said/She Said

Related imageHere’s a word puzzle for you: which pronoun (he or she) would you use to describe a person who has had a sex change? I ask this because I recently read a news article about a female teacher who underwent such an procedure. The teacher now considers himself?/herself? as a man. (Oy – I’m already running into trouble here.) However, the school (a religious one) still views this person as a woman. The author of the article used the title Mr. and the pronoun he when referring to the teacher. Is this correct?

You see the catch-22 here. By using the word he, the writer accepted the position of the teacher, and tacitly recognized the teacher as a man. But if the writer had used the female pronoun, he would have been considered disrespectful toward the teacher. What’s a poor writer to do?

Mutant Hybrid
One solution is to create a new type of hybrid pronoun, something like s/he. Not only is this awkward, it has the side effect of offending both points of view. The solution lies the basic principle of technical communication: Know thy audience.

You see, this entire he/she debacle is not the problem: it’s a symptom of a much larger problem: trying to write the same information for two different audiences, in a vain effort not to offend either. The two audiences are secular and religious.

Secular Vs. Religious
Let’s assume that most people who read non-religious newspapers are secular. So we can safely take the liberal, secular position and assume that whatever someone calls themselves, they are that person. This relates to another aspect of information development.

In documentation, we sometimes have to describe different types of users: basic, intermediate, advanced, and so on. Many software applications will only allow certain functions or screens to be accessed by certain user types. For example, an Administrator will have access to certain modules that a Worker (a regular user) would not.

Who defines these roles? Well, ideally, the person who is working in that role would have to agree, at least on a general level, to that description. Heaven forbid we have a regular user calling themselves an Administrator. That is, the person filling the role helps define the role and needs to agree to the role they are assigned to.

Back to the story – the teacher views himself/herself as a man, and is legally recognized as a man in our secular legal system. So from the secular perspective he is a man. Therefore, the newspaper would be right to use he.

Now, if you are a deeply religious reader, you:
a) don’t read secular newspapers


b) do read secular newspapers, with the understanding that they might “offend” you


c) read only religious newspapers

So if I was writing about this person for a religious magazine, I would use she, because that word reflects the religious viewpoint. Just as secular writers should not be forced into the religious viewpoint, religious writers should not be forced into the secular one.

That is the essence of documentation: writing with your audience in mind.

And you could easily single-source both articles in FrameMaker. God bless Adobe! (Oops…)

The Ten Plagues of Technical Communication

See the source imageThis time of year, my family, along with many others, will gather to celebrate the festival of Passover. This holiday, like all Jewish holidays, can be summed up as: “There was a battle, we won, let’s eat.”

During Passover, we celebrate the liberation of our ancestors from slavery in Egypt. Lest you think slavery is an outdated idea in our so-called modern, free world, simply look at how many people are slaves to their cell phones, Blackberries, to their computers and cars, and to all their other material possessions. The things they own end up owning them. That’s why Passover is one of the most popular and well-celebrated holidays, because the concepts of freedom and slavery are still relevant today.

One of the more colourful segments of the Passover story is the ten plagues brought down upon Egypt. Just as freedom and slavery still exist today, so do plagues. The ones faced by technical communicators are not quite as harsh as blood, pests and wild beasts, but can still cause us great pain.

Here, then, are the modern plagues that technical communicators face today:

1. Difficult reviewers – We’ve all experienced these. Reviewers who don’t return drafts, or return them with such helpful comments as ‘What?’, ‘Needs work’, ‘No!’ or my personal favourite ‘Huh? Reviewers like this need to be placed in front of a firing squad for life.

2. Poor documentation software – Although great improvements have been made over the years, the software for creating documentation is still as not as good as it could be. Microsoft Word is the after-thought of a documentation tool. FrameMaker is quite solid, but still has many annoying quirks. In general, there are few tools, if any, that do everything we want at a reasonable price. We’ve come a long way, baby, but there’s still so much further we could go.

3. Developers – Developers are like dentists – they’re not really appreciated, they cause us great pain, but we need them. They are technically brilliant, somewhat autistic individuals whose greatest strength and weakness is that they focus on the two M‘s: mechanics and minutiae. That’s why developers usually make bad tech writers. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of reading something written by developer, you’ll know what I mean. It can only be described as “mutant documentation.”

The problem is that developers have trouble standing back and seeing the big picture, and that’s where we come in. We sift through the details and extract exactly what the end user really needs to know.

Also, some of the most challenging documentation is that aimed at developers – SDKs, APIs, Technical Guides, Data Dictionaries, and so on. Because it can be very dry and tedious to work on these, the pay is often quite good; you just have to be comfortable writing for Martians.

4. Marketers – The creature who is the polar opposite of the technical writer is not the developer, but the Marketer. Technical writers like to use as few words as possible, and ones that are simple and clear, with no fluff. Marketers, by contrast, like to use many words, often long, unclear, fluffy ones, to overwhelm the reader. Marketers love words and phrases such as: synergize, leverage, empower, paradigm, extreme quality, customer-focused, customer-obsessed, customer-driven, and so on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

There is marketing writing, and there is technical writing, and never the ‘twain shall meet.

5. Billboard designers – Although you could lump these specimens with marketers, they are so particularly evil that they must be singled out. Like user guides, billboards are a form of communication designed to quickly impart information. However, many are so poorly designed, I wonder how their designers make a living. The type is far too small or has such poor contrast that it’s almost impossible to read. The sad thing is that companies pay tens of thousands of dollars for this illegible junk.

6. Missing or bad indices – An index is one of the most important elements in any document. Users often turn first to an index to quickly find the information they need, often under stress. A user guide or online help is often only as good as its index. Therefore, good indexing skills are critical. Unfortunately, many writers neglect this important stage. They either fail to include an index, or include a skimpy or confusing one. Put yourself in the reader’s place: wouldn’t you want to be able to quickly find what you’re looking for?

7. Duped docs – Duplicated text is the bane of my existence. I’ve spent more time trying to merge, conditionalize and normalize duplicate copies and versions of text than I care to remember. In one project, I merged twelve Word installation guides into one single-sourced FrameMaker document. It was pure pain, but it sure looks good on a resume.

8. Bad software – A strange and deadly belief has developed that if the software you’re documenting is poorly designed, somehow the documentation will magically fix it. To the deluded who hold this belief, I ask: would you drive a car that had faulty brakes if the user guide warned you they were faulty? Of course not. Still, we don’t want the software to be too easy to use, because then users wouldn’t need any documentation!

9. Outdated documentation – It’s out there, and we’ve all seen it. The docs that haven’t been looked at or reviewed in years, possibly decades. You know it’s a bad sign when you have to travel down into the cold, dark, bowels of your building to try to resuscitate old printouts. Here’s one segment from an old manual I found: “You can send a one-page fax in as little as 27 minutes!”

10. Ignorant Managers – Many managers have no clue about the complexity and challenges that the documentation department faces. The usual response when presented with requests to improve the documentation quality and processes is “Documentation? Hey, I use Word – don’t you guys?” The higher the manager, the greater the ignorance. It’s probably because of the neckties they wear – it cuts off the oxygen to their brain.

Every generation and every profession faces its own plagues, and it’s true that some plagues are “gentler” than others – managers like to call these plagues “challenges.” Challenges are tough but they make us grow. Both Passover and Easter celebrate growth and redemption. Therefore, may we and all our documentation be redeemed this year, and may we all avoid as many of these plagues as possible.

Genesis Redux

Image result for Genesis creationIn the beginning, God created hardware. But the hardware was without form and void. So God said, “Let there be creatures to create the software for the hardware.” And there were software developers. And God saw that they were good.

And God said, “Let there be creatures to test and support the software.” And God created them, and called them “quality assurance engineers” and “technical support analysts”. And the software developers then had the fear of God upon them.
And God said, “Let there be another breed of creatures to sell and manage the software, so that it may reach the far corners of the world.” And God created salespeople, and marketers, and business analysts.

Creepy Creatures
And then God said: “It is not good that all these software creatures should be alone; I will create more creatures to use the software.” And God created a firmament between the software developers and the normal creatures. And God called the developers “geeks”, and the normal creatures, “users”.

And God named the first user, User 1.0, and the second user, User 2.0. And they dwelled in the paradise that God created for them. And the Users delighted in using the software, which was perfect, and without flaws or defect or blemish, and required neither training nor documentation.

The Knowledge Application
And God spoke to the Users, saying “You may use any software you desire, but the Knowledge Application you shall not use. For on the day that you do, you will know pain.”

Now in the paradise that God created, there was the Salesperson, a creature more crafty than any other beast. The Salesperson said to User 2.0, “Did God actually say, ‘Do not run the Knowledge Application?'” And User 2.0 said, “Of all the software we may use, but from the Knowledge Application, God has said, ‘You shall not use, for then you will know pain.'”

And the crafty Salesperson said: “You will not know pain. For God knows that on the day you run the Knowledge Application, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing truth and falsehood.”

Original Sin
So User 2.0 and User 1.0 ran the Knowledge Application and saw that it was a delight to the mind, and that it made them wise. And the eyes of both of them were opened. And they saw that their software had a defect, so they called tech support.

And God saw that the Users had called tech support and called out, angrily, “Who told you that the software had a defect? Have you used the Knowledge Application which I commanded you not to use?” And User 1.0 said, “The User 2.0 you created gave me the Knowledge Application, and I ran it.”

Then the God said to User 2.0, “What is this you have done?” And User 2.0 said, “The Salesperson deceived me, and I ran the Knowledge Application.”

Vengeance is Mine

And God said to the Users: “Because you have partaken of the Knowledge Application, you will know pain. You shall be confounded by software and hardware, and you will know of endless bugs, and system crashes, and application instability that will drive you to madness. And you will require extensive training, support, maintenance, upgrades, and documentation so that you will be able to use the software.”

God’s Finest Creature
And God said, “Let us make one final creature, in our image.” And he created the Technical Writer and blasted the knowledge of the software into it.

And God said to the Technical Writer: “Behold, the world will come to know you as the creator and keeper of all practical knowledge. And this is a heavy burden, for you must keep the following commandments:

  1. You shall make the meaningless meaningful and the incomprehensible comprehensible.
  2. You shall provide truthful and accurate communication to all Users.
  3. You shall dedicate yourselves to conciseness, clarity, coherence, completeness, striving to address the needs of those whose products you document.
  4. You shall serve the business interests of clients and employers, as long as such loyalty does not violate the public good.
  5. You shall contact your clients and employers when you believe material is ambiguous.
  6. You shall negotiate realistic, candid agreements on schedules, budgets, and deliverables with clients and employers in the planning stage.
  7. You shall seek to promote the public good in your activities.
  8. You shall avoid conflicts of interest in the fulfillment of your professional responsibilities and activities.
  9. You shall seek candid evaluations of your professional performance from clients and employers, and shall provide candid evaluations of communication products and services.
  10. You shall advance the technical communication profession through integrity, high standards, and performance.

A Powerful Promise
And God said: “If you follow these commandments that I have given you, you shall be respected, and prosper, and be as numerous as the stars. But if you stray from these commandments, then you will know my wrath, and the world will despise you and curse you and the user manuals you create, and will never read them.

“So know this – today I set before you a choice between good and evil, between knowledge and ignorance. Choose knowledge, so that you may become wise. And if you do, it shall come to pass that the world will be in awe of you and will seek your wisdom and counsel. And clear and concise information will fill the world as the oceans and the sky. And you will be blessed and called ‘a people of the book’. And ignorance and poor documentation will cease to be…”