> Temperatures in some locations from Philadelphia to Boston could be the hottest in any month in over a decade. Additional records could fall Wednesday and Thursday.
Boston here (home of decaying old red brick pizza oven buildings, not designed for modern summers).
This morning, as we enter a forecast high of 102F real temp, and heat index up to 110, my own old building is trying to get a 5-hour water shutdown of our entire building of ~100 residents, including elderly... postponed until after the scorching peak of the heat wave is over.
Not only do we have neither the architecture nor the acclimation for hot climate, but we don't even know what's ridiculously stupid behavior in such a climate.
chasd00 · 7h ago
> This morning, as we enter a forecast high of 102F real temp, and heat index up to 110..
ok that's hot. Being from Dallas, I usually poke fun at the NE when temps get warm there just like the NE pokes fun at the South when we get an inch of snow. However, 102 with humidity and heat index of 110 is hot no matter what. When it's that hot here i try to take off shoes/socks whenever possible and soak down my head and wash my face. A lot of heat is shed through your feet and head. But you reach a point where there's just no escape, once the concrete is heated up it takes weeks for it to cool back down. The feeling of a breeze only making it hotter instead of cooler is not pleasant, my sympathies.
edit: btw, i don't see how people in AZ survive, the temps in Phoenix and other places just seem incompatible with life. The usual reply is "low humidity" but the inside of your oven is low humidity too, i wouldn't want to live there either.
voidfunc · 9h ago
I don't miss my old 3rd floor, top floor apartment in an old brick building with a black roof and no AC in Boston. I put up with that for a decade before I upgraded.
neilv · 9h ago
Yep, flat black roof. 20 years ago, I'd get through Boston summers fine without AC. On the hottest days, just put down the blinds for the afternoon. And about one week per summer, I used a small fan.
I'm ready to upgrade, as soon as I know what city I'll be moving/staying to, after new job/startup search (and what my budget will be).
voidfunc · 9h ago
Good luck! I'm still in the area, beautiful city, but the housing stock sucks for what it costs.
Kon-Peki · 7h ago
Do you have roof access?
It's not going to be terribly windy in Boston... There are places that sell/rent temporary roof coverings, mainly for protecting from storm damage until it can get fixed. But anyway, white/reflective coverings are available, and can be held down with a few bricks for a week.
londons_explore · 9h ago
just fill up a bath or washbasin and you should have plenty of water to last 5 hours, even in a heatwave...
neilv · 9h ago
I actually sent that advice and a few other tips to people on my building's email list already.
Unfortunately, with ~100 people, and a general culture in the university neighborhood of non-cooperative, non-engaged, disconnected... there's a real chance that not everyone is going to do all the right things, and someone will get heat exhaustion or heat stroke.
potato3732842 · 8h ago
>unfortunately, with ~100 people, and a general culture in the university neighborhood of non-cooperative, non-engaged, disconnected
It's not the neighborhood, it's the people who inhabit it.
Just remove the word "university" and trade all the street parked Prius's in for driveway parked Tacomas and you've basically just described every snooty neighborhood in <shuffles cards> Wayland or <shuffles again> Dedham.
I assure you that just as many people in the suburbs are "not doing the right thing" or are otherwise completely surprised by outlier weather events. 100deg temps just have less consequences when you're not 22, living in an apartment with no A/C and drank yourself to a .3 the prior evening.
stavros · 8h ago
I don't know what the purpose of the shutdown is, but filling up a bathtub would probably lead to way more usage than if they hadn't cut off the water supply.
bluGill · 8h ago
Bathtubs are tiny users of water. Anyone city with a water supply problem is worried about people watering lawns which will use orders of magnitude more water.
walthamstow · 7h ago
Grass lawns for pleasure were invented on a wet rock in the North Atlantic, and even we here have to stop watering them during drought conditions (aka hosepipe ban). It baffles me that people have them in parts of the USA.
bluGill · 7h ago
Grass lawns grow very well without any added water in most of North America. It will go brown in dry conditions, but as soon as it rains it comes back. Of course as a large continent there are deserts where a lawn cannot grow without constant watering, but the vast majority of North America is plenty wet for a lawn to grow.
A significant minority wants green grass year round and those people water their lawn. It is not a majority though.
beej71 · 6h ago
We don't live in such an area (we live in the high desert), but a lot of people around here have lush, green, watered lawns. It's the opposite of the places where people have to fight encroaching plants. :)
About 6 years ago we let our lawn die off (it was at it's EOL anyway; the soil beneath was sand). We replaced part of it with rough pavers spaced 2-3 inches apart and we let the grass and whatever else grow in the spaces, and keep it mowed. It's not as nice as a lawn, but it's greenery. I do have to water it, but it takes a tiny fraction of the amount a lawn would take. The hypothesis is that the pavers prevent evaporation, trapping the moisture in the soil.
I was inspired by the hearty, unwanted plants that would always manage to grow between the pavers with zero water.
simoncion · 8h ago
In addition to that, if this is an old building, then I'd bet that the reason for the water shutoff is to fix a leak. If there's a leak, it's likely that the leak is leaking into the structure somewhere.
Might be that five days of leakage are much, much more water wasted [0] than if everyone in the building stocks several gallons of water for use during the shutoff period.
[0] And in this case, actually wasted because they'll not make it to a drain to get to a water treatment plant.
stavros · 8h ago
Ah yes, I forgot you have lawns, thanks.
No comments yet
votepaunchy · 9h ago
Current (and more accurate) title is “Central Park hits temp record last seen on this date in 1888 as heat wave hits eastern US”.
bdw5204 · 9h ago
It's also worth noting that reliable daily temperature records only go back to the late 1800s. The way you know this is that there are no record highs or lows in 1788 or even 1828. Most likely, at least some of the real records were set prior to the invention of temperature measurement.
On a related note, global population data before about 1800 or so is also unreliable because censuses hadn't been invented yet. During the Enlightenment, people actually debated if world population was increasing or decreasing. Many thought it had been constantly decreasing since the decline and fall of Rome. In general, reliable statistics for more or less anything are newer than the United States of America.
potato3732842 · 7h ago
>It's also worth noting that reliable daily temperature records only go back to the late 1800s. The way you know this is that there are no record highs or lows in 1788 or even 1828. Most likely, at least some of the real records were set prior to the invention of temperature measurement.
There's a whole meta-genre of academic papers that consist of taking unreliably measurement logs from prior centuries, comparing them to what the current best scientific understanding of the field is and then saying "aha, X wasn't mistaken about observing/measuring/concluding Y in conditions/location Z, his instrumentation was likely out of tune by a factor of N, if we re-do his math with the following error bars and plot the results you can see that what he reported is within the limits of our understanding of the subject today".
I'm not gonna say it's useful or useless science, but it sure is interesting to find out how close to modern understanding some of those guys back then were within their niches if you account for the quality of their equipment despite sometimes very unscientific conditions.
Hilift · 7h ago
> The way you know this is that there are no record highs or lows in 1788 or even 1828.
This is not specific to weather, although one interesting example would be California in November 1861 - January 1862. Most people think of the gold rush, but there was also a 20 year drought that ended with the largest flood in recorded history. 10 feet of precipitation in California, in the form of rain and snow, over a period of 43 days. It was followed by a huge bloom in vegetation, and the rancho cattle population quadrupled. Then another drought in 1864, that wiped out most of the cattle. And a smallpox epidemic that wiped out 90% of the remaining native population.
Even after that records are not really up to current standards (and I am sure even current standards are not perfect - things will always go wrong). What would have been the highest temperature recorded in the UK in the 20th century not counted in records because there were issues with its reliability:
Uhm, censuses are described in the Bible - in fact one has a central enough role that even a committed heathen like me is aware of it -, and existed many places on a similar timeline. I have no problem believing that they were imprecise, and not widespread enough to give good global numbers, but they had certainly been invented much earlier.
Cthulhu_ · 8h ago
There's also the Domesday Book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book), which wasn't an exact census but it did log 268,984 people considered to be the head of a household; based on this and all the ifs and buts around the number, they estimated the population of Wales and England in 1086 between 1.2 and 1.6 million people.
But it was more a taxation thing.
grues-dinner · 7h ago
> But it was more a taxation thing.
Herod's census was a tax thing too. Censuses are very expensive, and only even vaguely reliable if you threaten people with dire consequences for not taking part properly. So they don't often get done for funsies.
User23 · 8h ago
Given that we basically use the same technique for censuses today, the ancient ones probably weren’t especially less reliable.
graemep · 9h ago
Yes, but they were imprecise and inconsistent.
The Roman Empire had a motive to take a census (for things such as taxation of its subjects) and the means to enforce it over a wide area, neither of which survived its fall.
vidarh · 7h ago
Hence:
> I have no problem believing that they were imprecise
I only took issue with the claim they were invented that late.
timr · 8h ago
We also just had a month of extremely cold summer weather. It was around 60-70 degrees most of last week in New York.
sorcerer-mar · 7h ago
why did nobody warn us?!
dsr_ · 7h ago
Adding energy to a chaotic system increases the dynamic range. Lows get lower and highs get higher.
Admittedly, this has only been characterized since 1969, but it has been in the news rather a lot since then.
qoez · 8h ago
I'm going to allow this piece of news out of my control to ruin my day and leave me a nervous wreck for the rest of the week.
potato3732842 · 8h ago
Make sure you screech about it in every online comment section where it seems applicable for the next 6-16mo for best effect. :)
walthamstow · 8h ago
What a great year to be hosting a football tournament in the USA in June. Same again next year, I'm sure.
sorcerer-mar · 7h ago
In Los Angeles?
LA has perpetually incredible weather (but a quickly worsening water issue). The USA is an astonishingly large place. Weather in NYC means literally nothing about weather in Los Angeles.
walthamstow · 7h ago
Philadelphia is near NY, is it not? East Rutherford NJ is even closer and Washington DC is another nearby venue for this year's tournament.
2) Even then I'd have been wrong, since the World Cup is all over the country!
The more you (I) know!
walthamstow · 7h ago
The made-up nonsense world cup for club teams is on now, and the proper international one is next summer. Both years the final is in the MetLife stadium in NJ.
sorcerer-mar · 6h ago
Yeah that's for sure going to be awful in June.
The New York area has really brutal weather on both extremes, unfortunately.
madcaptenor · 6h ago
Philly is already at 95 degrees, at 11 AM Eastern. Expected to hit 100 today.
ubermonkey · 7h ago
Be aware that LA and NYC are about 2500 miles apart (or about 4,000 km). The weather patterns are very, very different. In general NY is harsher -- capable of being both hotter and colder than LA ever is.
walthamstow · 7h ago
I know where Los Angeles is.
This year's tournament is all over the US, including several stadia and training bases in the north east. Only one venue is in CA. Next year has a similar layout, and in both years the final is in NJ.
It’s also very humid and the heat isn’t breaking overnight… really taxing home cooling systems in the northeast.
tiahura · 8h ago
How did it get so hot in 1888?
beej71 · 6h ago
Same as how a hundred year wave gets that high, I should think.
EncomLab · 9h ago
Wonder if this winter will see another blizzard of 1888 event?
newer_vienna · 8h ago
p(new high) in a static normal distribution is significant when there are 365 samples of it per year
simianwords · 8h ago
I think I get what you are saying. By definition we will always hit keep records for every selected statistic over time.
We can also have the coldest day in Central Park at some point.
madcaptenor · 6h ago
One way to look at climate change in terms of records: there are a lot more record highs than record lows these days. If the climate were unchanging you'd expect those numbers to be equal.
cochne · 8h ago
Wouldn’t it be 1/(number of days since 1888) for a given day? Or 1/(number of years) for a given year? So less than 1/100 if static and independent
maccam912 · 6h ago
That's how I read it too, but the record is only for hottest June 24th of all the June 24ths since 1888. So yeah it's 1/number of years or so but we get 365 attempts at that a year to have this headline.
burnt-resistor · 10h ago
ETA until "Climate change is a myth and CO2 isn't increasing." is uttered? Can we call this ~~Wingod's~~ Carson's law?[0]
I don't think anybody seriously thinks Climate Change is a myth. There are just too many people who are too selfish to care.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 9h ago
It's difficult to reliably sort the "it's a myth" believers from the opportunists, the selfish, and the lazy.
The US has a president that has routinely supported the "it's a myth" viewpoint [0], which increases the visibility and credibility of climate change contrarians regardless of their motivations.
Don't forget nonzero % of actual bots and sock puppet meatcloud boiler room operations trying to manipulate sentiment / manufacture consent by flooding the zone with trolling, contrariness, and low-effort "opposition".
add-sub-mul-div · 8h ago
The most fascinating thing about him is that from day to day and topic to topic he can switch between looking (convincingly) like he's either selling the grift or buying it.
Cthulhu_ · 8h ago
There's plenty, but they don't know the difference between weather and climate.
stratocumulus0 · 9h ago
Every time there is a longer period of cold weather in the warm season I see populists on social media ironically asking where is this climate change supposed to be. People have a short context window. It doesn't help that our efforts to combat climate change consist in large part of petty consumer regulations that are annoying to individuals while not achieving much.
RiverCrochet · 9h ago
Social media is so easy to fill with unaccountable non-genuine activity (bots, shills, trolls, influencers, guerilla marketers, reputation managers, bored attention seekers) that I no longer consider most social media a valid heuristic for what "everyone thinks." I made this decision after looking at the profiles of those who tended to post like that, most of the time they seem fake.
What is the valid heuristic is that what you see on it all the time is clearly what someone wants you think.
Someone in real life that cites rando social media too much is probably on their phone too much or themselves in a non-genuine activity group.
sneak · 8h ago
I’m not a denier, nor do I dispute climate change, but it seems taken for granted that extreme weather events as of late are caused directly by climate change.
It seems probable; likely even.
But how do we know? Is it a guess?
The very fact that New York hit this temperature in 1888 (pre industrial revolution) suggests that we can’t take it on faith, as we have at least one data point that suggests heat spikes like this have happened in recent planet history without extra atmospheric CO2.
Cthulhu_ · 8h ago
There's a correlation, but it's better to look at long term weather trends and averages, like this page does https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... (read it while it's not censored yet). It shows a clear increase in average temperatures, at least for the time period we have fairly accurate figures (so after 1880).
for anything before 1880 and pre-history there's other sources like deep ice cores, geological strata, tree rings, etc. Not accurate, but good enough for an educated guess.
this_user · 8h ago
> But how do we know? Is it a guess?
We can be pretty certain that something is happening, and we are not just seeing randomness. We can also be certain enough for practical purposes that we know what the cause is.
In a situation where the consequences will be nothing short of catastrophic on a global scale and we are already far too late, insisting on 100% academic purity is really not a sensible position.
sneak · 6h ago
I’m not insisting on 100% purity. I’m just a complete layperson and I want to know how we know what we know.
femiagbabiaka · 8h ago
The effects of human-driven climate change are not about the existence of extreme weather events, but about their frequency.
That's exactly what my climatist friends tell me when the weather is nice, and they're correct. Climate change, as described by the scientists, is not about day-to-day, or even year-to-year, weather patterns.
But when the weather is nasty, they say "Look at the climate change, denier!"
femiagbabiaka · 7h ago
Long term changes are driven by day-to-day events. So, given that there are heat dome events every other summer now[1], they're actually correct. I think a reason that it might be hard for people to accept is that humanity is now, literally, the frog boiling in the pot. I imagine that Gen Alpha climate change deniers will be even more vociferous in their pleas that 100+ degree temps all summer every summer are actually normal.
There have been "heat dome events" every year I've been alive. We just didn't call them that, because we used to call this phenomenon "summer". When I was growing up in central Ohio several decades ago, it would routinely get up into the high 90s on summer afternoons.
I'm very serious. And no, I am not a "climate denier". The earth is getting warmer, but you cannot measure it in discrete events like you're trying to do.
Not saying or denying anything, but on a universe-al scale, 200 years is nothing, since some changes take longer.
femiagbabiaka · 7h ago
Human-driven climate change isn't about what happens when the climate follows long standing patterns over millennia, it's about what happens when it stops following those patterns.
It makes the formation of heat domes significantly more likely, and that's what causes these temperatures.
s3krit · 8h ago
1888 is very much not 'pre-industrial revolution', which had started over 100 years prior.
bluGill · 8h ago
True, but 1888 had much less CO2 in the air. Or so we assume, we didn't measure it.
Sayrus · 8h ago
Actually we do have measures of it based on ice cores. We went from ~280ppm at the time to over 400ppm today.
bluGill · 6h ago
I forgot about that we have that data. Thanks for the correction.
deadbabe · 9h ago
I haven’t heard much about Climate Change in recent months, and to be honest it’s kind of comforting to forget it exists. If we can’t do anything about it, then might as well not think about it. It’s so much less stressful and doesn’t put me in a bad mood the way doomer articles do. The outcome won’t change either way. If someone isn’t proposing a solution, I don’t want to hear the problems.
callmeal · 9h ago
>If we can’t do anything about it, then might as well not think about it.
The thing is, we can do something about it, but unfortunately we've been lobbied into believing that profits trump "doing something about it".
larrled · 7h ago
One thing we can do is to understand denial is a normal human defense mechanism. Better to avoid triggering denial by not making people afraid of the future. And when denial exists in a person already, best to avoid arguing with or labeling that person and getting them more deeply invested in their denial. Yet, too often we’ve: overwhelmed people with fear, argued with them when they tended towards normal defense mechanisms to cope with that fear, and then labeled people so their initial reaction of denial becomes a permanent part of their identity. Amazingly that isn’t saving the planet too quickly.
quesera · 7h ago
That's fair, but it turns out that indulging the denial does not lead to positive results either. So where does that leave us?
Boston here (home of decaying old red brick pizza oven buildings, not designed for modern summers).
This morning, as we enter a forecast high of 102F real temp, and heat index up to 110, my own old building is trying to get a 5-hour water shutdown of our entire building of ~100 residents, including elderly... postponed until after the scorching peak of the heat wave is over.
Not only do we have neither the architecture nor the acclimation for hot climate, but we don't even know what's ridiculously stupid behavior in such a climate.
ok that's hot. Being from Dallas, I usually poke fun at the NE when temps get warm there just like the NE pokes fun at the South when we get an inch of snow. However, 102 with humidity and heat index of 110 is hot no matter what. When it's that hot here i try to take off shoes/socks whenever possible and soak down my head and wash my face. A lot of heat is shed through your feet and head. But you reach a point where there's just no escape, once the concrete is heated up it takes weeks for it to cool back down. The feeling of a breeze only making it hotter instead of cooler is not pleasant, my sympathies.
edit: btw, i don't see how people in AZ survive, the temps in Phoenix and other places just seem incompatible with life. The usual reply is "low humidity" but the inside of your oven is low humidity too, i wouldn't want to live there either.
I'm ready to upgrade, as soon as I know what city I'll be moving/staying to, after new job/startup search (and what my budget will be).
It's not going to be terribly windy in Boston... There are places that sell/rent temporary roof coverings, mainly for protecting from storm damage until it can get fixed. But anyway, white/reflective coverings are available, and can be held down with a few bricks for a week.
Unfortunately, with ~100 people, and a general culture in the university neighborhood of non-cooperative, non-engaged, disconnected... there's a real chance that not everyone is going to do all the right things, and someone will get heat exhaustion or heat stroke.
It's not the neighborhood, it's the people who inhabit it.
Just remove the word "university" and trade all the street parked Prius's in for driveway parked Tacomas and you've basically just described every snooty neighborhood in <shuffles cards> Wayland or <shuffles again> Dedham.
I assure you that just as many people in the suburbs are "not doing the right thing" or are otherwise completely surprised by outlier weather events. 100deg temps just have less consequences when you're not 22, living in an apartment with no A/C and drank yourself to a .3 the prior evening.
A significant minority wants green grass year round and those people water their lawn. It is not a majority though.
About 6 years ago we let our lawn die off (it was at it's EOL anyway; the soil beneath was sand). We replaced part of it with rough pavers spaced 2-3 inches apart and we let the grass and whatever else grow in the spaces, and keep it mowed. It's not as nice as a lawn, but it's greenery. I do have to water it, but it takes a tiny fraction of the amount a lawn would take. The hypothesis is that the pavers prevent evaporation, trapping the moisture in the soil.
I was inspired by the hearty, unwanted plants that would always manage to grow between the pavers with zero water.
Might be that five days of leakage are much, much more water wasted [0] than if everyone in the building stocks several gallons of water for use during the shutoff period.
[0] And in this case, actually wasted because they'll not make it to a drain to get to a water treatment plant.
No comments yet
On a related note, global population data before about 1800 or so is also unreliable because censuses hadn't been invented yet. During the Enlightenment, people actually debated if world population was increasing or decreasing. Many thought it had been constantly decreasing since the decline and fall of Rome. In general, reliable statistics for more or less anything are newer than the United States of America.
There's a whole meta-genre of academic papers that consist of taking unreliably measurement logs from prior centuries, comparing them to what the current best scientific understanding of the field is and then saying "aha, X wasn't mistaken about observing/measuring/concluding Y in conditions/location Z, his instrumentation was likely out of tune by a factor of N, if we re-do his math with the following error bars and plot the results you can see that what he reported is within the limits of our understanding of the subject today".
I'm not gonna say it's useful or useless science, but it sure is interesting to find out how close to modern understanding some of those guys back then were within their niches if you account for the quality of their equipment despite sometimes very unscientific conditions.
This is not specific to weather, although one interesting example would be California in November 1861 - January 1862. Most people think of the gold rush, but there was also a 20 year drought that ended with the largest flood in recorded history. 10 feet of precipitation in California, in the form of rain and snow, over a period of 43 days. It was followed by a huge bloom in vegetation, and the rancho cattle population quadrupled. Then another drought in 1864, that wiped out most of the cattle. And a smallpox epidemic that wiped out 90% of the remaining native population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-06-13-nc-780-st...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_United_Kingdom_heat_wave#...
But it was more a taxation thing.
Herod's census was a tax thing too. Censuses are very expensive, and only even vaguely reliable if you threaten people with dire consequences for not taking part properly. So they don't often get done for funsies.
The Roman Empire had a motive to take a census (for things such as taxation of its subjects) and the means to enforce it over a wide area, neither of which survived its fall.
> I have no problem believing that they were imprecise
I only took issue with the claim they were invented that late.
Admittedly, this has only been characterized since 1969, but it has been in the news rather a lot since then.
LA has perpetually incredible weather (but a quickly worsening water issue). The USA is an astonishingly large place. Weather in NYC means literally nothing about weather in Los Angeles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czdvllm9352o
2) Even then I'd have been wrong, since the World Cup is all over the country!
The more you (I) know!
The New York area has really brutal weather on both extremes, unfortunately.
This year's tournament is all over the US, including several stadia and training bases in the north east. Only one venue is in CA. Next year has a similar layout, and in both years the final is in NJ.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czdvllm9352o
We can also have the coldest day in Central Park at some point.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
The US has a president that has routinely supported the "it's a myth" viewpoint [0], which increases the visibility and credibility of climate change contrarians regardless of their motivations.
[0] https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-clings-to-inaccurate...
What is the valid heuristic is that what you see on it all the time is clearly what someone wants you think.
Someone in real life that cites rando social media too much is probably on their phone too much or themselves in a non-genuine activity group.
It seems probable; likely even.
But how do we know? Is it a guess?
The very fact that New York hit this temperature in 1888 (pre industrial revolution) suggests that we can’t take it on faith, as we have at least one data point that suggests heat spikes like this have happened in recent planet history without extra atmospheric CO2.
for anything before 1880 and pre-history there's other sources like deep ice cores, geological strata, tree rings, etc. Not accurate, but good enough for an educated guess.
We can be pretty certain that something is happening, and we are not just seeing randomness. We can also be certain enough for practical purposes that we know what the cause is.
In a situation where the consequences will be nothing short of catastrophic on a global scale and we are already far too late, insisting on 100% academic purity is really not a sensible position.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/extreme-makeov...
But when the weather is nasty, they say "Look at the climate change, denier!"
1: 2012, 2018, 2021, 2023, 2025 at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_dome
I'm very serious. And no, I am not a "climate denier". The earth is getting warmer, but you cannot measure it in discrete events like you're trying to do.
Not saying or denying anything, but on a universe-al scale, 200 years is nothing, since some changes take longer.
The thing is, we can do something about it, but unfortunately we've been lobbied into believing that profits trump "doing something about it".