I added that line because they got downvoted, assumed it was because someone thought it was just a statement rather than starting that train of thought
I always thought private browsing was just so all the porn content doesn't stay in search history's and the address bar doesn't auto fill fatasshonkeybabes.com if my grandmother sits down to look at her Facebooks.
And it was always clearly stated as such. It's absurd that anyone was upset by this. I have yet to find a single user on here who did not properly understand what it was for, or at least none willing admit to being that dumb.
Very non tech savvy person here, that is just a normie reddit refugee. I know what Linux is, but have never really worked with it. Don't have an opinion about it.
I recently installed a pi hole in my home network by following step by step instructions. That's the most techy stuff I ever did in my life and I would have never dared to try it, if I hadn't read a comment on lemmy that linked an easy introduction into working with raspberry pis.
Private browsing in Google Chrome will not store your browsing data locally into your computer; but Google will still keep that data in their own records.
Don't use mushroom ID apps and don't trust random guidebooks from Amazon, they're probably AI-generated crap.
The deadly mycotoxin orellanine, which is present in Cortinarius rubellus, the deadly webcap, may not cause symptoms in those who ingested the mushroom until one or two weeks have passed – after detectable traces of the toxin are already gone, and late-stage kidney failure has already begun. Connecting the sickness with certainty to a misidentified wild mushroom that was eaten weeks earlier with no obvious ill effects is not always possible.
That's only true in an academic sense. When a layman uses the term "political", they refer to discussion pertaining to things like how a formal government is run, comparisons between types of governance, government policy, etc.
While deciding what cookie to eat or what color your cat's litterbox is might technically be political in an academic sense, you're just going to annoy people if you try to tell them that those are political decisions. I have found that trying to force academic definitions into common use is confusing at best, annoying on average, and infuriating at worst.
An example of where a word's academic definition has no place in common speech can be found in "information". The informal definition of "information" typically is seen as referring to knowledge and the transfer of said knowledge. This definition allows you to gain information from a lack of something.
However, it is my understanding that the scientific definition of "information" does not allow for the aforementioned action, as "information" refers to the properties of physical matter. The result is that you cannot gain "information" from a lack of something. You might be able to come to conclusions based on a lack of "information", but you cannot actually gain "information" from a lack of something because "information" is inherently linked to matter.
Now. All of that said, this meme is related to something said at an engineering school, so on the one hand, it isn't entirely out-of-place to expect the academic definition to be used because it is an academic setting. Yet, on the other hand, it is an engineering school, not a political science school. As such, while OP should be aware that the academic definition of "politics" may come into play, it's also reasonable to expect that their professors and peers would mainly be using the common definition of the term.
However again, in my experience, trying to force academic definitions into casual discussion is confusing at best, annoying on average, and infuriating at worst. Please stop trying to do it. Thanks.
(Also, imo, genocide is like Schrodinger's Cat; it is both political and not political at the same time. Personally, I think it mainly depends on the depth of the discussion; but its "political" nature varies from person-to-person. Imo, saying that genocide is happening shouldn't be considered "political", but talking about why it is occuring is political.)
Edit: whoops, somehow my comment doubled, within the comment. The fuck happened there?
Edit 2: I swear I need to find a new phone keyboard, and I need to read over my comments before submitting. I'm finding a lot of stupid auto-correct errors, and it seems like they're becoming more common.
Edit 3: the reason I got hung-up on it, and I should have mentioned this, is because I often see "everything is political" used to justify bringing heavier topics into places where it's inappropriate (like chatrooms where people are trying to just hang out and have light hearted discussions).
Technically, yes, everything is political if you make it political. But you have to make it political first. Petting your cat isn't inherently political unless you bring up the government policies and economical structures that allow you to own the cat in the first place, or compare your attitude towards the cat to a political stance, or something else of that ilk.
In the same way, everything is scientific if you study it scientifically, and everything is theological if you consider it from a theological perspective. It's technically true, but that doesn't make it useful. It says more about the way you think than the nature of reality, especially as politics are a social construct.
1000% this. I live in the bible belt and am a big burly bearded bastard so people "quiet part out loud" at me with supersonic speed (1). I'd almost make a mortgage payment if I had a buck for every time someone said some ridiculous shit then I got in trouble for "getting political" aka politely and calmly engaging with the statement just made directly to me.
I didn't make it political. The person saying trans folk should "wear the right clothing" made it political. I believe the word you're looking for is "uncomfortable," and if you don't want it to get uncomfortable maybe tell HIM not to get political. If he says it, I have a right to respond - and silencing my speech but not his is an explicit endorsement of his speech.
(1) It has literally happened in like 5 sentences or less between even me and a stranger multiple times. "Hey what's up" "nothing much started a new job" "cool, I haven't worked in a bit but I worked at target for a bit" "why? Target funds ANTIFA TERRORISTS"
That's true to an extent. It's more about avoiding arguments, though, and less about whether the view is orthodox.
For example, some views are so out there and unaligned that people will just think it's a joke and not fault you unless you start seriously arguing for it, like if you say murder should be legal.
On the other hand, some orthodox views would still get restricted because they're contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that's something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn't be political. But it's going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it'd be restricted.
So basically, it either has to be so out there that people won't think you're serious, or so commonplace that people won't even consider that it could result in arguments.
would still get restricted because they’re contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that’s something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn’t be political. But it’s going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it’d be restricted.
If this is the best example you can come up with, it is fairly unconvincing that any mainstream political will be restricted.
I don't have a strong sense of what's mainstream because I usually only engage with politics in a left-leaning online space that was popularized by a protest against a corporation. Can you think of anything mainstream that's likely to get a pass? I'm 80% sure if you can, it's going to be because someone will see it and not even consider that it could cause an argument because it's such a given... I'll drop that down to 50% if you're trying to pick an example to prove me wrong.
The absolute largest group of players in any game stuck with Mumble. That would be The Goonswarm Federation in EvE Online. We have just over 25,000 people, and well over 100,000 characters in the Alliance. In fact, AFAIK, all of the major alliances have to use Mumble because it allows more than 100 people in a room
Don't you have to host Mumble somewhere? With Discord anyone can create a server and invite friends for free with no technical knowledge required. That's a huge plus. I also remember RadCall was a thing for a while, at least where I am from.
Yes, you need to run the service somewhere. But anyone can do so (Foss).
With discord my experience is limited but I currently understand it's a service model so you're dependant on a company, which can pull the same sh*t teamspeak did at any time.
Not needing any technical knowledge just means someone else is running it, possibly being able to lock you in. And in the case of discord, you already are locked in and have to accept whatever they think up.
I don't think that people are trying to find an eternal solution. Nothing lasts forever. When Discord turns to shit, something else will take its place. There is no need to worry about that when it offers too many advantages today.
Hi, I work in waste handling, and I would like to tell you about dangerous materials and what we do with them.
There are whole hosts of chemicals that are extremely dangerous, but let's stick with just cyanide, which comes from coal coking, steel making, gold mining and a dozen chemical synthesis processes.
Just like nuclear waste, there is no solution for this. We can't make it go away, and unlike nuclear waste, it doesn't get less dangerous with time. So, why isn't anyone constantly bringing up cyanide waste when talking about gold or steel or Radiopharmaceuticals? Well, that's because we already have a solution, just not "forever".
Cyanide waste, and massive amounts of other hazardous materials, are simply stored in monitored facilities. Imagine a landfill wrapped in plastic and drainage, or a building or cellar with similar measures and someone just watches it. Forever. You can even do stuff like build a golfcourse on it, or malls, or whatever.
There are tens of thousands of these facilities worldwide, and nobody gives a solitary fuck about them. It's a system that works fine, but the second someone suggests we do the same with nuclear waste, which is actually less dangerous than a great many types of chemical waste, people freak out about it not lasting forever.
That's uhh, not what that says. One of the two mentions of half life are your body converting cyanide into thiocyanate, which will kill you and depending on your last bowel movement, make your corpse into hazardous waste itself.
The other mention is hydrogen cyanide in air, which is lighter than air and will decompose back into cyanide eventually, scattering it over a large area. Which will technically make it go away from your site, but spreading toxic waste over the countryside is illegal for a reason.
Oh yeah, you could totally just leave it in a giant pool and ignore it. It'll react, evaporate and eventually break down into cyanide again, rain down, subtly poison the area, react again, evaporate again, etc.
And that's great for the owner of the big pool of cyanide, and very bad for everyone else. Stuff that evaporates doesn't disappear, the cyanide doesn't magically change into cookiedough. You're just spreading it around more.
Hydrogen cyanide will turn into "cookie dough" in 1-5 years. Which is way shorter than "forever".
The way you said it in your first comment made it seem longer lasting than radioactive waste. Which it isn't according to the linked PDF. That is the only point I was trying to make.
... Hydrogen cyanide is literally what has been used to execute people in gas chambers and genocide during the Holocaust. The LC(Lo), the lowest recorded lethal concentration is 107ppm, resulting in death in 10 minutes. That's, objectively, far more dangerous than the respective material that firefighters were exposed to at Chernobyl. You don't want that in any appreciable quantity in the air around people that you want to continue living.
I mean, spent fuel is actually quite lethal when not packaged, but you get something like 300-400MWh out of a kilo of fuel. And that's significantly more than I'll use in my lifetime.
I'd gladly keep a kilo of dry-casked spent fuel in my house. It'd make an excellent coffee table or something, if a bit hard to move. I would absolutely not put a lifetime supply of benzene anywhere near my house.
Edit: it would make a shitty coffee table. 1 kilo of uranium oxide is just under 100ml
Cyanide is used extensively in precious metal recycling too. So even reclaiming resources has a harsh chemical cost. Meeting workers from there I was surprised to say the least about how 'casually' they work with Cyanide. Clearly they have safty protocall but nothing like what I imagined something like Cyanide would call for.
In addition to hazardous materials regulations, I also do workplace safety, and this doesn't surprise me at aaaaall. People get really casual around stuff that kills you slowly.
The US state department doesn't decide which countries own or control which territory, now does it? How exactly can you say territory you don't control (neither legally nor militarily) and likely will never control is part of your own country? Furthermore, why would the US risk ruining trade relations with China over unnecessarily pointing out reality, when it doesn't benefit the US to recognize Taiwanese independence?
I'll say it again: Why would countries risk ruining trade relations with China, one of the three most important trade powers internationally, over unnecessarily pointing out reality and thus contradicting China? And how can you seriously say territory a country doesn't control in any capacity at all theirs? Why do you think a majority of world powers are independently trading with Taiwan if Taiwan isn't independent from China?
Don't you think China would, you know, not be constantly complaining about not having control over Taiwan for the past few decades and making bluffs about invading if Taiwan were already part of China? That's a pretty obvious sign that "no, China doesn't own Taiwan in any capacity".
What you're doing here is called sophistry. Taiwan being part of China is a fact that's recognized by international law. It's really that simple. The reality is that China could remove US sponsored regime in the rogue province any time they want. However, they realize that it's much better to remove burgerland influence in a peaceful way, and that's what will happen. It's incredible how people have trouble grasping such basic things.
edit: I aboslutely love how utterly enraged lemmy radlibs get when faced with reality
What you're doing here is called sophistry. Taiwan being part of China is a fact that's recognized by international law.
Tell me you have no idea how the UN works without explicitly saying so. A majority of countries not recognizing Taiwan doesn't mean it's "international law" that Taiwan isn't independent.
It's really that simple. The reality is that China could remove US sponsored regime in the rogue province any time they want.
LMAO this is such a cope. Yeah I'm sure the extremely aggressive all-bark-no-bite and constant "you better not do <x diplomacy with Taiwan or military action in Taiwanese strait/South China Sea> again or we'll do something about it, I swear!" empire is suuuper capable of taking Taiwan. They know if they tried full-out war against the US or its allies (Taiwan), the US navy would cut off their international trade and turn their country upside down – it's why they're trying so hard (and failing) to seize full control of the South China Sea.
However, they realize that it's much better to remove burgerland influence in a peaceful way, and that's what will happen.
Again, absolute cope. They've been at it for over 75 years and haven't made any progress, considering Taiwanese have developed significantly more national identity and even more people in Taiwan support the country participating in international relations under the name "Taiwan" (80%) and consider themselves primarily Taiwanese (90%), and only 6% consider themselves more Chinese than Taiwanese (more people considered themselves primarily Chinese many decades ago but that has long since dwindled).
It's incredible how people have trouble grasping such basic things.
It's incredible how you have trouble grasping the situation and think China is going to "peacefully" absorb Taiwan when Taiwan is farther from China than ever in terms of national identity and international participation.
Several polls have indicated an increase in support of Taiwanese independence in the three decades after 1990. In a Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation poll conducted in June 2020, 54% of respondents supported de jure independence for Taiwan, 23.4% preferred maintaining the status quo, 12.5% favored unification with China, and 10% did not hold any particular view on the matter. This represented the highest level of support for Taiwanese independence since the survey was first conducted in 1991. A later TPOF poll in 2022 showed similar results.
Tell me you have no idea how the UN works without explicitly saying so. A majority of countries not recognizing Taiwan doesn’t mean it’s “international law” that Taiwan isn’t independent.
I think you just told us that about yourself.
LMAO this is such a cope.
Proceeds to write a bunch of cope. 😂
. They know if they tried full-out war against the US or its allies (Taiwan), the US navy would cut off their international trade and turn their country upside down – it’s why they’re trying so hard (and failing) to seize full control of the South China Sea.
You losers can't even prop up Ukraine against Russia, and think you can take on China. The sheer delusion here. Burgerland economy would collapse overnight. Go check where all your shit comes from sometime. 😂
It’s incredible how you have trouble grasping the situation and think China is going to “peacefully” absorb Taiwan when Taiwan is farther from China than ever in terms of national identity and international participation.
You're like the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I'll keep this short since you already seem extremely unhinged and half the stuff you wrote is basically empty insults.
You losers can't even prop up Ukraine against Russia, and think you can take on China.
Remind me how long that "10-day special operation" is taking again? Seriously, how can the "2nd best military in the world" falter so hard against their tiny neighbour with 1/4 of the population just because they got weapon donations from other countries? It shouldn't be that hard to counter right, I mean Russian military technology is allegedly so advanced and totally not stuck in the 80s. I would understand if it were half-way across the globe or something, but they're LITERALLY ON THEIR DOORSTEP. It's also concerning that China has repeatedly failed Russia when it comes to Ukraine and has caved into international pressure quite a few times, maybe it's because China also realizes that the war is completely embarrassing Russia?
The sheer delusion here. Burgerland economy would collapse overnight. Go check where all your shit comes from sometime. 😂
The US navy has a larger airforce than the entire Chinese airforce, and the US has a larger and more advanced air fleet than the next 5 countries (Russia, China, India, SK, Japan) combined, and invests 3x as much as China into the military (and that's what, 13% of the US' budget?). The US navy also has over 2x the displacement of the Chinese navy. Spending is DEFINITELY not a problem considering that.
I literally said that exact same thing in my original comment, it goes against your point lmao. The status quo is defacto independence and "Taiwan, not China". Notice how unification is by far the least popular response in what you linked, and has decreased in popularity significantly over decades. And of course, gaining independence eventually has increased in popularity over multiple decades. Is this part of China's grand plan, to make unification with them less popular over time?
Remind me how long that “10-day special operation” is taking again?
Yes, let me remind you that it's now publicly known that Ukraine was about to make a peace deal within the first couple months. Then the west tanked that deal, and started pumping weapons into Ukraine.
Seriously, how can the “2nd best military in the world” falter so hard against their tiny neighbour with 1/4 of the population just because they got weapon donations from other countries? It shouldn’t be that hard to counter right, I mean Russian military technology is allegedly so advanced and totally not stuck in the 80s. I would understand if it were half-way across the globe or something, but they’re LITERALLY ON THEIR DOORSTEP. It’s also concerning that China has repeatedly failed Russia when it comes to Ukraine and has caved into international pressure quite a few times, maybe it’s because China also realizes that the war is completely embarrassing Russia?
LMAO, China can just blockade the province and the economy there would crash overnight.
The only real metric to determine whether Taiwan is part of China is to ask the people who live there. And guess what, this is what they say:
Yeah, I agree, especially after all the NED sponsored propagandists are kicked out. Meanwhile, even despite US having a massive presence in Taiwanese media, the only reason DPP got in power was using first past the post mechanic.
Latest polling shows that vast majority of people want to maintain the status quo:
Do you honestly think a military blockade is the way to get people on the side of your cause?
I don't think that at all, and that's why China hasn't resorted to this option.
“After all the people I disagree with are got rid of” Do you honestly think that makes you the good guy? Removing political opponents is the methodology of authoritarians.
Entire books have been written explaining in great detail how media is used to manipulate public opinion, and here you are bleating about AuThoRiTarIanS. 🤡
You claim international law on one hand as if it means something and then threaten with the big stick with the other.
Not sure what the contradiction in your mind is of a country enforcing its laws within its borders. You'll have to enlighten us on this fascinating political theory of yours.
Put simply, you’re an asshole.
Put simply, you’re a cheap propagandist without a shred of intellectual honesty.
I’m not American nor have any loyalty to the Western hegemony. I’m an anarchist living in a country with its own independence movement attempting to get out from the boot of colonialism.
Anarchists are just edgy liberals, thanks for confirming that once again in this thread.
When you’re finished your work for the day propagandising, I hope you go home and think on your morality. Think on who you are as a person. Is defending Chinese bullying, violence, and threat really the best thing you can be doing with your life?
Hope you'll take your own advice, but we both know you won't. Clearly defending US colonialism is how you choose to spend your life. Peak anarchism right there.
China's puts about as much effort into developing their own shovel head manufacturing capability as we do fearmongering about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which is why they're rapidly closing the shovel head manufacturing gap.
Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, they are dumping massive resources into SMIC. Yes, they also want to maintain imperialism over Taiwan, and TSMC is a part of that. Some of it is fear-mongering sure, but China is consistently confrontational in the South China Sea and beyond. There’s a reason they enforce an abrasive naval presence there and continue to press against the Philippines.
they also want to maintain imperialism over Taiwan
Not to deny the realities of the tensions there, but liberals are relatively loose with term imperialism. There is a difference between an imperialist state like the US and an anti-imperialist — and until recently imperialized — state like China.
China is consistently confrontational in the South China Sea and beyond
You have an island governed by a democratically elected government, with a population that from what I remember mostly doesn't want to be assimilated into the PRC. The PRC taking it by force would, in my eyes, be rather imperialistic.
democratically elected? arguable and only for the last few decades at that. it was run as a brutal single party dictatorship backed by amerikkka until fairly recently. And last time i checked the vast majority of people in Taiwan want to maintain the status quo which is that Taiwan is part of China.
Yeah, likely they're using the same backend to provide voip services (maybe skype's backend just scaled up) . Teams must've borrowed something from skype given how haphazardly it was developed and released.
MS Teams actually makes use of WebRTC. That's a standard for VoIP (and similar) via web browsers. Mozilla and Google standardized that a few years ago and implemented it in their browsers, so what Microsoft did, is that they basically shipped a whole Google Chrome to users.
I believe, they did rip some code from Skype for Business for the integration into Windows, though. In the early days, the OS would say that the Teams notifications came from Skype for Business.
yep and running teams would have skype services running...here is MS PR
Transitioning from Skype for Business to Microsoft Teams
To deliver smarter calling and meeting experiences with intelligent communications, we are bringing Skype for Business capabilities into Microsoft Teams
I mostly use it to make international calls cause sometimes the country my folks are living in shuts down the cellular internet for some reason when major exams/riots are happening and whatsapp stops working.
Imaging telling a whole nation of people they can't use internet on their 500+ dollar phone. The fuck did they buy them for, playing temple run?
Btw you can suggest them the Briar messenger app. It can send messages via nearby peoples phones if they also have Briar. So if enough people installed it, a city could have it's own messaging network even when the official one is down
It's still one of the best options for video calling. Available on all the major platforms, no time limits, the quality is great. International call rates are some of the cheapest out there.
In the 1999s-2000s we used WebWasher. It was basically a proxy server which you ran locally on your computer and it had all the filters. You just set up your browser's network connection to point to WebWasher and it acted as the gateway to the Internet.
If browsers somehow decided to kill all their plugin support, you could still use that to filter your content.
Well, they aren't alone. Blizzard and Activision is on my blacklist. As well as pretty much any studio own by Microsoft at this point... Oh, and Sony! Can't forget about them.
I have MAGA family members and it’s not just 1+1=5. It’s a word-vomit tsunami of absolute bullshit. And if you convince them that point 1/367 is not factual, they won’t accept that it disqualifies anything else (including the idea that he never tells lies), and you will have to re-prove that point 1/367 is not factual a few weeks later. It’s exhausting, and I’m fairly sure that is the point (and I’m fairly sure this is also an actual Russian propaganda technique called a “firehose of falsehoods”, regardless of whether it’s being used in that context).
Thats our national issue, democrats care far less about the fascist vomit of the right than they do being polite, "understanding," and "reaching across the aisle."
J6ers tried to overtake the govt, hang em for treason. If their backers violently rise up, take em out too. Problem solved. Instead, dems make excuses for Republicans every day, say they can't do anything about anything, then push a bunch of policies to further snuff out the left instead.
Democratic politicians feel this way because they are mostly friends with their colleagues across the aisle. They all eat at the same luncheons together, hang out at the same establishments in DC, attend the same fundraisers and lobbying events.
I think the voters tend to have a different point of view from those in DC. Consider that even Republican lawmakers were running for their life on Jan6. Dem voters are growing fatigued with the constant gaslighting from the establishment politicians, and hopefully soon might provide cause for their “elected representatives” to flee as well. At this point we’ve been left with painfully few alternatives.
Lastly just want to say I do agree with full treason charges for anyone involved with Jan6. Obstruction was a laughable wrist slap, this is far too serious for such measures. The rioters kind of had the right idea but for literally all of the wrong reasons. It’s tea party republicans all over again (which was funded by Koch bros of course). Instead of addressing this in a serious manner, Dems considered doing nothing at all for 2 years before they finally started bringing the wrong charges. Pathetic.
They reach across the aisle because they basically never have control of Congress. Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) to pass anything. When they don't have all 3, they have to reach across the aisle to pass anything. So guess how long they've had all 3? They've had it for 4 years of the last 24 years.
And if they didn't reach across, guess what happens. The GOP shuts down the government like they did to Obama.
So what can you do move things left? Give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories in all 3 houses.
Rewarding them for moving further right hasn't worked for decades, but surely it will this time!
There's a reason they cant pull the votes to get all 3, turns out the people voting for Republicans aren't going to switch parties cause dems chase after them year after year abandoning anyone left of mid right establishment dems.
Everytime the Dems lose, they go to the center to find votes. And they find them! That's how Bill Clinton won, he went to the center (some say right, whatever). Gore went a little left and then lost. So Obama learned to not run left and instead ran on broad "hope". His reward for passing the ACA was losing Congress for his last 6 years. Thanks voters. Clinton went a little left on climate change, supposedly the important issue for the left, and lost. So Biden learned to not run left, and he won!
Every time the Dems go left they lose. So they go to the center to find voters and they find them. And you wonder why they go to the center?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with immediately abandoning those talking points once they're elected. A single Republican gripes and "well there's nothing we can do we're just doing their thing now. Sucks to suck 🤷♂️"
Of course, as illustrated here they're happy to blame the left though even though their entire thing is "fuck the left." whether its outright like it is right now, or the passive "WE'LL TOTALLY DO LEFT STUFF GUYS JUST VOTE FOR US.......whoops sorry someone said no so we're conservatives now"
Is this the conversation where I said dems have had control for 4 years of the last 24 years? Yeah it is. Dude they are forced to reach across the aisle. Because they have lost control for 20 years of the last 24 years. That's how Congress works, if you don't have all 3 then you are forced to reach across the aisle and compromise. I'll say it again, forced to. Because left voters never show up.
No matter how much you gripe, that's how it works. So if you want them to do left things, then give them all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) consistently and overwhelmingly. It's that simple.
(Want to go back further and include Bill Clinton? Then Dems have had control for 6 years of the last 32. Want to include Bush senior and Reagan? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 fucking years. Read that again: Dems have had control for 6 measly years of the last 44 fucking years. And you wonder why we have slow progress?)
Memes
Top
Dieses Magazin erhält keine Updates (letzte Aktivität vor 0 Tage(n)).