Australian Political & Infrastructure Discussion Thread

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I'm not familiar with the rail gauges in use, but I think I can say with confidence that very few trains would actually cross state borders because they aren't practical to get anywhere fast in Australia. They pretty much only service movement of resources.

Movement of resources is no small matter though. It's one of those demand-->supply-->demand things, and before aircraft it was Passengers (for comfort and speed) and Mail (for speed and reliability) which got lines started. Having some bulk freight on the same line was a bonus.

There needs to be a huge quantity of goods to be moved (eg coal, iron-ore) to make a line profitable only with goods.

It's a shame sleeper cars aren't used more. If Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane were a reliable 10 hours, people could save awake-time even compared to air, have a hotel bed, and arrive in time to start a business day without having to wake up at sparrows fart in their home city. Is it cleaning or security costs which make it so expensive? Having to share cabins? Give people a discount if they leave the cabin spotless, and keep their deposit if they vomit all over it. Sleepers shouldn't be luxury-priced, just add more cars.

[Australian rePublic]

A rail gauge is the gap between the rails on a train track
Australia's biggest pre-federation fuck up was each colony building different rail gauges. There's a standard line gauge linking every mainland state capital and ACT and NT's only rail lines are standard gauge, however, beyond that, each state has a different gauge, and the states which share a gauge don't neighbour eachother. Because of the break in gauge, no train can travel from Sydney to Cairns (that's the sole reason) and the only part of Victoria a train from NSW can travel to is the mainline from Wodonga to Melbourne. There are proposals to extend the Townsville to Mt. Isa line to meet up with the Adelaide to Darwin line, however, that's difficult because both lines use different gauges. The different gauges was Australia's biggest pre-federation fuck up and the fact that we haven't done anything in over 120 years really says a lot about us. Australia is the only country in the world with significant problems with different gauges. What do you guys think?

I know this was posted ages ago, but I'm only checking the thread again now, so...

Australia is one of the only countries I can imagine where having differing rail gauges is for the most part a non-issue. The only place where it would even be worth bothering to standardise it is the eastern states. I'm not familiar with the rail gauges in use, but I think I can say with confidence that very few trains would actually cross state borders because they aren't practical to get anywhere fast in Australia. They pretty much only service movement of resources. The only passenger train line that crosses state borders that I could picture getting any use whatsoever would be a hypothetical Melbourne to Brisbane via Sydney train line, and even then, if it wasn't a bullet-train-type rail line it would be of limited practicality simply due to the vast distance it would cross. Adelaide is too far from Melbourne and the demand would be too low for conformity between SA and the hypothetical Qld-NSW-Vic standard. And if Adelaide is too far away to bother, then Perth and WA need no further mention.

I'm certainly no expert on trains; in fact I've almost never used them because the only rail line in South Australia I would ever need is the Adelaide Metro, and I only started to use the train regularly just before COVID, so that stopped being necessary real fast.

You're oversimplifying things.

Passanger trains between cities aren't there to serve the major cities. Some people will certainly take the overnight train between Sydney and Brisbane (for example), but the majority of people would use it to travel to and from regional destinations. If I lived in Port Macquarie, for example, it's great, because there's a direct train to Sydney and the same direct train to Brisbane, as that track is standard gauge. And the fact that it's the same train means that my fair pays for the maintaince and operations costs in both directions Now, let's say for example, I wanted to restore the Byron Bay train line. I have three choices here:

1. I restore the line to standard gauge. This means that trains can travel from Sydney to Byron Bay via Casino, but trains from Byron can't go to Brisbane.
2. I restore the line to narrow gauge. This means that I can run the line through the Gold Coast to Brisbane. That line can't run south of Casino, so there will be no trains from Sydney to Byron Bay
3. I have to build a new standard gauge rail line through Queensland exclusively to serve the Byron Bay line.
4. I'd have to build a new narrow gauge line exclusively to serve the Byron Bay line, incompatible with the rest of the NSW rail network

If QLD and NSW used the same rail gauge, it would be possible to extend the Byron Bay line through the existing Gold Coast Line and Bob's your uncle, I can run direct trains from Sydney to Brisbane via Byron with significantly less expense (that's initial construction expenses, as well ason going maintaince expenses).

Now, there are plans to extend the Townsville to Mt. Isa line to meet up with the Adelaide to Darwin line. One of the biggest reasons why this hasn't happened is because all of Queensland (except for that one line to NSW) uses narrow gauge, whilst the only rail line in the Northern Territory uses standard gauge. Let's our extension met the Adelaide to Darwin line in Tennant Creek, NT. This would mean one of two things:

1. We convert the Mt. Isa line to standard gauge. This would be extremely expensive and cut that line off from the rest of Queensland's network. Tennant Creek to Townsville would be a stand alone network cut off from the existing Brisbane to Cairns via Townsville network
2. We build a narrow gauge extension from Mt. Isa to Tennant Creek. This would require all the freight to be unloaded at Tennant Creek and re-loaded onto a train.
Now let's say that we built the Isa to Tennant Creek extension. Let's say I own a factory in Rockhampton and wanted to transport my freight, by train to my warehouse in Darwin. If the Isa line is standard gauge, all of my freight would have to be unloaded and re-loaded at Townsville. If the Isa line was narrow gauge, all of my freight would have to be unloaded and re-loaded at Tennant Creek. If all the lines in Australia were the same gauge, we wouldn't have this problem!

Also, you're underestimating the importance of freight trains. There are four methods of moving things around the world:
1. Ships- the slowest but cheapest method. Ships are preferable for non-time sensitive goods, due to their low price
2. Trains- Trains are the second fastest and second cheapest mode of transport. Trains are prefered over land
3. Trucks- trucks are slower and more expensive than trains, but they can go anywhere. They can also offer point-to-point service between cities, being faster than trains which go through a rail yard
4. Planes. Due to the extremely high price- these are only used for time sensitive goods. They're mostly used for mail and extremely perishable items.

The thing with ships is that whilst it may take 3 months for an item to go from say, Shanghai to Sydney, I can have ships following 3 days apart, meaning I, as a retailer, recieve new shipments of that item every 3 days, so it doesn't matter how slow ships are, what matters is how far apart they are. However, as Australia has no navigable inland waterways and is geographically huge. We heavily rely on our rail network to move goods around the country. Without an adequate rail network, our whole country's supply chain is fucked

[Australian rePublic]

I'm not familiar with the rail gauges in use, but I think I can say with confidence that very few trains would actually cross state borders because they aren't practical to get anywhere fast in Australia. They pretty much only service movement of resources.

Movement of resources is no small matter though. It's one of those demand-->supply-->demand things, and before aircraft it was Passengers (for comfort and speed) and Mail (for speed and reliability) which got lines started. Having some bulk freight on the same line was a bonus.

There needs to be a huge quantity of goods to be moved (eg coal, iron-ore) to make a line profitable only with goods.

It's a shame sleeper cars aren't used more. If Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane were a reliable 10 hours, people could save awake-time even compared to air, have a hotel bed, and arrive in time to start a business day without having to wake up at sparrows fart in their home city. Is it cleaning or security costs which make it so expensive? Having to share cabins? Give people a discount if they leave the cabin spotless, and keep their deposit if they vomit all over it. Sleepers shouldn't be luxury-priced, just add more cars.

Sleepers are expensive to maintain, why do you think they're luxury priced in the first place? Also, what's the difference between 10 hours and 12 hours anyway?

[Australian rePublic]

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13158444

Jodi McKay (ALP, NSW opposition leader) is in trouble for signing a letter promoting the immigration of a Sri Laken who was denied entry into Australia for being a pedophile. She claims she didn't read the letter, which is a pretty stupid claim, considering that her entire job is to read and approve/disapprove of things after having read them. I wonder how FriendlyJordies will spin this in order to make her look good... (oh, who am I kidding, he's going to completely ignore the incident. Can't have the ALP looking bad, after all)

[Lura]

I know this was posted ages ago, but I'm only checking the thread again now, so...

Australia is one of the only countries I can imagine where having differing rail gauges is for the most part a non-issue. The only place where it would even be worth bothering to standardise it is the eastern states. I'm not familiar with the rail gauges in use, but I think I can say with confidence that very few trains would actually cross state borders because they aren't practical to get anywhere fast in Australia. They pretty much only service movement of resources. The only passenger train line that crosses state borders that I could picture getting any use whatsoever would be a hypothetical Melbourne to Brisbane via Sydney train line, and even then, if it wasn't a bullet-train-type rail line it would be of limited practicality simply due to the vast distance it would cross. Adelaide is too far from Melbourne and the demand would be too low for conformity between SA and the hypothetical Qld-NSW-Vic standard. And if Adelaide is too far away to bother, then Perth and WA need no further mention.

I'm certainly no expert on trains; in fact I've almost never used them because the only rail line in South Australia I would ever need is the Adelaide Metro, and I only started to use the train regularly just before COVID, so that stopped being necessary real fast.

You're oversimplifying things.

Passanger trains between cities aren't there to serve the major cities. Some people will certainly take the overnight train between Sydney and Brisbane (for example), but the majority of people would use it to travel to and from regional destinations. If I lived in Port Macquarie, for example, it's great, because there's a direct train to Sydney and the same direct train to Brisbane, as that track is standard gauge. And the fact that it's the same train means that my fair pays for the maintaince and operations costs in both directions Now, let's say for example, I wanted to restore the Byron Bay train line. I have three choices here:

1. I restore the line to standard gauge. This means that trains can travel from Sydney to Byron Bay via Casino, but trains from Byron can't go to Brisbane.
2. I restore the line to narrow gauge. This means that I can run the line through the Gold Coast to Brisbane. That line can't run south of Casino, so there will be no trains from Sydney to Byron Bay
3. I have to build a new standard gauge rail line through Queensland exclusively to serve the Byron Bay line.
4. I'd have to build a new narrow gauge line exclusively to serve the Byron Bay line, incompatible with the rest of the NSW rail network

If QLD and NSW used the same rail gauge, it would be possible to extend the Byron Bay line through the existing Gold Coast Line and Bob's your uncle, I can run direct trains from Sydney to Brisbane via Byron with significantly less expense (that's initial construction expenses, as well ason going maintaince expenses).

Now, there are plans to extend the Townsville to Mt. Isa line to meet up with the Adelaide to Darwin line. One of the biggest reasons why this hasn't happened is because all of Queensland (except for that one line to NSW) uses narrow gauge, whilst the only rail line in the Northern Territory uses standard gauge. Let's our extension met the Adelaide to Darwin line in Tennant Creek, NT. This would mean one of two things:

1. We convert the Mt. Isa line to standard gauge. This would be extremely expensive and cut that line off from the rest of Queensland's network. Tennant Creek to Townsville would be a stand alone network cut off from the existing Brisbane to Cairns via Townsville network
2. We build a narrow gauge extension from Mt. Isa to Tennant Creek. This would require all the freight to be unloaded at Tennant Creek and re-loaded onto a train.
Now let's say that we built the Isa to Tennant Creek extension. Let's say I own a factory in Rockhampton and wanted to transport my freight, by train to my warehouse in Darwin. If the Isa line is standard gauge, all of my freight would have to be unloaded and re-loaded at Townsville. If the Isa line was narrow gauge, all of my freight would have to be unloaded and re-loaded at Tennant Creek. If all the lines in Australia were the same gauge, we wouldn't have this problem!

Also, you're underestimating the importance of freight trains. There are four methods of moving things around the world:
1. Ships- the slowest but cheapest method. Ships are preferable for non-time sensitive goods, due to their low price
2. Trains- Trains are the second fastest and second cheapest mode of transport. Trains are prefered over land
3. Trucks- trucks are slower and more expensive than trains, but they can go anywhere. They can also offer point-to-point service between cities, being faster than trains which go through a rail yard
4. Planes. Due to the extremely high price- these are only used for time sensitive goods. They're mostly used for mail and extremely perishable items.

The thing with ships is that whilst it may take 3 months for an item to go from say, Shanghai to Sydney, I can have ships following 3 days apart, meaning I, as a retailer, recieve new shipments of that item every 3 days, so it doesn't matter how slow ships are, what matters is how far apart they are. However, as Australia has no navigable inland waterways and is geographically huge. We heavily rely on our rail network to move goods around the country. Without an adequate rail network, our whole country's supply chain is fucked

Hey, thanks for the information. Like I said, I have no experience with trains, and I'm not surprised that my interpretation is simple.

I know I've maybe made transporting goods sound more unimportant than it actually is, but my point was more that goods, in general, aren't usually in a huge rush to go anywhere, so making a stop to move to a different rail gauge is unlikely to affect anything being transported; only the schedule. And if the system as it is now was really tragic, then chances are there would be a movement to standardise the rail network. I'm not saying that a standard nationwide gauge wouldn't be better, because it absolutely would; just that it's not that big of a problem. At least, not for transport of goods.

Regarding passenger trains, I didn't think about the regions when it comes to trains because we literally don't have that in South Australia. The Ghan is the only passenger train I know of that stops anywhere outside of Adelaide's suburbs. Even as far as the Adelaide Metro goes, the line I would have to take has plenty of stops, but many of them are serviced half as often as about 5 major stops, and outside of the major stops, almost nobody gets on or off at them. I live outside of Adelaide, so I actually have to drive for about 30 minutes just to get to the nearest station since I'm not feeling comfortable enough to drive all the way into Adelaide and especially to park somewhere. Additionally, all of the Adelaide Metro lines end at the Adelaide Railway Station, with the start point depending on which direction away from the CBD you're going. I know the point of a Metro is pretty much just to move people from the suburbs to the city, but it's my only point of reference from where I live.

Perhaps because of the fact we have basically no trains here, I stand by my point that the only place worth standardising is the eastern states (NSW and Qld primarily given their greater connection), but I will concede that it may be a more worthwhile venture in those states. I'm sure you, as a local of those states, knows far better than I would.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13158444

Jodi McKay (ALP, NSW opposition leader) is in trouble for signing a letter promoting the immigration of a Sri Laken who was denied entry into Australia for being a pedophile. She claims she didn't read the letter, which is a pretty stupid claim, considering that her entire job is to read and approve/disapprove of things after having read them. I wonder how FriendlyJordies will spin this in order to make her look good... (oh, who am I kidding, he's going to completely ignore the incident. Can't have the ALP looking bad, after all)

As usual, bigger fish to fry.
#OpenlyPartisan
Still, Jordan might as well. I know he's an ALP fanboy (And Shooters, Fishers, Farmers, Independent, Greens, Kochie - from Sunrise and 2SM's Marcus Paul fanboy) but I'll say it again: I'm just saying it'd be nice for him to do a video about it for once.

Actually, he did.
On his Twitter.
Claiming that Alex Smith of the SMH did a hatchet job on Jodi with a drop given to her by the Liberals.

Any debate on whether that's true?

Jordan also has a long, distinguished history (along with his 'gatekeeper', Christo) of tearing into the journos who write hit pieces on him, from the Telegraph to Crikey, VICE and even theBRAG.

Other than his ALP shill-ness, what's your overall thoughts on Jordan and his team, Aus rePublic? (e.g. his humour, the way in which he goes about things, like visiting Barilaro's estate and doing something in it that I cant say on the forums, going to Narrandera to expose corruption, his team, tearing journos a new arse, his overall opinion, his personality.) Do you think he's an ALP shill with some redeeming qualities or no redeeming qualities?

I'm not a shill for FJ, I'm just asking.

Anyway regrding the Jodi situation, doesn't look good, hope she'll come out and say something, anything
about it.

[Shrillland]

So, now that FB has officially blacked out all Australian news or sharing of news, how long before the government backs down? Murdoch may be strong, but he still isn't Zuckerberg strong.

[Australian rePublic]

So, now that FB has officially blacked out all Australian news or sharing of news, how long before the government backs down? Murdoch may be strong, but he still isn't Zuckerberg strong.

Bloody hope they don't. I'm sick of the tech monopolies always getting their way

[Shrillland]

So, now that FB has officially blacked out all Australian news or sharing of news, how long before the government backs down? Murdoch may be strong, but he still isn't Zuckerberg strong.

Bloody hope they don't. I'm sick of the tech monopolies always getting their way

No good winners in this one, really. If the people beat the tech companies, Murdoch gets his way. Still, it can also mean money for smaller news outlets, I suppose.

[Australian rePublic]

Bloody hope they don't. I'm sick of the tech monopolies always getting their way

No good winners in this one, really. If the people beat the tech companies, Murdoch gets his way. Still, it can also mean money for smaller news outlets, I suppose.

Who cares if Murdoch gets his way? Other publishers will get their way too. As long asall publishers are treated equally, fuck the tech giants I say

[Australian rePublic]

So the Australian federal government is making our monopolistic tech overlords pay for news content paid on thwir websites, and Google and Facebook are going crazy about it.

Professional bullshit artists Google span bullshit about how they are willing to pay for news content (I don't know whether to laugh or vomit at such utter bullshit). I am glad that the federal government is giving them the kick in the arse they deserve! Go get them Scomo! Show them that they're not bigger than Australia!

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

So the Australian federal government is making our monopolistic tech overlords pay for news content paid on thwir websites, and Google and Facebook are going crazy about it.

Professional bullshit artists Google span bullshit about how they are willing to pay for news content (I don't know whether to laugh or vomit at such utter bullshit). I am glad that the federal government is giving them the kick in the arse they deserve! Go get them Scomo! Show them that they're not bigger than Australia!

Bad call there ArP. Google seems to be meeting government demands (though it's not clear yet WHO they're paying or how much). While it's Facebook that are putting up a fight, banning links or quotes from most Australian news outlets.

Facebook still allows fake news sites tho. Should be an interesting experiment ...

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

So, now that FB has officially blacked out all Australian news or sharing of news, how long before the government backs down? Murdoch may be strong, but he still isn't Zuckerberg strong.

It might be a while, but news is pretty important to many FB users and most Australian news doesn't get covered anywhere else. I think they fold eventually, though with some sort of non-disclosure agreement with news providers, to avoid giving other world governments clues about what they can be shaken down for.

If it doesn't work out for ScoMo, it won't be a big win for FB either. Depriving the users is NOT the way to push back against government, and it's not as though FB was widely loved either. The next step is a tax, and all FB can do then is shut down all service in Australia. Their service depends absolutely on user-made content, so it would be a very bad business move to give a competitor all the Australian users.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

So, now that FB has officially blacked out all Australian news or sharing of news, how long before the government backs down? Murdoch may be strong, but he still isn't Zuckerberg strong.

It might be a while, but news is pretty important to many FB users and most Australian news doesn't get covered anywhere else. I think they fold eventually, though with some sort of non-disclosure agreement with news providers, to avoid giving other world governments clues about what they can be shaken down for.

If it doesn't work out for ScoMo, it won't be a big win for FB either. Depriving the users is NOT the way to push back against government, and it's not as though FB was widely loved either. The next step is a tax, and all FB can do then is shut down all service in Australia. Their service depends absolutely on user-made content, so it would be a very bad business move to give a competitor all the Australian users.

Uh, no.

A News Media Bargaining code most certainly won't do anything, or be worse for smaller, indie publications like the Advocate or Michael West, it'll entrench old media while doing nothing to fix Google and Facebook's more questionable infringements, like dodging tax (Murdoch pays N0ne) and infringing upon privacy.

They might as well call it the 'Doing F**k All About Any Real Issue' Code.

Look, I detest Murdoch's empire as much as the next guy, but I don't hold a particularly high opinion of Google or Facebook's
track record either.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

It might be a while, but news is pretty important to many FB users and most Australian news doesn't get covered anywhere else. I think they fold eventually, though with some sort of non-disclosure agreement with news providers, to avoid giving other world governments clues about what they can be shaken down for.

If it doesn't work out for ScoMo, it won't be a big win for FB either. Depriving the users is NOT the way to push back against government, and it's not as though FB was widely loved either. The next step is a tax, and all FB can do then is shut down all service in Australia. Their service depends absolutely on user-made content, so it would be a very bad business move to give a competitor all the Australian users.

Uh, no.

A News Media Bargaining code most certainly won't do anything, or be worse for smaller, indie publications like the Advocate or Michael West, it'll entrench old media while doing nothing to fix Google and Facebook's more questionable infringements, like dodging tax (Murdoch pays N0ne) and infringing upon privacy.

They might as well call it the 'Doing F**k All About Any Real Issue' Code.

Look, I detest Murdoch's empire as much as the next guy, but I don't hold a particularly high opinion of Google or Facebook's
track record either.

Something, better than nothing according to me. Worse than nothing, according to you.

Maybe small papers should work on getting people to link to them on social media? Or is the problem that no-one outside their area is interested in their news?

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Uh, no.

A News Media Bargaining code most certainly won't do anything, or be worse for smaller, indie publications like the Advocate or Michael West, it'll entrench old media while doing nothing to fix Google and Facebook's more questionable infringements, like dodging tax (Murdoch pays N0ne) and infringing upon privacy.

They might as well call it the 'Doing F**k All About Any Real Issue' Code.

Look, I detest Murdoch's empire as much as the next guy, but I don't hold a particularly high opinion of Google or Facebook's
track record either.

Something, better than nothing according to me. Worse than nothing, according to you.

Maybe small papers should work on getting people to link to them on social media? Or is the problem that no-one outside their area is interested in their news?

All I'm saying is, it's the three titans of Murdoch, Google and Facebook, and it's turned into 'who's the lesser of three evils'.

I'm just not sure what to talk about right now other than this,
so I'm distancing myself from this whole debacle as much as I can
to avoid saying something stpd.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

SA ALP for 2021. Time for power to be put back in the hands of workers and for Nuclear Reactors to start development

[Australian rePublic]

SA ALP for 2021. Time for power to be put back in the hands of workers and for Nuclear Reactors to start development

When the next election???

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

SA ALP for 2021. Time for power to be put back in the hands of workers and for Nuclear Reactors to start development

When the next election???

2022

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

When the next election???

2022

SA seems like the last place nuclear power would catch on. Aren't they still sore about the nuclear tests?

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

2022

SA seems like the last place nuclear power would catch on. Aren't they still sore about the nuclear tests?

SA ALP wants to attempt placing nuclear power here. The problem is the gov wants to convince the people before proceeding. Plus SA is probably the more viable places to have Nuclear than somewhere like VIC or QLD

[Aressna]

SA ALP for 2021. Time for power to be put back in the hands of workers and for Nuclear Reactors to start development

Can get behind this, for sure. Nuclear is a reliable energy source, as long as we don't mess it up.

Not about to condone destroying indigenous sacred sites for energy though. Locals need to be consulted.

That being said, the Maralinga tests didn't pose a public health danger due to fallout. It did destroy some Indigenous artifacts and the like if I recall correctly.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

SA seems like the last place nuclear power would catch on. Aren't they still sore about the nuclear tests?

SA ALP wants to attempt placing nuclear power here. The problem is the gov wants to convince the people before proceeding. Plus SA is probably the more viable places to have Nuclear than somewhere like VIC or QLD

Nuclear when built properly is even safe in earthquake zones. Pretty much the only place they're not safe is in the lava path of a volcano, or in a war zone.

Nuclear locomotives would be pretty cool. However, things I considered "pretty cool" in the past turned out to be very bad ideas, so I'd get some expert modelling on how much diesel fuel would be saved by a nuke loco, whether security would be required to operate it far from town, and all round the safety and economic viability of the idea. Like any nuclear plant there would be a huge premium to pay for only building one.

Er, anyway, why does SA seem like a particularly good place?

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

SA ALP wants to attempt placing nuclear power here. The problem is the gov wants to convince the people before proceeding. Plus SA is probably the more viable places to have Nuclear than somewhere like VIC or QLD

Nuclear when built properly is even safe in earthquake zones. Pretty much the only place they're not safe is in the lava path of a volcano, or in a war zone.

Nuclear locomotives would be pretty cool. However, things I considered "pretty cool" in the past turned out to be very bad ideas, so I'd get some expert modelling on how much diesel fuel would be saved by a nuke loco, whether security would be required to operate it far from town, and all round the safety and economic viability of the idea. Like any nuclear plant there would be a huge premium to pay for only building one.

Er, anyway, why does SA seem like a particularly good place?

Uranium supply, landscape and giving us a chance to go further than other states

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

I don't like the idea of 100+ new Chernobyls in Australia - there's not a lot of evidence to suggest it's cleaner and it uses a pretty unstable process to generate energy.