Beware of the value you post!

From UK government caught at Heathrow to big retailer like Auchan.

When the UK government signed the Paris accord COP21, it did not expect to be haunted by it for its decision on Heathrow 3rd runway. (see article)

The law look at all the commitment which has been take by the entreprise, and therefore is willing to examine claim brought by association which confront corporation with their acts.

In France, Sherpa association is attacking Auchan on morale value for “misleading the customer”  after the collapse of the Bangladesh textile factory (RANA Plaza with 1100 death) since Auchan Label where found there (together with Zara and H&M one)

Beware of the value you post

And the list is long . (Ikea on surveiling its employee,  Carrefour selling horse lasagna)

The fact is: Beware of the value you post on your wall, site and annual report … if you cannot leave by them. Otherwise it might haunt you.

Impact of the Silk Road on the Decathlon supply chain

Having understood Decathlon’s strategy of both manufacturing and product development, it is interesting to better understand how the Silk Road will impact it.

So you remember, the Silk Road, launched in 2013 by the current Chinese president, consists of lending around 150 billion a year to 68 countries to carry out infrastructure projects, whether by land, sea or air, to secure the supply and export routes of the Chinese economy.

Following the recommendations of the Chinese government which, in 2013, initiated the New Silk Roads (一带一路; One Belt, One Road), Chinese companies are accelerating their presence abroad through equity investments and buyouts.

The New Silk Roads will be officially completed in 2049. Celebration of the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China and the return of the Middle Kingdom to the centre of the world stage.

These new logistic routes (maritime, rail and air), will allow Chinese companies to broaden their product and service offerings and strengthen their presence in strategic industries such as tourism, luxury goods, new technologies, agriculture and everything related to food.

Because a container leaving China for Europe should no longer return empty, as is often the case today. When the Chinese buy farmland in France, it is not to resell the crops locally, but to send them to China and supply the Chinese “granaries”.

Thanks to all these new logistics centres, China is making sure that it maintains peace in all the geographical areas where it has invested: “Who wants peace, prepares for war”, or “winning a battle, without fighting, is the greatest victory”.

Thanks to the railway lines it has built, its companies will be able to deliver their products, whether they are made in China or elsewhere, directly to the dispatch centre.

As for the shareholdings, they will be able to keep a watchful eye, be aware of market trends and be a partner. As in a game of go, the goal is not to make your opponent lose, it is not a matter of failures, but to surround him and to have a territory more important than his own to dominate him.

By investing $1 trillion in infrastructure projects outside its borders, China wants to reduce the distance separating it from other countries. Once again, Pragmatism prevails: “be close to your friends and even closer to your enemies”.

The Chinese apply wonderfully this American precept “Golden rule nb1: Who has the Gold … set the rules”. These contracts are drafted with Chinese law and repayment clauses which, if not respected in the classical way, require the transfer of the infrastructure to a Chinese state-owned company. As such, one should read this article from the New York Times which explains in great detail how the port of Sri Lanka became 100% Chinese after a few years and by playing a strategic game of encirclement. In the end, this made it possible to welcome a Chinese submarine there on the day of President Li Yinping’s visit to his Indian counterpart some 300 km away. In the same way, the “Pax China” is having an effect in countries like Kazastan where the Chinese explain to their hosts that corruption, for example, or even terrorism are repellents to business and that it is therefore up to the local government to clean up if they want to continue to receive Chinese loans.

So it’s a real Marshall plan that should be finished in 2049 but as we will see it already brings sensitive projects in Decathlon’s supply chain.

As a reminder of the orders of magnitude, Decathlon has to stock its 1360 stores worldwide with a majority of products under its brands, 48% of which come from China. This represents a traffic of 800 containers per month. In the past, these containers left by boat from Shanghai to Rotterdam where they were then transferred by road to the Lille warehouses. The total transit time was 41 days.

From 2017, the transfer by rail from Wuhan to Lille becomes possible, i.e. 10,300 km from Wuhan to Lille. Thanks to infrastructure projects, notably the homogenisation of the rails in the 7 countries crossed, train transit reduces the journey time to 26 days. In 2018 Decathlon has managed to reduce this time to 21 days by mounting its first blue train with 40 100% Decathlon containers.

Finally, the Chinese government’s 5-year plan promises a journey time as early as 2021 of 5 days in 3 years! To understand the impact in terms of Supply Chain but especially in terms of product reactivity and development time, it is necessary to know that an average manufacturing time for a batch of products such as shoes is 15 days. So before, when the boat went round the cape, it was a minimum time from order to stock of 56 days (41 days + 15 days) which tomorrow in 2021 could be reduced to 20 days ( 15 + 5).

The Chinese government also has a great deal of foresight: today and even more so tomorrow, China will no longer be the low-cost local producer in Asia; it will have to base its supply chain on new emerging countries such as Pakistan, Vietnam or Bangladesh. Likewise, Decathlon, aware of this reality and faithful to its mission of “making sport accessible to the masses”, must obviously ensure that it remains very competitive in terms of price and therefore explore these new opportunities…

Contrary to some of their competitors who brutally move their site from China to these new low cost countries, causing quite rightly a lot of confusion and incomprehension, Decathlon has another strategy. He considers that the co-development relationship they have built with their local suppliers is much more important and valuable than a simple short-term cost reduction (remember a total of 7 € in manufacturing costs for a sports shoe). So they tell their partners that it’s up to them to develop internationally and especially in low-cost countries to remain competitive.

Once part of its production has been relocated, the Chinese manufacturing partner will probably bring it back to China, and then take this silk road infrastructure back to Europe with a 5-day transit.

Nice convergence of medium-term strategies

  • of Decathlon, which maintains its relationship with its partner for co-development.

  • of the Chinese government, which thus manages to keep a share of the added value in China!

InnoCherche – September 2018

Autonomous vehicle (AV) will be coming … but not from the West.

At Israel 7th Smart Mobility Summit, the AV hype is gone

From Oct 28-30, Israel hosted the 7th edition of the Smart Mobility Summit. We were there, and here are our insights.

Clearly all the Full autonomous drive hype of the past years was gone. Each of the 4,000 attendees from 40 countries could feel it. Most discussions were focused on the hurdles faced by future autonomous vehicles. Considering the restrictive (if not non-existing) regulations, potential cyber threats, lack of meaningful and reliable maps, and endless edge cases, the question is no longer how our cars can become autonomous, but when, and more critically in the context of which framework and rules.

Israeli startups Adasky develops thermal imaging vision systems

Despite its small domestic market, Israel has succeeded in creating a vibrant ecosystem of 600 mobility startups. Many of them had (or still have) their eyes set on the promising L5 graal. Among others, it was the case of low-cost LiDAR startup Oryx Vision, which came to the understanding two months ago that it will be a much longer game than originally anticipated, and decided to shut down, preserving what was left of its investors’ war treasure.

A few years ago, everyone especially in the US, seemed to be lining up in frenzy chanting the same lyrics: from the “AVs are on their way…” to “A multi-trillion dollar opportunity is being born”, we’ve heard many hits that sounded like “Say goodbye to road fatalities”.

Fast forward to the end of 2019, a lot of delay announcements made by the US players (GM, Waymo, Uber …) are raising concerns about the feasibility of the AV project. If you listen only to those feedbacks, future seems gloomy. Hopefully, the newsarriving from the East – China and Israel – are much more realistic and optimistic.

Forget the old ADAS L1 to L5approach

For many players, the journey resembles that of a racing track, gradually moving from L1 to the ultimate L5 level of full autonomy. We’re probably now somewhere halfway – though it is a non-linear time curve – and need a pit stop in order to reach the checkered flag.

In this endurance race, a few players are leading the pack such as Waymo, Cruise, Tesla, and of course Mobileye. But for Mobileye, the leader in driving assistance systems, the approach is different.

During the last CES edition, cutting off the postponements made by the other players, Mobileye announced that theRobo-taxi service will be in launched together with Volkswagen, and rolled out in Tel Aviv by 2022.Another small-scale pilot will start in collaboration with RATP in the roads of Paris in the summer of 2020. Sizable trials should also start in China in the next two years.

Two different markets: from assisted driving (L1-L4) to fully autonomous vehicles (L5)

InnoCherche was there, attending CES in January this year, and witnessed one of the top highlights when Amnon Shashua, CEO of Mobileyecontinued in the same panel bystating that the automotive industry made a huge mistake. ADAS L1 to L5 should not be put in the same basket, when these are in fact 2 different subjects:

  • L1 to L4 make our drive safer and are effectively doing so since the ABS and the EPS as early as in the 80s. Adding gradually new features, the so called ADAS (Automotive Driving Assistance Systems) industry saves lives and will continue to do so, as documented by a few careful insurers – one of them telling us in private that the emergency braking feature for example, promoted by more and more OEMs like Volkswagen, divides the rate of accident by 2.

  • L5 is autonomous driving – the holy grail of robotaxis driving on open roads anytime and anywhere – no pedal, no steering wheel, no driver. This is the future of mobility as documented by InnoCherche in its contribution to the great debate in France “Mobility for all”. It is a political debate with huge impact on urbanism and mobility.

Robotaxis first… but where?

As per geography, the US is a magnet for capital matching innovative technologies, while China thanks to its centralized government system has the ability to move the needle more quickly. Therefore, even though the AV leaders are mostly concentrated in the US, it is reasonable to think that the first operational fleets of AVs will be driving on Chinese pavement.

The Chinese government has clearly taken another course (as explained in this article of the Economist of October 22):

  • When conventional OEMs said at the CES that their autonomous vehicles will need no help from the infrastructure (namely the road), Chinese authorities seem to differ and mandate V2X interaction supported by the 5G technology of their champion HUAWEI.

  • While we deal in human interactions aléas in the West, Chinese authorities simply change regulations forbidding people to play around with those new AV.

  • When liability is a big issue in the West, Chinese government offers immediately a limitation of it.

  • When OEMs pretend that they will drive on any road, Chinese authorities offer them dedicated flexible corridors.

At the crossroad between two giants – the US and China – Israel is perfectly located to witness and analyze the behind-the-road trends at work especially with a strong expertise in Cyber defense, 600 automotive startups, and a strong industry leader like Mobileye.

Once benefits in terms of mobility for all, pollution, traffic jams and accidents, would have been demonstrated in China and Israel, it might be rolled out country by country, as a compulsory measure for coping with today’s 1,3 Million death toll on the roads.

Mobileye, Intel’s fastest growing business

Mobileye’s autonomous driving test car

Last week, the Israeli-based new Intel flagship, held its first investor summit since its $15.3bn acquisition two years ago. In this public event, Amnon Shashua, the CEO of what is now Intel’s fastest growing business, went on to describe Mobileye’s current market status, but more importantly its roadmap to becoming a complete autonomous mobility provider.

On top of the Robo-taxis pilots in Paris and Tel Aviv mentioned earlier, Mobileye announced a strategic partnership with NIO, a Chinese OEM of premium electric vehicles (competing with Tesla), for developing highly autonomous vehicles (L4) to the consumer market of China.

This probably explains Mobileye’s strategy to delay its Robo-taxis offering for the US, once it will have been successfully rolled out, and not less importantly accepted, in Tel Aviv in 2022.

At the same time, Mobileye has a clear long-term ambition to have a vertical control over the food chain and continues challenging the status quo. We heard Amnon Shashua explaining in Las Vegas last January that the AI rule engine algorithm is due to become open source in order to be audited by each country’s Department of Transportation (DOT) and that there is no possible competition there.  For the rest, competition will be on the sensor and hardware where Mobileye just officially announced 10 days ago that they are developing their own LiDAR and imaging radar sensors.

The road seems to be leading to two simultaneous tracks

The first and main path will focus on enhancing the driving assistance stack, contribute to saving people’s lives from deadly road accidents, and power self-driving Robo-taxis serving us with Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) and changing forever the mobility as we know it.

The adjacent (and slower) route will have the objective of leveraging those advances until all the pieces fit together and become economically viable. The “mobility for all” revolution will then reach its cruise level under the supervision of the national and local transportation authorities.

The current dramatic adjustments of trends we are witnessing, worry not only the conventional OEMs which market will change forever, but also the endless number of startups which raised double digit millions of capital over the last few years, enjoying the hype and attention given to all the autonomy-enabler wannabes.

Are 1,3 million human fatal accidents better than 10 robot murderers?

Tesla Autopilot

Solutions rangefrom very cheap self-driving technology starting with only one camera (likeTesla at its beginning) … up to very sophisticated and costly systems with 3-4 technologies and multiple redundancies to improve safety by a few ppm to reach 99,9999%.

While we already have some technological options, nobody seems today to question the shared assumption that one should not compromise with AV safety, until we reach the near 100% goal. But the real question is where do individuals and governments stand in terms of market-cost acceptability vs death toll acceptability.

This economic and ethical nexus is too complex to be dealt with by a politician alone. In view of the poor performance of human driving, one is legitimate to ask whether and at which price would 10? 1000? self-driving accidents (where Robots kill people) be more or less acceptable than 1,3 million road fatalities every year (where humans kill humans)?

Skoda’s CEO was a keynote speaker during the last Smart Mobility Summit held in Tel Aviv

Authors: Anne BAER, Innocherche Israel, Nathaniel Benchemhoun, Ikare Innovation and Bertrand Petit InnoCherche.

Further reading: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yes-international-summits-still-useful-least-some-them-anne-baer/

Cet article Autonomous vehicle (AV) will be coming … but not from the West. est apparu en premier sur Innocherche.

From behavior design to addiction - The Stanford course that trained the Silicon Valley developers.

The manipulation of our thoughts and behaviors has developed in social networks in part through the courses of B.J. FOGG (founder and director of the Stanford Behavior Design Lab)

To explore the different “Trusted Third Party” concepts discussed in Roger McNamee's latest book ZUCKED, and understand why the author concludes that business models based on manipulation and addiction technology should be banned, let's look at the influence of Professor FOGG, Stanford PhD and “Behavior Design” Guru. 

As a behavior scientist and with more than 500 million data points of usages, Dr. FOGG confirms that emotion creates habits provided that

  1. it is easy,

  2. we are motivated,

  3. and that there is a trigger, a "prompt". (Example: the bell in the Hamster's cage)

He presents his theory in a cool TED talk on "positive thinking" with a simple example:  to start the day off on the right foot, all you have to do is create a new little habit: every day, as soon as you step on the ground (the prompt)... you say to yourself: "It is going to be a wonderful day.'' It is easy to do and if you believe in "positive thinking" you can be motivated. So it works, no problem, it puts you in a good state of mind; it's wonderful!

Other new habits may be created for hidden and less acceptable purposes. To illustrate this in his ethics course at Stanford, he asked his students to design a persuasive technology that is as unethical as possible... so that he could then reflect on it and anchor the right ethical principles in the minds of these future developers. One of the brilliant students of the course launched at the end of the year his persuasive anti-ethics new technology  Instagram ... which he later sold $ 1 billion to Facebook.

So how does Facebook addiction work?

It starts with a notification, a harmless alert like a vibration in our pocket. By reaction, our heart rate increases and our body secretes dopamine. It is a reptilian reflex buried deep in our neocortex. At the time of hunter-gatherer Homo-sapiens, this reflex contributes to the survival of the species; a signal in the forest alerts us to danger or opportunity. Our body, with this dopamine and a high heart rate, is ready to react. 

Today, the huge number of signals received by the brain through alerts on our smartphone begins to have disastrous consequences:

  1. on sleep,

  2. secondly on the level of stress, the life in community,

  3. and then causes depressions 

Doctors point to a new disease called Nomophobia: "no mobile phobia" where we are afraid of having lost our mobile. We are no longer capable to live without our mobile next to us. We have seen many times by ourselves two adults at the restaurant each immersed in his mobile. The Smartphone breaks the social relationship.

The ability to manipulate our behaviours and emotions becomes particularly worrying with the contribution of Artificial Intelligence. Why?

Nowadays, all networks are competing to get our attention through "growth hacking": more users, more time, more engagement. 

As Cambridge Analytica has shown, with 300 likes, a network knows an individual better than his or her spouse.

To borrow the theory of BJ FOGG, the AI ​​will be able to detect in everyone the "sweet spot" in the 3 dimensions space formed by the facility, the motivation and the "prompt", the trigger which will make us react. And there, whether it is this Stanford professor with 500 million data points or Facebook with 2.3 billion monthly visitors, we all become potentially hamsters in a cage with each our little personalized bell to make us react. Facebook then sells this to whoever wants to exploit it, our favorite brand or an extremist group.

Until now in our societies, products that create such a phenomenon of addiction and behavior modification like alcohol, gambling or nicotine have been regulated or even banned by the legislator. Roger McNamee proposes that business models based on mental manipulation and addiction should simply be banned. 

There is moreover an aggravating phenomenon. When you're 100% stuck on your phone, you're 100% techno dependent to get all the info and signals you're addicted to you're eliminating all the social signs of the physical world, those feedback loops that could temper your belief and counter a suicidal tendency.

So, as Tristan HARRIS and Eli PARISER explain in 2 excellent TED talks, we end up living in a bubble of filters where we receive only the signals chosen by an algorithm,  that go in the same direction, without any feedback loop or opening for different views which could moderate our opinion.

In addition, in a digital world where everything is free, where the video once finished triggers the next video ... there is no end. We hook you because it's free! It's not like in the casino where when you run out of money, you're thrown out! Youtube, Netflix or other Facebook hold you prisoner in that bubble to develop new behavior and manipulate you as they please in a world 100% free … where we could become 100% alienated.

To conclude, BJ FOGG says he is a techno-optimist and denies that he was teaching how to manipulate people. On the contrary, he wants "to help people be healthier and happier," as mentioned on his official website. To try to repair the misdeeds of some of his students, he is now putting all his energy into a new campaign to get us out of the screens, leave this addiction, etc. But the harm is there, the techniques of mental and behavioral manipulation are deeply anchored in Machine Learning algorithms that decide for us, at least 60% of the time, which video or news info we should see.

Bertrand PETIT - President InnoCherche and Organizer of TEDx Issylesmoulineaux (Oct 2019)

“ChristChurch: Seveso for the social platforms”

"ChristChurch¹: Seveso² for the social platforms"

- listening to Roger McNamee

Very interesting conference of Roger McNamee, for the launch of his book “ZUCKED” here in Paris which carries a very simple and very strong advocacy against current platforms and their use of our personal data. Roger is in his sixties. A Silicon Valley investor, he recognizes he was lucky enough to be at the right time, at the right place when he invested very early in Google then in Facebook. Later he convinced Mark Zuckerberg not to sell Facebook for 1 Billion to Yahoo and became an advisor to Facebook.

 He brought Sheryl Sandberg from Google, to become the right hand to Mark Zuckerberg. Everything was going well until 2016 when he noticed the first drifts during the Democratic primaries and then especially with the Brexit campaign. He warned Mark Zuckerberg, telling him to do everything possible not to let his users be influenced by forces they do not understand built into Facebook algorithms. Mark Zuckerberg was in denial by saying “No, I am a platform, I am not responsible! Even the American law said at the time that I am not responsible for the published contents” . For Roger, it is unacceptable: the tool turned against his user, because in the name of making your life easier, it manipulates you from A to Z by exploiting your most primary reflexes in your neocortex with our entrenched “fight or fly ” reflex which leaves me riveted to my screen on subjects that aggress me.

These business models exploit all the science of manipulation, initially to stimulate our shopping desires (which is already quite reprehensible) and then on how to manipulate us in our most personal behaviors such as our democratic vote … or worse our suicidal instinct as measured with an increase of 60% in teenager suicidal rate observed over the past 8 years in the US (NY article).

A thousand times proven and now inscribed in the algorithm, the rule is: “The more it is controversial, the more it is a conspiracy and the more it works, the more it catches attention“. By way of illustration: Alex Jones – who is now disconnected from Facebook – but who, at the time, had 5 Billion likes – was a lonely conspiracionist with more audience that all the mass media together. 

By capturing all these bits of information against a free service, these great GAFMs (Google (Youtube), Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft (Xbox and more)) can predict our behavior; as demonstrated by Cambridge Analytica: with 300 likes, the algorithm can better predict your behavior than your spouse!. For example, the algorithm comes to know that a woman is pregnant before she realizes it herself. Some naïve people will say, “Well, it does not matter, we did promotions for diapers and that’s not dramatic.” Lack of education! This information will also be sold to the highest bidder in RTB (Real Time Bidding) and why not to a conspiracionist who will propose to the future mother not to vaccinate the child or even worse tomorrow to Green extremists who will demonstrate that giving birth is the worst thing in terms of CO2 emissions … and so promote abortion.

As a result, extreme manipulation: the information at the right time will tip your decision. 

Justin Trudeau told us in VivaTech in May 2019, in a common call launched to end this fake news craziness with Emmanuel Macron and the Prime Minister of New Zealand following the ChristChurch killing, that 50% of the elections in the democratic countries of the world were influenced and manipulated by fakenews distributed by social media in 2018.

What makes the system infernal is that the big four of GAFM control this behavioral tool … and the loop is closed since  we turn back to them to ask for advice and therefore they still have the opportunity to influence us more with their answers.

So what to do? – ChristChurch, the SEVESO of social networks

Two interesting suggestions from Roger McNamee to break the impasse in which we find ourselves in today on personal data and their use to manipulate us.

First, we have to take them accountable for their actions on  their social media platform, as we did in the 1970s after SEVESO to Chemical Industry with the principle of “polluter pays”.

For me, as a former leader of the chemical industry, the Roger McNAMEE’s analogy between the current state of the social networking industry and the chemical industry of the 1960s is very powerful. Until the SEVESO accident of 1976, the chemical industry was not fully held responsible for its pollution; compliance was very relaxed and existing rules were not sufficient to protect the common good. At that time, for the management spending on mitigating risk and pollution more could be seen as contrary to the fiduciary obligations towards its shareholders. After few dramatic events like Seveso, the perception of the public has changed and Chemists have been perceived as the villain and held fully responsible beyond the current regulation. With the principle of “polluter pays”, they were now accountable even on consequences on the well-being of people who could not be anticipated by the policy and regulations of the time. It is up to the entrepreneur, here the chemical industry,  to understand and anticipate the risks he expose the public to … and not “move fast and break things”. 

50 years later, the chemical industry is still there, 95% cleaner. Without generating mind-boggling profits, as in years of the robber barons, it continues to innovate and, as a result, is still involved in the making of more than 90% of the product which touch our lives. 

According to the analogy, the call of Christ Church is the Seveso of the social industry. From now on, the data industry and its platforms exploiting these technologies should be held responsible for their consequences on the human well-being … even the unintended ones.

In this concept of polluter / payer, the platforms must be hold accountable . They should not be taxed at a pace  of 5 billion a year, as is the case today, but at 50 billion $ a week because if we look at the impact of the manipulation of the elections, the increase in the suicide rate , the disengagement of adolescents, etc. … the impact is huge on our society. Imagine if in the 1960s it had been proven that a media had allowed the Russians to influence an election in the US … the people responsible would have gone to the electric chair !

And then, there is the other problem of GAFAM’s monopoly and abusive power in hiring developers in the software especially in artificial intelligence which prevents any competition. Today, startups must be positioned and prepared from the start against this unfair competition.

The parallel is interesting because the chemical industry changed completely their way of thinking and managed to survive. The parallel with the data industry is good. By forbidding this type of business model of the GAFM based on the manipulation of our individual behavior, the regulator should not forbid any exploitation of personal data, but simply mandate that it is done properly. 

How could we do it properly ?

So once we have broken this business model of manipulation by banning it all together, once we have broken these monopolies, what can we do to continue to exploit the data for the good of each individual ? And here Roger, proposes a second idea that looks good:  personal data is part of the human person; it is inseparable from it. Yes, we can ask for help to buy a car and ask that the smart tools of the Cloud gives us the best proposal … but the ownership of personal data shared on this occasion must come back to us and remain always ours … and must not to be ceded as it is today  to be exploited for another purpose.

To ensure the inalienable property of our personal data, it should remain in each individual private cloud. It’s amazing that Apple, who is a big defender of the personal data has not yet proposed this,. Maybe, a little bite like in Estonia, it should be up to the state to give each individual its inalienable private cloud at birth.

Finally, to induce a rapid change in behaviour, it is necessary to put pressure on all the brands we trust so that they stop exploiting this tool sold by the platforms in order to manipulate us as customers: stop treating us like little hamsters. To put an end to this kind of marketing behavior, it might be necessary to return to broad broadcasting and no longer to hyper-personalized advertising like today. 

Bertrand PETIT.


1 Mass killing where a white supremacist  opened fire at two Christchurch mosques killing 51 people ( NZ, March 2019)
2 Humanitary catastrophic chemical accident in July 1976 in Italy when an Dioxin plant exploded.

Cet article “ChristChurch: Seveso for the social platforms” est apparu en premier sur Innocherche.

Loading more posts…