u/CrumbledFingers

In the first few moments of the opening cutscene, James probably has not yet made up the lie that Mary died of illness 3 years earlier and beckoned him back to their special place in a letter. At least this is how it seems in the remake. His hands are shaking, he is sweating, he is staring at himself in the mirror. But then he kind of pauses and calms right down. His demeanor is totally different, almost dissociated, and then we see him leave and we get the cutscene about him getting the letter.

I think that he was originally in that bathroom to psyche himself up for what he intended to do. He came to Silent Hill with Mary's body in the car in order to kill himself by driving into the lake. At the last moment, he almost chickened out, and got out of the car to try and gather his courage. He didn't even close the door to his car, so he was probably planning on getting right back in and driving it off a cliff. It was then, just as he looked at his reflection in the mirror, that Silent Hill's mysterious power obscured the truth from him so that he might have a chance to work out his inner demons and find peace.

Briefly (lol): suppose that physicalist materialism is really, actually true. The consciousness we seem to have and the subtle experiences contained in it are somehow generated by a physical brain, which survives for a while and then dies. After that, there is no more consciousness.

My question is this. From our perspective, in the first-person, would this change anything about Advaita?

Even if there is a physical world underpinning the play of consciousness, wouldn't it still be true for me that:

• I am just pure awareness, since I do not change while everything else changes
• The states of dreaming, sleeping, and waking appear in me
• I take myself to be a body, as ego, in the dreaming and waking states
• The experiences I have in dreaming and waking are not different from me as awareness
• The physical world is only an appearance to me, since I only encounter experience in awareness
• I did not experience being born and will not experience being dead, so my perspective is free from birth and death
• If I remove the ignorance about being a body and remain as pure awareness, I am free from fear because nothing in pure awareness is apart from me to harm me

And so on. In other words, whether there is an independent physical world or not, all I will ever know or experience is this simple first-person world. From within it, looking around, I only encounter experiences or thoughts. They are all subjective, qualitative, and private to me, so they are made of the same stuff as me (as awareness). But at the same time, maybe all of this comes from the brain in some way that I will never know about directly and will never really affect me.

Then, "consciousness alone exists" really means "consciousness alone exists from its own perspective." Does that take anything important away from Advaita?

Starting in 2021, and for a period of several years, I had a series of extraordinary cannabis-related experiences that changed my life completely. Quite unexpectedly, and without making any effort, one night in July I suddenly recognized, with total clarity, the simple presence-awareness that I actually am. Not as a simple thing in a complex world, but seeing the world itself as totally simple, from the inside out. Over the next several years, I repeatedly induced this state, and developed the conviction that what I was experiencing was exactly what the spiritual traditions of the world were pointing to with concepts like Brahman, Atman, Shunya, and Tao. That naive, uncomplicated first-person spaciousness/fullness (or rather, the reality behind it that can't be described) was known to be existence itself, apart from which there is nothing. Under the right conditions, and perhaps by an act of grace, this was revealed to me again and again while using cannabis.

I have not used any psychedelic substances in this life other than weed. The experience I describe above was sometimes accompanied by periods of meditative absorption, during which my breath would seem to completely stop. With eyes closed, I saw magnificent colors and shapes. In silence, I heard beautiful music. It occurred to me that I was at the interface between awareness and the network of appearances that project outward from it. Another way to say this is that I was observing the inner mechanisms of perception itself, from "inside" the nervous system. Having experienced all this, I can appreciate what the Buddhists and Hindus mean when they say everything is unreal, like a dream.

Occasionally I had terrifying experiences. What I have related thus far is not the same as total ego-annihilation, otherwise I would not have come back to personhood when the process wrapped up. But there were times when I felt: I could just dissolve into this and never return. At those times, what I refer to as the Big Fear rose up and clenched me like a snake. At the base of all this, desperately hanging on and unwilling to permanently subside, is the naked ego. Rightly, it sees its own death at the end of this road and erects a blockade of abject terror to obstruct the way through to the other side.

The possibility of this Big Fear, as well as the functional downsides of taking massive quantities of cannabis on a regular basis, eventually forced me to stop using it altogether a couple of years ago.

That journey still haunts me sometimes. I am today a spiritual practitioner making slow and steady progress without drugs, but part of me still yearns to taste the truth as I did before, to remind me that I am always that simple light. In a real way, cannabis was the guru for me. Before these experiences I was a pessimist and an atheist. Cannabis gave me a gentle shove from the outside to push me in, and from within to pull me deeper, and for that I will be eternally grateful to it. I wonder whether I am unique in receiving this gift, or if there are others like me?

"The word 'object' has no meaning unless it is used in reference to some subject. If the subject is withdrawn, the object ceases to be. Thus, objects are inseparably connected with the subject. But as far as the subject is concerned, it can remain all alone without being joined to any objects. In the absence of objects, it is not correct to call it a subject. There, it is a subject divested of its subjectivity. Because objects cannot remain without being joined to a subject, the subject goes into the very constitution of the object, or in other words, I may say that it is the subject (if it is really the subject at all) that appears as the so-called objects.

You may be very slow to accept my argument. This may be your doubt. You see Mr. X standing there. Is there not a subject in Mr. X also? How can that subject of Mr. X be your object? This is what I have to tell you in this regard. The body etc., of Mr. X is surely your object. There is no doubt about this. But the subject of Mr. X is never your object. This position is likely to lead to the conclusion that there is plurality of subjects. This too is not correct. How do I address myself? 'I', is it not? Mr. X does not use a different word to distinguish himself from me. Therefore, the ‘I’ as the subject is always one and the same. It is this 'I', the ultimate subject, that goes into the make of objects to constitute them. The ‘I’ in all beings is one and the same."

(Bold font is my addition)

I discovered something shocking, which is that the emotional and cognitive events we experience are just happening in our minds. There is something underneath it that we mistake for the world and ourselves in it, but it is not anything we are able to talk about as people. This is because we are only seemingly people during these sporadic mental episodes, between which are periods of being nothing at all but receptivity. What could it all have been referring to, if not this?

When you think about a hypothetical situation you feel one way or another about, subtle mental images of yourself as this body flash in your view. You actually behold a subtle tactile (and sometimes partly visual) representation of who you think you are in the view of others, or at least from some externalized perspective. It then acts out the emotional response you believe you are having, or coming to some conclusion the intellect just realized, as an event happening to a unique individual character that is always in your presence. This is the organism you see on reflective surfaces, who is always looking at you, whose affairs you are privy to.

But suddenly experiencing reality as though you were him, as though there were a him for you to be, is just because of a passing thought you get engrossed in. He is only a person, and you only think you are that person, when this mental shift occurs (or, in some sense, when you allow it to occur).

It should go without saying, then, that all your other ideas and neuroses are worse than fictional. Fictional ideas are at least honest about it. Your emotional preconceptions, the assumptions you make about how others see you, are false ideas about false entities. They are just thoughts that feel like something in your subtle anatomy and then you fall into identification. When you feel that happening, just go into Hakalau. Just notice your peripheral vision and try to take it all in, then all the sounds, then the sense of place. That can stop the spiral briefly. Staying above the waterline of superfictional body-hallucinations is a matter of not letting your attention (really your energy-body) fall into a vortex of mental dissociation by identifying with a thought. It's so, so simple.

i.

Do this experiment while reading these words.

Notice your perceptions in this moment, in all the modalities we have decided are "senses". See whether these modalities (smells, tastes, textures, images, sounds) share something in common from your perspective. A smell is not like a sound in its content, but in their character of arising in the first-person*, are the two not equivalent? In some systems of thought, they describe this as both smells and sounds (and images etc.) appearing "in the same awareness". If this makes sense to you, great. If not, just keep noticing that whatever the description, all your sense perceptions are equivalent on this level.

[*Note: I use 'first-person' to simply mean 'directly experienced without mediation', not in any sense that requires the concept of personhood.]

Next, put your attention on the sensations you feel in the body. We don't usually notice these. They are something like the sense of touch but not really a texture, not exactly a temperature, not quite a pressure, but a kind of tingle or pulse that tells you 'my foot is down here' or 'my stomach is upset' or 'I am breathing easily'. Call it proprioception, but it encompasses more than just that. Anyway, notice again that the whole array of internal sensations, regardless of their source, have that same quality in common: they are immediate for you, they are experienced as mine; they are first-person. And to that extent, they are equivalent.

Also, notice that the sense perceptions and internal sensations share exactly that same quality. There is not one type of "mine" for the sound of my typing and another for what my spine feels like from inside; they both arise as qualia, let's say, and are interchangeable on those grounds.

Finally, put the same attention on your thoughts. Any mental content whatsoever, whether fully-formed and verbal, or a vague emotional leaning. There are so many kinds of thoughts. Explicit thoughts that are about something, mental chatter, memories of other thoughts, memories of sense perceptions or internal sensations, right down to the basic ground-level thoughts that organize everything into coherence. And there is the most subtle thought of all, the thought "I am this one; these perceptions, sensations, and thoughts are all mine". To whatever extent you can, notice that all of these are equally thoughts, and all of them have in common the same first-person style of arising that you find in other experiences you have.

ii.

In the first-person, then, which is all we can ever access or know, we may say that a multi-media presentation is being displayed. Its constituent parts are thoughts, sensations, and perceptions. Other than these, we have no knowledge, no identity, no history, no location, and no experience of any kind. All of life is a continuum consisting of varying proportions and flavors of these three basic elements, and they are all equivalent as simple arisings.

If we put all of that on one side, so to speak, as arising objects of the same basic type, on the other side is subjectivity. This can never be an object; you will not find it among any thoughts, perceptions, or even internal sensations. Rather, the subjectivity is directly known because it is what you essentially are. Having sequestered every possible object of experience in the category of "this", you stand apart from them all as "I"--but not as the conditioned "I" that emerges from the identity-thought that structures your personality; that too is merely an object. All the objects are like pixels on a screen, and you are their viewer. They are not aware of you nor anything else; you alone are aware of all of them. They change constantly, coming and going, while you remain the same and are always here.

This "I", the real "I" without contamination by anything else, is what open individualism is talking about when it says "I am everyone".

But if we have done this experiment correctly, where is this "everyone"? Who is here, on the "I" side of the divide, other than you (as subjectivity itself)?

And who is on the "this" side of the divide, where only objects are found, arising like pixels, devoid of consciousness?

Once you see the reality of the changing display and yourself as pure consciousness, what is a "person" apart from a shape with colors, sounds, a smell, a collection of ideas, memories, impulses, subtle sensations, expectations, and so on?

Are any of these at their base anything other than first-person phenomena, lacking any inherent meaning or content? Do they appear to your subjectivity differently if they are somehow person-like, compared to plant-like or furniture-like, or are those only mental divisions for you?

The undeniable fact is that, as awareness per se, no person can ever be found among the ontologically simple phenomena on display at any given time. They only arise as hypothetical abstractions, the result of structural manipulations occurring at a foundational level, but never as anything other than mental arisings with apparent cognitive cargo. Peel even those structures down to their immediate first-person nudity, and they will surrender their semantic content and stand reduced to mere pixels. There only seem to be people, including the person you know as "I", when you don't closely scrutinize them. You--the "I"-principle itself--alone are real.

iii.

There is one more experiment to do. Having put all the phenomenal contents you can identify (including the very mental mechanism that does the identifying) into the bin of "this", and noting that you are completely independent of those contents from your standpoint as "I", see if those contents are independent of you.

Without the subjectivity/awareness that you basically are, can there be any images, sounds, textures, tastes, smells, thoughts, sensations, etc.? Are first-person experiences hanging in some void waiting for you to notice them? Are they "made of" some foreign substance that is non-subjective, and is transformed into subjectivity when you observe them? Or do they only ever arise as particles of that subjectivity itself, utterly intimate to you, at zero distance from you? The latter is definitely the case if we investigate directly.

By your immediately accessible knowledge, then, the world and its contents are not only equivalent as arising objects, they are equivalent in their inseparability from you. They depend entirely on your presence for their existence and activity.

There is nothing in the universe that is made of anything other than you, in your own view.

There is nobody here or anywhere else in the ultimate sense, but it appears that way while we are absentmindedly engrossed in the display.

Take away the hypothetical, third-person view and its scaffolding of spatio-temporal organization, and notice that it has ("always") only ever been now. What else could be real, if it is not now?

Is a video game real at the level of the narrative it presents, or in the end, is it only pixels? Enjoy the game while knowing it is one with you and that you are untouched by it.

iv.

This stunning conclusion is what is left out if we stay within the confines of OI. The truth of life is missed, and we lapse into feeling trapped or imprisoned by life, doomed to live out its rare glories and more numerous agonies forever.

In actuality, we don't have to worry about such things. There are only perceptions, sensations, and thoughts, all made of you, the "I" that supports them and provides them with their presence. They can't harm you any more than a drop of water can harm the ocean containing it. What seems to be harm is only our lack of attention to what is always here, as it actually is, before we get lost in it as some character called a person.

I'm building a busking rig to play ambient guitar soundscapes in public parks, bus stations, etc. I run my guitar through an iPad to generate evolving loops. This sounds best with a wide stereo image. Right now, I have two Headrush FRFR-108 speakers with tripod stands, which are (a) pretty heavy and (b) waaaay louder than what the city ordinances allow.

So, I'm wondering whether I can get away with using a pair of IK iLoud (specifically the MTM MkII) speakers mounted on mic stands for my sound. These supposedly sound good and have decent bass response, but that's for a studio setting not live. I could get a small subwoofer, but that's another piece to carry. Anyone have experience with these for live use in quieter settings?

TL;DR: I'm looking at my options for a small and portable pair of speakers with decent bass projection, where the volume has to be low, so no need for lots of power.

In the web series, the entities encountered in the backrooms had two qualities that made them particularly disturbing that were not translated at all to the film.

First, they lured people toward them by mimicking human sounds or vocalizations. Similar to the creature in Annihilation, this added to the tension by the fact that gradually, we become aware that there is something "off" about the voice we are hearing, until it becomes a crazed/distorted howl.

Second, the entities actually chased people at a pretty fast speed! Even the bacteria monster seems like it could catch up to them, and only slows down when it's searching etc. I thought Pirate Clark was creepy enough but only because Mary was either (a) injured from tripping over a damn couch, or (b) literally trapped in a room with no visible exits. Same with Bobby, who was stuck with him in a small room.

I think this is kind of strange. Every YouTube found footage video includes or ends with a sequence of frantically fleeing a being that is barreling after you at top speed and screaming, but the movie had nothing like this despite being a horror film. Any ideas why this stylistic change was made?

The movie was as well-done as it could have been while still being appealing to general audiences, but I still love the found-footage format being the only access we have to the complex. It just makes everything more mysterious and grounded in reality (despite being a sci-fi concept) rather than driven by characters and a narrative. I would love to see a found-footage version of Backrooms made on real sets with actors, instead of in Blender. Sorry if this is a common take, I just wanted to share it.

There are parts of the show where it seems like the Hive are oblivious to how strange they sound to Carol, and do things that suggest they have no common sense about basic human communication (giving her the grenade, etc.), but if they truly have all humanity's knowledge at their disposal, wouldn't this include the "soft skills" of master manipulators and negotiators, the results of every psychological experiment done by researchers, the wisdom of elders from every culture, and so forth? It seems like talking to any of them should be like talking to the most insightful, clever, savvy person you have ever met. Does this suggest the cheery simplicity of the hive might be a calculated choice?

...it may be that the Hive are perfectly capable of lying, and very good at it, and are lying about not being able to lie. This is similar to a twist in a science fiction novel that has been adapted into a few TV shows, which I won't name because it is a spoiler. It involves humanity contacting an alien culture who initially is unable to lie, but learns how to do so and conceals that fact from humanity. It would be interesting if the Hive somehow worked out something similar.

I've been thinking about this for a little while since finishing the show, and I believe there might be something to a political reading of the show that is critical of the USA and the west rather than a boilerplate cautionary tale about communist conformity. I'm not saying this interpretation is necessarily what the showrunners intended, but it's an interesting reading of the show's themes in my opinion.

My suggestion is that Carol's behavior throughout the show, her motivations and choices, can be described as a kind of parody of US privilege in the world, both on a societal level as an allegory for the upper middle-class surrendering its cushy position in times of economic upheaval, and on the world stage, representing the decline of US dominance in the world as rival powers develop and outpace the US in key areas.

Several aspects of Carol's character resonate with this interpretation.

Throughout the show, but only on occasion, she expresses outrage over what she sees as a gross violation of human rights on the part of a collectivist threat that has taken over people's minds against their will. Yet, many of her behaviors show that her righteous anger is not completely sincere:

1. When she realizes the Others will obey her every command to the best of their ability, she indulges in their generosity in a manner that specifically involves sending back a bottle of individually delivered fruit punch because it was not as cold as she demanded, an act that under any other circumstances would indicate she has an entitled mentality toward service workers. If her firm position was that humanity was being unjustly enslaved by an invading entity, why would she arrogantly exploit them in this way?
2. Another example of this behavior that directly relates to the privileged status of the US upper middle class is her visit to the grocery store. She misses the availability of all kinds of produce from all seasons around the world that used to be the norm for her, so she demands that everything is restored. And, in a stunningly dry sequence that perfectly encapsulates the whole world bowing to this demand of well-to-do US consumers, trucks carrying every variety of food immediately converge on her location to supply her with everything she could possibly want.
3. When she describes the gravity of the situation to other Immunes, she uses very specific phrasing. Rather than saying "we need to rescue humanity from being controlled" or "we need to free everyone from slavery", she almost always says we have to put things back to how they used to be. More than the current state of affairs being problematic on its own (though it is, for her), it represents an unacceptable change from the status quo.
4. When she is satisfied that her stem cells will not be harvested without her consent, meaning she will never have to join the Others, all of her prior concerns about the violation of human autonomy seemingly vanish. She even seems unbothered by the prospect of the Others broadcasting the virus across the galaxy. What shatters this state of complacency is very telling: when Manousos is shown the same compassion and love that Zosia shows Carol, she becomes livid with anger: you can only love me like that, I must be your favorite. This can partly be read as a normal human reaction to a romantic partner showing affection to someone else, but there is a reading more consistent with the theme I'm suggesting here. Most blatantly, when her fate is finally sealed and she no longer has the ability to resist joining, she does a rapid about-face and arrives home in a helicopter, determined yet again to bring order back to the world, except this time she has a literal nuclear bomb.

There are many other minor examples of Carol being shown as a perpetually unsatisfied, misanthropic, and power-hungry person. When she is left alone by the Others, her choice of activities is again telling. She is shown in more than one scene sitting in the middle of the cul-de-sac in front of her gigantic home, sipping beer and setting off patriotic fireworks while singing American anthems. She plays golf. She goes to an art gallery and sees a painting she likes and says, you know, that painting should be mine now (though she does not later admit this to Zosia, saying she was protecting it from animals). Lots of examples.

Basically, Carol's primary grievance is the loss of her ability to enjoy a position of advantage over others. She couches this impulse in concerns for abstract ideals of freedom, but what she is really after is the restoration of a social order that placed her comfortably near the top. At every turn, however, she is frustrated by the universal and unconditional generosity of the Others, as well as the disappearance of a local or global "underclass" that she can reliably exploit for access to comfort and convenience.

Much like the United States as a world power, she switches between condemnation of moral barbarism when it is convenient (as a way of gaining allies), to celebrating decadence and mindless entertainment when nobody is watching.

She tolerates and even embraces the Others, who clearly represent the ascendant People's Republic of China in today's world, when they provide her with what she sees as special treatment (analogous to the decades of cheap labor and mass-produced consumer goods), but quickly becomes their sworn enemy when the prospect of leveling the playing field becomes more and more likely.

Carol has the power, through the sheer intensity of an emotional outburst, to bring the entire world screeching to a halt, potentially killing scores of human beings. Though this show was made in 2025, it seems to have predicted the current situation of the US launching a first strike on Iran, leading to global fuel shortages and an impending recession due to cutting off supply chains.

Of course, there are inconsistencies with this interpretation that I will not dwell on, since I'm not presenting this as the objectively accurate interpretation of the show. Yet, given all these intersecting lines of thematic evidence, I suspect this angle was at least part of the intention behind the narrative choices made by the show's writers.

When the nature of what happened to the world was revealed in the first episode, all the tension was drained for me.

Every part of every person is retained and accessible to every individual body at all times; there is just one human being now, distributed in many forms, all completely without any motive to harm one another.

The loss of unique characteristics is a change, to be sure, but this should be a chance to reflect on whether the cost of insisting that our desire for variety, struggle, intrigue, and conflict as a 'spice to life' is worth the misery of so many starving, depressed, war-ravaged, confused, ignorant, and afraid people living lives of unimaginable pain for hundreds of thousands of years.

I see the downsides and Carol's reason for rejecting them initially, but the moral calculus introduced in e2 is so uncomplicated to me that I wonder what position the show is commited to. If there is no message at all, and the show remains totally neutral throughout, I don't see how it makes sense as a narrative. If there is no central obstacle to overcome except for one person's stubborn lack of curiosity about the possibilities of this new mode of consciousness, why should I be invested?

If a layer of ambiguity is going to be introduced (beyond the food source problem, which I got spoiled for myself and also see no problem with!), there might be something compelling to wait for. Otherwise, am I just not part of the intended ideological audience for this show?

I could really get into a game that revolves around the ritual practices of the town's religion, internal power struggles between the various sects, stuff like that. It could focus on the period after Dahlia's death, having failed to bring God into the world and losing Alessa yet again, and the preparations to somehow rectify her failure with Cheryl/Heather. We could take the role of a minor cult member with aspirations to ascend the ranks, who is maybe hesitant to embrace the apocalypse (like Vincent) but sympathetic to the dream of a paradise on earth.

I have personally had enough of the tortured protagonist who Doesn't Remember Something (I am dead/dying, I killed this person, I am actually this person not that person, etc.) and consequently has to beat up a weird little goblin with a steel pipe.

Do you think this would be a good direction for the series?

Am I supposed to quicksave before every conversation and then reload to change my outfit every time?

Sorry for the long subject line, but I've been wrestling with this for some time now. I'm using AUM on an iPad. I want to control the plugins etc. with a control surface, and have (at the very least) the LEDs on the controller light and dim to indicate the on/off state of whatever they are controlling. Otherwise I can't perform with the iPad.

The Akai MIDI Mix does not work for this purpose in toggle mode, only with momentary button presses. This is apparently because AUM does not send MIDI data back to controllers, so I will need something that has LEDs toggle between lit and dimmed on its own (without needing to receive a "note off" from AUM etc). Plenty to choose from, right? Korg nanoKontrol, Novation Launchpad et al all do this.

The problem is that between and across sessions, the plugin states in AUM will inevitably differ from whatever the LEDs on the controllers are showing. I would need to go through and manually turn each one on and off repeatedly to sync it up to AUM again, unless there is a function to dump the current positions and settings of all the physical buttons into AUM with one press. Infuriatingly, the Akai MIDI Mix has this functionality but does not have the LED functions I need.

So, is there any controller that will work for this purpose? It seems like such a basic function, but scouring manuals online has not given me any leads. Thanks for your suggestions.

I goofed and bought an Akai MIDI Mix for manipulating track and plugin parameters in AUM, not realizing that it does not automatically toggle the LED lights on and off when sending messages to AUM for mutes and solos etc. This can apparently be fixed with some custom scripting, but I would rather have a device that does this out of the box.

AUM does not send MIDI back to connected devices as far as I can tell, but I know there are controllers that simply toggle the LEDs on and off with each press on their own, even without receiving MIDI feedback. Novation XL3 does this, and I think the nanoKontrol line does it too, but what else is available?

I am a novice Kriya practitioner who is not consistent nor rigorous, so please forgive me if this question is not appropriate.

Very rarely, when practicing pranayama for a long while and going deep, I encounter a point of noticing that my usual idea of myself is quite far away from my current experience. Suddenly the distance between what I normally think is 'me', this person, and what I am seeing in pranayama, with the body rolled up and senses withdrawn, becomes a little spooky. A little terrifying. And this jolts me back.

My teacher says to practice Navi Kriya before pranayama, and says that doing so will provide general relief from fearful tendencies. But is the real reason for this practice to overcome this terror (which I call the Big Fear) at the point of ego dissolution? I sometimes neglect Navi, but if it has an important role to play in going deeper then I want to do it more.

I have a desktop angled pedal stand with two tiers, because I make solo ambient looping music and don't need to press the pedals with my feet while playing (though I often want to tweak the settings, hence the desktop setup). I want to play gigs with this setup, but there is no great way to get the pedal stand from A to B without totally dismantling everything.

The pedals just rest on the shelves by gravity, and there is no case that fits the shape of the stand. I would settle for a way to anchor the pedals to the stand (zipties? velcro? something else?) and some means of carrying the whole thing short distances (to a car from my place, from the car to the stage, etc.), like a cloth cover or a zippered bag or something.

Or, if there is a portable version of the same type of thing (that would let me tweak pedals at table-level while seated), I would maybe switch to that.