DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis(blogs.gnome.org)
blogs.gnome.org
DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis
https://blogs.gnome.org/alatiera/2025/11/06/dhh-and-omarchy-midlife-crisis/
36 comments
>So many people (mostly American men) are insulated from reality.
"They're insulated from reality" the Marxist chortled just moments after unironically claiming men can be pregnant.
The ruse is up. Calling anyone right of Mao a Nazi doesn't work anymore.
"They're insulated from reality" the Marxist chortled just moments after unironically claiming men can be pregnant.
The ruse is up. Calling anyone right of Mao a Nazi doesn't work anymore.
[deleted]
This is just a tired one at this point, The people who care have picked sides, the people who don't (are probably smarter for not caring) and no one who's picked a side is likely to change their mind.
I don't like what DHH has become or what he says (nor do I have any interest in Omarchy, I prefer Fedora (for many years)/KDE (recently but loving it) anyway) since "As I remember London[1]" was the final straw for me (of lots of straws) but on the flip side but if you only ever use software written by people you ideologically align with you are going to have a bad time.
[1] https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
I don't like what DHH has become or what he says (nor do I have any interest in Omarchy, I prefer Fedora (for many years)/KDE (recently but loving it) anyway) since "As I remember London[1]" was the final straw for me (of lots of straws) but on the flip side but if you only ever use software written by people you ideologically align with you are going to have a bad time.
[1] https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
It is ok to not use software by people you don't like. That's probably a large part of what drew people away from Microsoft, Oracle, etc.
Just like boycotting your favourite chocolate company because they try to undermine breastfeeding in developing countries. Yes, it hurts a little; that's the point of sacrifice.
Just like boycotting your favourite chocolate company because they try to undermine breastfeeding in developing countries. Yes, it hurts a little; that's the point of sacrifice.
The issue is that open aource is a community-based development model. If you let nazi's into your community, they will eventually drive away everyone else.
>If you let nazi's into your community, they will eventually drive away everyone else.
Glad that's not what happened, DHH is not a Nazi.
Glad that's not what happened, DHH is not a Nazi.
As I said below, DHH has repeatedly shown he's a bad actor, whether you think he's a nazi or not. He will continue to drive away sane people from the communities he's a part of.
He has also quite clearly taken a nazi or ethnonationalist stance. If we allow the term "nazi" to refer to people other than literal card-carrying members of the German Nazi party up until 1945, he fits the description accurately.
He has also quite clearly taken a nazi or ethnonationalist stance. If we allow the term "nazi" to refer to people other than literal card-carrying members of the German Nazi party up until 1945, he fits the description accurately.
>DHH has repeatedly shown he's a bad actor
No he hasn't. Holding heterodox opinions isn't being "a bad actor."
>He will continue to drive away sane people from the communities he's a part of.
He's driven insane people from the communities he's a part of. Sane people will flock to them.
>He has also quite clearly taken a nazi or ethnonationalist stance.
No he hasn't. There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners.
No he hasn't. Holding heterodox opinions isn't being "a bad actor."
>He will continue to drive away sane people from the communities he's a part of.
He's driven insane people from the communities he's a part of. Sane people will flock to them.
>He has also quite clearly taken a nazi or ethnonationalist stance.
No he hasn't. There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners.
The bad actor part is e.g. shutting down review processes in his company when they contradict his beliefs, and plotting to oust people from RubyGems for having the wrong political beliefs.
And he is an ethnonationalist. In "As I remember London", he claimed Britain was a third native brit, then backed it up with a wikipedia link showing a third of London was white. So in DHH's mind white = British. There's no other way to interpret that, and he hasn't corrected it.
And he is an ethnonationalist. In "As I remember London", he claimed Britain was a third native brit, then backed it up with a wikipedia link showing a third of London was white. So in DHH's mind white = British. There's no other way to interpret that, and he hasn't corrected it.
>The bad actor part is e.g. shutting down review processes in his company when they contradict his beliefs
His company, his rules. He banned activist employees from using work as a platform to proselytize their grievance politics.
>In "As I remember London", he claimed Britain was a third native brit, then backed it up with a wikipedia link showing a third of London was white.
This is what happens when you only read posts on Bluesky/Mastodon. He claimed London was only a third "native Brit" which is the factual reality, backed up by Wikipedia. He didn't include "all Whites" just "White Brits." White Brits are the only native Brits to Britain.
>So in DHH's mind white = British.
Wrong. White Brit = native Brit, which is factually correct.
>There's no other way to interpret that
Correct, no other way to interpret the facts.
>and he hasn't corrected it.
"He hasn't removed the wrongthink!"
His company, his rules. He banned activist employees from using work as a platform to proselytize their grievance politics.
>In "As I remember London", he claimed Britain was a third native brit, then backed it up with a wikipedia link showing a third of London was white.
This is what happens when you only read posts on Bluesky/Mastodon. He claimed London was only a third "native Brit" which is the factual reality, backed up by Wikipedia. He didn't include "all Whites" just "White Brits." White Brits are the only native Brits to Britain.
>So in DHH's mind white = British.
Wrong. White Brit = native Brit, which is factually correct.
>There's no other way to interpret that
Correct, no other way to interpret the facts.
>and he hasn't corrected it.
"He hasn't removed the wrongthink!"
If you think white Brits are the only native Brits then you are also an ethnonationalist.
But even for a faulty ethnonationalist concept of nationality, the data point makes no sense. I'm white and born in Finland. By your logic, if I move to the UK and become a naturalized citizen, then I would be a native. Which is obviously not true. So the one third figure is both racist and incrdibly stupid.
Native means you're born somewhere. Equating nationality by skin color is ethnonationalism. So I guess congrats, you're a nazi.
But even for a faulty ethnonationalist concept of nationality, the data point makes no sense. I'm white and born in Finland. By your logic, if I move to the UK and become a naturalized citizen, then I would be a native. Which is obviously not true. So the one third figure is both racist and incrdibly stupid.
Native means you're born somewhere. Equating nationality by skin color is ethnonationalism. So I guess congrats, you're a nazi.
>If you think white Brits are the only native Brits then you are also an ethnonationalist.
There's no "thinking" White Brits are the only Brits native to Britain, they are. It's not ethnonationalist, it is an indisputable fact.
>the data point makes no sense
If you bothered to read his blog post, not just Bluesky/Mastodon comments, the data point makes a lot of sense.
>I'm white and born in Finland. By your logic, if I move to the UK and become a naturalized citizen, then I would be a native.
Here is where you're wrong. You would not be native, you would still be a foreigner. Finns are not White Brits. Russians, Austrians, etc. may all be White, but they are not White Brits, and are therefore not native Brits, even if they move and gain citizenship.
>So the one third figure is both racist and incrdibly stupid.
Neither racist nor stupid, just wrongthink.
>Native means you're born somewhere.
White Brits are the only indigenous Brits.
>Equating nationality by skin color is ethnonationalism.
Glad that's not what I nor DHH did.
>So I guess congrats, you're a nazi.
So I guess congrats, you're a genocidal Maoist-Leninist-Marxist.
There's no "thinking" White Brits are the only Brits native to Britain, they are. It's not ethnonationalist, it is an indisputable fact.
>the data point makes no sense
If you bothered to read his blog post, not just Bluesky/Mastodon comments, the data point makes a lot of sense.
>I'm white and born in Finland. By your logic, if I move to the UK and become a naturalized citizen, then I would be a native.
Here is where you're wrong. You would not be native, you would still be a foreigner. Finns are not White Brits. Russians, Austrians, etc. may all be White, but they are not White Brits, and are therefore not native Brits, even if they move and gain citizenship.
>So the one third figure is both racist and incrdibly stupid.
Neither racist nor stupid, just wrongthink.
>Native means you're born somewhere.
White Brits are the only indigenous Brits.
>Equating nationality by skin color is ethnonationalism.
Glad that's not what I nor DHH did.
>So I guess congrats, you're a nazi.
So I guess congrats, you're a genocidal Maoist-Leninist-Marxist.
You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits. And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere. Native is the word DHH uses.
The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain. And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous. The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.
Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way) "White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.
That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.
I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.
The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain. And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous. The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.
Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way) "White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.
That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.
I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.
What's your definition of ethnonationalist? It surely can't be as simple as identifying with your tribe, otherwise just about every nation except America would be ethnonationalist.
For me the term has specific far-right connotations; specifically the persecution, or desire to persecute, non-nationals or non-indigenous (or whatever term you'd like to use for the most ancient and rooted culture of a nation).
Your definition is apparently different: what is it?
Btw, the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English; they were ultimately assimilated into the tribes they conquered. Many (most?) English can trace their genes back to the earliest settlers.
For me the term has specific far-right connotations; specifically the persecution, or desire to persecute, non-nationals or non-indigenous (or whatever term you'd like to use for the most ancient and rooted culture of a nation).
Your definition is apparently different: what is it?
Btw, the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English; they were ultimately assimilated into the tribes they conquered. Many (most?) English can trace their genes back to the earliest settlers.
Ethnonationalists believe that a nationality is defined by ethnicity. That's it. It's a fundamentally confused way to look at the world.
The persecution and vilification of other groups is a natural consequence of being an ethnonationalist. DHH also does this, of course, as he paints a false narrative in his blog text that brown people are dangerous.
Identifying with your tribe is a completely different idea. Your tribe (or nation) is not defined by ethnicity, but by culture.
If you believe a cultural identity should be tied to the political state, that's called civic nationalism. Most countries were founded on some form of nationalism during the 1800s, so you're onto something there. These were ideas that grew out of the German idealist philosophy, and it's no coincidence that nationalism in Germany eventually developed into the ethnonationalist Völkisch movement, which was the precursor to the Nazi party.
---
The English culture _is_ the Anglo-Saxon cultrue, so the Anglo-Saxons couldn't have replaced them yes, but only because no such group as the English existed before the Anglo-Saxons arrived.
"the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English" is a ridiculous statement on multiple levels. You've outdone you previous self-contradiction speedrun, now the contradiction is in the same sentence.
The persecution and vilification of other groups is a natural consequence of being an ethnonationalist. DHH also does this, of course, as he paints a false narrative in his blog text that brown people are dangerous.
Identifying with your tribe is a completely different idea. Your tribe (or nation) is not defined by ethnicity, but by culture.
If you believe a cultural identity should be tied to the political state, that's called civic nationalism. Most countries were founded on some form of nationalism during the 1800s, so you're onto something there. These were ideas that grew out of the German idealist philosophy, and it's no coincidence that nationalism in Germany eventually developed into the ethnonationalist Völkisch movement, which was the precursor to the Nazi party.
---
The English culture _is_ the Anglo-Saxon cultrue, so the Anglo-Saxons couldn't have replaced them yes, but only because no such group as the English existed before the Anglo-Saxons arrived.
"the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English" is a ridiculous statement on multiple levels. You've outdone you previous self-contradiction speedrun, now the contradiction is in the same sentence.
>You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits.
Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere.
>And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere.
I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born in the US, yet they are not native there.
>The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain.
No it wouldn't, Celtics displaced Neolithic Iberians before them. Not that it matters, the only extant indigenous group to London are English people, which descend in part from Celtic Britons.
>And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous.
They're a mix, and definitely indigenous.
>The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.
But English people are. English people are "are an ethnic group and nation native to England." [0]
And what group do English people fall under? The "native Brits" DHH mentions. White Brits being "the White population identifying as English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, or British." [1]
Native Brits, more specifically English people, are the only native people indigenous to London.
QED.
>Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way)
I never equated nationality with skin color, only ethnic groups. Russians share the same skin color as White Brits, yet are not White Brits, and are not native to London.
>White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.
This is what happens when you get political commentary from Bluesky and Mastodon. You had no clue that White British were an ethnicity grouping, nor did you understand the fact that English people are natives.
>That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.
Only of you don't understand the meaning of words, which is clearly the case here.
>I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.
I don't get it. You clearly hold Anglophobic views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are a Marxist Anglophobe. Be honest about it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British
Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere.
>And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere.
I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born in the US, yet they are not native there.
>The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain.
No it wouldn't, Celtics displaced Neolithic Iberians before them. Not that it matters, the only extant indigenous group to London are English people, which descend in part from Celtic Britons.
>And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous.
They're a mix, and definitely indigenous.
>The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.
But English people are. English people are "are an ethnic group and nation native to England." [0]
And what group do English people fall under? The "native Brits" DHH mentions. White Brits being "the White population identifying as English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, or British." [1]
Native Brits, more specifically English people, are the only native people indigenous to London.
QED.
>Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way)
I never equated nationality with skin color, only ethnic groups. Russians share the same skin color as White Brits, yet are not White Brits, and are not native to London.
>White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.
This is what happens when you get political commentary from Bluesky and Mastodon. You had no clue that White British were an ethnicity grouping, nor did you understand the fact that English people are natives.
>That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.
Only of you don't understand the meaning of words, which is clearly the case here.
>I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.
I don't get it. You clearly hold Anglophobic views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are a Marxist Anglophobe. Be honest about it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native
Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times.
If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.
If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.
But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.
Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times.
If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.
If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.
But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.
Not unique to Nazi's (though I wouldn't call DHH that either, I'd call him many other things but not that one) open communities (including societies as a whole) have that problem - the paradox of tolerance was written about in "The Open Society and its Enemies" 80 years ago - it isn't a new thing.
The issue is how wide the tolerance is before you decide as a group people need excluding, if you set that too narrow you end up with an immediate conflict, if you set it too wide you risk your open community becoming dominated by one group.
I'm centre left (by European standards) and would definitely be considered "woke" by the people who use it as a negative epithet but I think many open source communities set it too narrow still.
People have a right to their opinions even if I don't agree with them just as I do, there is a line where active opposition is required for me but a lot of the time I disagree with where that line is.
The issue is how wide the tolerance is before you decide as a group people need excluding, if you set that too narrow you end up with an immediate conflict, if you set it too wide you risk your open community becoming dominated by one group.
I'm centre left (by European standards) and would definitely be considered "woke" by the people who use it as a negative epithet but I think many open source communities set it too narrow still.
People have a right to their opinions even if I don't agree with them just as I do, there is a line where active opposition is required for me but a lot of the time I disagree with where that line is.
I'm also European and would identify as centre-left. DHH's opinions align with nazi opinions. He wants a return to tradition, is against equality, and speaks in favor of racially pure ethnostates. If it quacks like a nazi...
One reason to actively oppose DHH is that he actively opposes anyone who calls him out, going as far as squashing valid criticism at his own company and ousting them from positions in open source projects (the whole ruby central case).
Even if you don't think he's a nazi, he's shown himself to be a bad actor who doesn't play by the rules.
That's also a kind of behaviour that leads to community vibes going down the drain and other bad actors (nazi or not) taking over.
One reason to actively oppose DHH is that he actively opposes anyone who calls him out, going as far as squashing valid criticism at his own company and ousting them from positions in open source projects (the whole ruby central case).
Even if you don't think he's a nazi, he's shown himself to be a bad actor who doesn't play by the rules.
That's also a kind of behaviour that leads to community vibes going down the drain and other bad actors (nazi or not) taking over.
Where do you draw the line though?, from a centre left perspective someone who is center right is going to align more closely with a fascist than you are, it's applying a slippery slope argument to centrist politics, you can't just lump them together and write them off because they are a little right of you.
You can legitmately call out those people for the views they hold, you don't need call them something they aren't.
It would be as stupid as calling me a Stalinist because I'm slightly left of centre, it ends the debate because why would you debate someone you called a Stalinist.
I don't have to like DHH or his views but he's not a fascist.
You can legitmately call out those people for the views they hold, you don't need call them something they aren't.
It would be as stupid as calling me a Stalinist because I'm slightly left of centre, it ends the debate because why would you debate someone you called a Stalinist.
I don't have to like DHH or his views but he's not a fascist.
You draw the line at people supporting violent criminals who want an ethnostate. That seems like a pretty straightforward one - and one which DHH has crossed.
If DHH wanted to argue about, say, different taxation strategies or deregulation or supporting our monarchy - those are all things which we can have a reasonable debate about. I don't have to agree on your stance on free school meals and student debt, but we can get along just fine.
https://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compa...
If DHH wanted to argue about, say, different taxation strategies or deregulation or supporting our monarchy - those are all things which we can have a reasonable debate about. I don't have to agree on your stance on free school meals and student debt, but we can get along just fine.
https://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compa...
exactly... people happily use software from Nazis (not that DHH is one) without knowing. The only difference is that DHH openly writes about his opinions (its called free speech).
Good luck to anyone wanting only ideologically compatible software. They'll end up with pretty much nothing left to use.
Same applies to companies that produce goods. It's a never ending hole.
Good luck to anyone wanting only ideologically compatible software. They'll end up with pretty much nothing left to use.
Same applies to companies that produce goods. It's a never ending hole.
At some point, every person who says the words "free" and "speech" consecutively (especially in such a smarmy, snotty way), needs to understand that it's not a shield from criticism nor an obligation to continued association. I'm really tired of hearing about the concept from people who don't, evidently, understand what it actually means but just want to use it as an "you have to accept me and what I say no matter what" bludgeon.
Honestly can't understand why DHH is still getting support from corporate sponsors like Cloudflar and Framework. Hvae we really come to the point where we can fund the useless pet projects of nazis without even considering how it looks?
You have to believe people when they tell you who they are.
Cloudflare have always been like this. They previously defended hate speech because it made them money.
Some people are just nasty. They like to bully other people and now believe they have a social licence to do so.
Cloudflare have always been like this. They previously defended hate speech because it made them money.
Some people are just nasty. They like to bully other people and now believe they have a social licence to do so.
The ruse is up. Calling anyone right of Mao a Nazi doesn't work anymore. Your poor attempts to paint political enemies as Nazis is blatant.
Whilst DHH is a lot of things (many unpleasant), I find it difficult to get behind someone's argument when they provide links to blog posts, but retitle them to suit their own agenda - it's disingenuous, bordering on deceit. Such subtle lies detract from the actual facts in that article and make me view the author with an air of skepticism.
Pity, because DHH is a weapons-grade plum, to borrow words from Sue Perkins, though she never used them against DHH - it's just an apt title.
Pity, because DHH is a weapons-grade plum, to borrow words from Sue Perkins, though she never used them against DHH - it's just an apt title.
I think the author has done an excellent job at saying what the articles are actually about.
If I write an essay called "I love cabbage" and then fill it with all the ways I hate cabbage, how would you link to it?
It's OK to call out people for being disingenuous.
If I write an essay called "I love cabbage" and then fill it with all the ways I hate cabbage, how would you link to it?
It's OK to call out people for being disingenuous.
I think the author has "done a job" saying what _he_ thinks the articles are about.
But he already primes the reader to take his viewpoint by shoving it in there, instead of treating the reader like a person able to make up their own mind, probably because he doesn't trust the reader to reach the exact same conclusion as he does.
But he already primes the reader to take his viewpoint by shoving it in there, instead of treating the reader like a person able to make up their own mind, probably because he doesn't trust the reader to reach the exact same conclusion as he does.
My man, it's a blog post in a personal blog. Obviously their reading of DHH shit posts in opinionated (very funnily manifested as rewritten titles).
I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of communication.
Do you friends say things like "You should watch this film, it is very funny" and "Don't watch that film, it is boring"? Or are they more likely to say "This is a film which exists" without context?
The purpose of communication is to express our ideas and convince people. It is entirely appropriate to say "Here is an article and some context you need to know before reading it."
That's especially true when the article hides its true intent. When DHH writes about supporting a violent and racist criminal (as he has) he doesn't say "I like this thug" - instead he attempts to hide that.
So, yes. Retitling the articles is an excellent way to cut through the double-speak presented in them.
Do you friends say things like "You should watch this film, it is very funny" and "Don't watch that film, it is boring"? Or are they more likely to say "This is a film which exists" without context?
The purpose of communication is to express our ideas and convince people. It is entirely appropriate to say "Here is an article and some context you need to know before reading it."
That's especially true when the article hides its true intent. When DHH writes about supporting a violent and racist criminal (as he has) he doesn't say "I like this thug" - instead he attempts to hide that.
So, yes. Retitling the articles is an excellent way to cut through the double-speak presented in them.
"Is there any chance for these people, who are shielded by their well-paying jobs, their exclusively occupational media diet, and stimuli all happen to reinforce the default world view?"
So many people (mostly American men) are insulated from reality. To use their pejorative language - when it finally intrudes on their safe spaces, they turn into little snowflakes.
How is it possible to look at the infinite diversity in the tech world, with a million opinions on matters trivial and profound, and then declare that only you have all the right answers?