In July, New York City Mayor Eric Adams convened police officials and media to proudly announce that the city had made terrific progress in its much-publicized crackdown on illegal marijuana shops. 

Unlicensed shops had sprung up in empty retail storefronts with jaw-dropping speed after New York state legalized marijuana in 2021. There are the bodegas that keep THC products discreetly under their counters, the leaf-emblazoned “food” trucks, the folding-table operations, the brightly lit smoke shops packed with pipes, vapes, and THC-laced hot cheese curls as far as the eye can see. They have become so ubiquitous and so popular among the city’s cannabis users and tourists that officials have been playing a fruitless game of whack-a-mole with them for three years. 

So Adams’s showy crackdown, dubbed “Operation Padlock to Protect,” seemed to be a success, with the city shuttering more than 700 shops and seizing tens of millions of dollars worth of weed and THC-laced products. There’s only one problem: There are thousands more stores still operating. 

In many ways, that’s emblematic of how marijuana legalization has spun wildly out of the control of states, more than two dozen of which have now legalized recreational use. States’ efforts to create and then tightly regulate legal markets for pot have, ironically, made the black market for weed bigger than it’s ever been. 

In California, which legalized recreational marijuana in 2016 and oversaw its sale in retail outlets beginning in 2018, that market has manifested as countless illegal suburban grow operations — many alleged to be connected to organized crime. They’re cultivating more weed than residents of the state even want to buy and funneling it (in violation of federal law) to buyers across the country. 

In Oregon, which legalized in 2014, it looks much the same. In Washington, DC, where recreational weed sales were never legalized, there are an estimated 100 illegal weed shops, 10 times the number of licensed medical dispensaries, according to its city officials. And in midwest Michigan, where legal sales have surprisingly outpaced even California’s, illegal growers flourish, and courts and prosecutors are reluctant to quash them — if they even could.    

The intensifying battles against an untamable black market come just as the country inches closer to big federal changes that could open the door to nationwide legalization. The Drug Enforcement Agency, at President Joe Biden’s behest, is considering whether to reclassify cannabis from a drug on par with heroin to one recognized as having moderate-to-low potential for physical and psychological dependence, like ketamine or steroids. The change would leave the drug still highly regulated but loosen restrictions on access. 

What’s happening in the states that already allow recreational marijuana offers a startling glimpse at what it might actually look like to fully legalize the drug across the US. Which is to say, messy. 

Mostly, it reminds us that drugs — and those who grow, sell, and use them — have a way of being resistant to the machinations of policymakers. That was true at the height of the war on drugs and remains true now, even when the policies are markedly friendlier. 

The rise of the black market has, in many ways, blindsided states.

States that had hoped to rake in tax dollars from marijuana legalization are instead seeing their legal markets soften. Take Colorado, once a national model of how a state could legalize weed and also profit wildly from it. It made an estimated $1 billion in tax revenue in the first five years after it legalized retail sales in 2014, money it pledged to put toward education. Now, that revenue is dwindling, decreasing by 11 percent in just the last year, according to a state forecast.  

The truth is, most buyers don’t really care whether the shop selling their THC-laced spicy cheese snacks is licensed, but they’re fully aware when they have to pay an additional $20 in taxes. 

“There’s more public acceptance and interest in the plant, and so [illegal] situations are of course going to continue to thrive — especially if the regulated market is essentially overregulated … and there’s a price difference,” says Jason Ortiz, a founder and former president of Minority Cannabis Business Association and director of strategic initiatives for Last Prisoner Project, which calls for an overhaul of the nation’s drug laws. 

Still, because the laws of supply and demand apply to marijuana, too, the price of even the licensed good stuff has also dropped precipitously in state after state, driven in part by black market products. 

That has infuriated licensed shops and growers, and sapped enough of their potential income that in California, for instance, the number of legal marijuana growers and brands is down 70 percent — and many shuttered companies owe millions in back taxes to the state, according to reporting by SFGate. And if the black market has dashed the dreams of many a weed entrepreneur, it has also caused another surprising turn of events.

The rise of brazen, unlicensed marijuana sellers is a relatively new phenomenon, probably driven in part by growing public acceptance of marijuana and the relatively easy access to pot being cultivated for legal sale in dozens of states. There is something eerily familiar, however, about the attempts to quash them. 

The last time most of us saw law-enforcement agents posing on the local news with confiscated drugs and boasting about successful drug raids, it was the height of the war on drugs.

But in state after state, and for advocates across the country, cannabis legalization was, by design, supposed to undo the injustices of that era. It was supposed to reduce criminalization, bring about the release of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses under harsh, antiquated laws, and even provide business licenses to formerly incarcerated people to participate in the future of the market they helped to create.  

But experts Vox spoke with questioned whether the licensing infrastructure set up by states would have ever encouraged illegal sellers to get licensed. In some ways, it was short-sighted legalization policies and nearly-impossible-to-meet regulations that created the perfect storm that states find themselves in today. New York, for example, took more than a year to license a single seller, which sent many weed-seekers right to unlicensed sellers instead. 

“We have a limited, regulated access model, and that did not provide opportunities for all the people currently selling weed to go legit,” says Ortiz, who worked on Connecticut’s legalization effort, which he now calls nothing short of a debacle. “When you do that, you are practically guaranteeing that a lot of the folks in the illicit market will stay there.”

States such as Connecticut and Massachusetts also legalized despite not having much of a strong agricultural base for actually growing marijuana; illegal sellers filled the gap by simply bringing in better weed from other states. 

Advocates like Ortiz say the only fix now is no longer to try to stymie the trafficking or illegal shops, but full federal legalization and more licenses.   

Instead, states are wrestling back control of the market through raids like those in New York, and DC, and California, and Oregon, and — well, you get the picture.  

“States and cities are trying to build a market that’s unnatural. We’ve always had a cannabis market; it’s grown on the West Coast, it’s brought to the East Coast and other parts of the country, and that market worked,” says Rafi Aliya Crockett, who was an appointee on Washington, DC’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board until 2022. Now, states are trying to stop that market to ensure that licensees are rewarded, she says, “by knocking out their competition.” 

Crockett left the regulatory board frustrated over enforcement. “It’s the drug war 2.0,” she says. “And we’ve decided who are going to be the winners and who are going to be the losers.”

In 2019, a rash of vaping-related illness broke out across the US, killing several dozen people.  

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most sufferers reported smoking not just e-cigarettes before getting ill but THC vapes specifically. At the time, Vox’s Julia Belluz wrote: “The agency isn’t tracking whether people were using legal or black market sources to vape, but the data we have from states suggests it’s overwhelmingly illicit.”

The deaths were a reminder that while buyers may not make a distinction between black market products and regulated products sold at licensed shops, the difference between them can be stark. DC’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration, for example, began testing drugs confiscated from unlicensed sellers and reported recently that it had found methamphetamines in marijuana flower. 

Cases like these — and the slew of illicit shops padlocked by police on the local news — have the potential to alarm Americans who have only just begun to support the notion of legalization, and provide fuel for those who are opposed to it. 

And they come as a growing number of reputable sources within medicine and the scientific community sound the alarm about increasingly potent products sickening users. There’s almost no doubt that at least some of those products are illicit and unregulated. As a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recently noted, the patchwork laws from state to state have contributed to the risks. 

In that way, the black market could backfire against the very legalization movement that has allowed it to come out of the shadows. 

There is a truth about the marijuana black market that we ought to acknowledge. 

The legal cannabis market is not even 15 years old. But the illegal market is nearly 100, going underground after the US officially criminalized marijuana in the 1930s. It is nimble. 

Perhaps it was naive to ever believe that a legal market would stamp it out for good. What was harder to foresee was the black market’s roaring growth in the shadow of that legalization. Now, in the battle for consumers, it just might win.  

Since the 1980s, Black Friday has signified the kickoff to the holiday shopping season. Stores offered almost-impossible “doorbuster” deals on TVs and hand blenders, shoppers rose before dawn to wait in line to get them, violence ensued, and the tinsel-covered period when retailers finally operated “in the black” began in earnest. 

It’s probably for the best, then, that Black Friday is not what it was even 20 years ago. A movement to recognize its toll on retail workers eventually convinced several stores to close on Thanksgiving so workers could be with their families, instead of stocking for the busy day ahead. Holiday shopping has continued to move online. And the thrill of a deep, one-day discount has morphed into a numbing, month-long thrum of flash sales, Cyber Monday specials, and member appreciation events.  

Future Perfect deputy editor Izzie Ramirez has reported extensively on the state of American consumerism, from our habit of buying, using, and throwing away literal tons of stuff each year, to how the quality of the things we’re purchasing — from appliances to undergarments — is progressively getting worse. 

I caught up with her to talk about why Americans’ shopping habits have transformed, what the threat of high tariffs might mean for big-ticket goods, and how sales bonanzas like Black Friday are part of a larger effort by retailers to keep us shopping, to our own detriment, and the planet’s. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Lavanya Ramanathan: So, the quality of our stuff is worse now. Tell me a bit about that, as we stare down a period when Americans will be buying a ton. 

Izzie Ramirez: I would like to preface this by saying everyone thinks that I’m anti-shopping, and it’s not that I’m anti-shopping; I actually love shopping. Materials are fun, materialism is fun, except for when it’s not. 

I started writing about it  because I came across a problem, and the problem was that my brand-new bra absolutely sucked. Shouldn’t new things be better? Isn’t this, like, the whole promise of capitalism, in a way? 

I really wanted to get a mass-production understanding of what’s going on, and talk a little bit about the decline of repairability, and what we can do about it. Because I do think that people want to buy things that make them happy, that last and fit into their lives. And it sucks when you invest your money and you don’t get your money’s investment.

It’s less that companies want to be making worse-quality goods. In the case of my bra, it’s more that for the cost of producing something like my bra, you can’t do the same thing for the same amount of money. Something has to give, and it’s going to either be labor or the quality of the material, and it’s usually a little bit of both. 

Knowing all of that, what is a good way to approach something like Black Friday? There are all sorts of deals, like TVs for $50. With some of these, is it just throwing good money after bad? Is there actually a way for the consumer to be a winner?

I’m going to be a hypocrite with this. I usually think Black Friday is bad, but if Trump does enact tariffs, then maybe Black Friday might be good for larger purchases, such as washing machines, dishwashers, and other major appliances, because tariffs would create conditions for those globalized objects, where you need parts from a billion different places, to become way, way, way more expensive. And if they don’t become more expensive, those are going to be the very objects that become way worse, very, very rapidly. 

That’s bad advice for most circumstances. There is a lot of science and psychology behind buying things. On Black Friday, you feel like you don’t have time. It is entirely a lie, because they run the same sales regularly. If you know anything about Black Friday, they do the same sales every year. It’s not like that sale is never going to happen again. Or the Sephora sale. It really grinds my gears when I see people posting Sephora hauls, like they’re never gonna do the members sale again. They do, two or three times a year. It’s the scarcity mindset. 

You have also written about hauls. We are shopping differently now. We shop online. It’s become that much easier to get things from all over the world. If I had to guess, I’d say there are a lot more brands, too — direct-to-consumer sellers of things like jewelry. What is happening to shopping itself?

Hauls are when people buy 10 or 15 or 20 different items in one go, and usually parade them around on social media. They’re buying things from places like Amazon, Temu, Shein, Abercrombie & Fitch. The thing about haul culture is that it also creates that mindset around scarcity, like, “Oh, you need this.” It normalizes mass consumption, and buying a lot all at once and regularly, and that it is a regular practice to spend that much money.

 And if you’re not spending that much money, then you’re going to be spending at places like Shein that have $1 T-shirts, and that normalizes a dangerously low price for workers and the planet.

A lot of the things that you’re describing feel like new behaviors. There’s also a thing happening in our shopping ecosystem, and in our consumer culture, around demand for the new — for newness at all times.

Yeah, and I think so much of that is driven by that normalization of excitement around buying — dopamine shopping, wanting to feel something. So much of it is social media, and so much of it is the scale of globalization and all of these new players that are in the market. It’s just a whole other level of consumer deception, too — this false sense of urgency from companies.

Yes, there is the demand, but it is also companies knowing that they could take advantage of us like this. It’s like ouroboros, the snake that’s eating itself. It’s never going to end if we don’t make a conscious choice of saying no.  

It’s been more than a week since the arrest of music mogul and rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs on a litany of federal charges including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, but the questions surrounding the allegations have only grown in recent days. 

Which of Combs’s many celebrity friends heard about the alleged “freak-offs”? What, if anything, did his former romantic partners, including Jennifer Lopez, know? If there are tapes, what’s on them? Why do people keep talking about Justin Bieber? 

It’s not a stretch to draw parallels between Combs’s case and that of notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Copious amounts of money, a long list of powerful friends, and a culture of celebrity silence make for a potent combination that, as Anna has written, is “tailor-made to produce conspiracy theories.” In the wake of the arrest, amateur internet sleuths have surfaced numerous videos and photos and pored over interviews with Diddy and his celebrity associates in search of answers.

Meanwhile, the allegations against Combs continue to pile up. After several civil lawsuits were filed against Combs late last year, another woman came forward in late September to allege in a 26-page civil suit that Combs and his bodyguard took her to the recording studio for his record label, Bad Boy, in 2001, raped her repeatedly, and recorded the assault.  After putting out a call for additional victims — and netting more than 3,000 responses — lawyers announced on October 1 that they would be filing 120 additional civil lawsuits against Combs and several codefendants in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami in the following weeks.

As court filings become public, they promise to unfurl a whole new set of allegations against Combs and offer new details on previously unknown accusations going back decades. The sheer scope of the cases and inclusion of codefendants, plus allegations that Combs used his entertainment business to lure victims, could turn Combs’s case into one of the biggest Me Too reckonings the music industry has seen.

Through his lawyers, Diddy has repeatedly asserted that the civil claims against him are baseless, calling several of them “sickening allegations” made “by individuals looking for a quick payday.” 

He has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case, too, and is currently being held in a Brooklyn jail after twice being denied bail. His lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, has said the rapper is “going to fight this with all of his energy and all of his might,” and during a court hearing argued that the so-called freak-offs — marathon sexual productions that prosecutors say involved hired sex workers and women coerced to perform sexual acts for the gratification of Combs and others — were consensual, if unconventional. “Is it sex trafficking?” he asked in court last week. “No, not if everybody wants to be there.”   

With so many players, civil and criminal cases, and plenty of misinformation floating around, we’re pulling together some of the most frequently asked questions about Diddy and trying to answer them — as best we can, of course, given what we know. 

For a more detailed history of all the allegations against Diddy, check out Anna’s full explainer here. 

What is Combs accused of?

Combs is facing two kinds of cases: one criminal case brought by the federal government and several civil cases brought by individuals, each involving different accusations.

Combs was arrested on criminal charges; the government alleges that he used his business enterprise to conduct criminal activity, including sex trafficking and kidnapping, and then used his power to intimidate victims and cover up the crimes. 

The case centers on the alleged performances with women and sex workers. The indictment alleges that Diddy often transported sex workers to perform in the sessions and taped the encounters to coerce silence from participants, using an array of employees and his business organization to facilitate the criminal activity. For all of this, they’ve charged Combs with racketeering conspiracy: a powerful charge that was originally used largely to prosecute organized crime leaders and can result in a hefty sentence. 

It was the civil cases, however, that opened the floodgates that ultimately led to the indictment.

In November 2023, Combs’s ex-girlfriend, Casandra Ventura, also known as the singer Cassie, filed the first explosive lawsuit that exposed several allegations against Combs to the public, including that the rapper orchestrated the performances with sex workers and forced her to participate. Though she filed a civil case (which was settled by Combs within one day), Ventura’s allegations appear to be the central foundation of the federal criminal case against Combs. 

Four other cases were filed shortly thereafter, three by women who alleged that he raped them (in some cases drugging them), and one by a male music producer who accused Diddy of grooming him and coercing him to hire sex workers for sex. 

After Combs’s arrest, a team of lawyers led by the law firms of Tony Buzbee and Andrew Van Arsdale put out a call looking for other potential victims, and announced that they would be proceeding with 120 additional civil lawsuits that would be filed in the weeks to come.

If so many people were involved, why did it take so long for the allegations to come out? 

Combs was incredibly powerful in the music industry and in American culture more generally. ​​  He was one of the first people to blend the worlds of hip-hop, business, and luxury. His fashion label, Sean John, founded in 1998, became known for high-end menswear. He promoted brands of vodka and tequila and hosted exclusive white parties in the Hamptons with guests like Martha Stewart, Sarah Jessica Parker, Matthew Broderick, and Jay Z. 

It’s difficult for people to speak out about sexual assault under any circumstances, and doubly difficult when the alleged perpetrator is someone wealthy and well-connected who may have influence over their careers. Combs is also accused of running an enormous criminal “enterprise” that threatened women with blackmail and violence — including using firearms to threaten victims — all of which would have made it even more difficult for anyone to come forward.  

What’s on the tapes mentioned in the indictment? Will they ever come out?

Several of the accusers, and the criminal indictment, allege that Diddy videotaped sexual assaults and the performances with sex workers. The accuser this week alleges that a tape made of her sexual assault was sold and viewed by several other men. 

Generally, accusers have said any tapes served as a way to ensure their silence. In court, the New York Times reported, prosecutors presented a statement from one who said, “He just threatened me about my sex tapes that he has of me on two phones. He said he would expose me, mind you these sex tapes where I am heavily drugged.” 

Why is everyone talking about baby oil? Is this real?

One of the odder details in the Combs indictment is that authorities say they seized “more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant” in searches of the mogul’s residences in Miami and Los Angeles earlier this year. Prosecutors say the oil was meant for the performances, and Ventura also said in her lawsuit that she was told to pour “excessive” amounts of oil on herself at these events. 

Possessing baby oil is not a crime, and the whole oil issue doesn’t matter very much in the context of the violent and disturbing conduct of which Combs has been accused. But a federal indictment of a public figure like Combs is meant to be read, and it’s not unusual for prosecutors to include details they know will shock people and make headlines. Baby oil did the trick. 

Are other celebrities connected to the case? 

It’s important to note that no other person, celebrity or not, has been indicted alongside Combs in the criminal case. The civil cases filed so far do not mention any other celebrities either, accusing only Combs and occasionally those employed by him.  

But with the announcement on October 1 of the additional 120 civil lawsuits, lawyers told the media that the cases would include a number of codefendants. According to the Washington Post, they claimed that those codefendants would include “members of Combs’s family, record labels, event venues and Combs’s associates,” and that the list would include “household names.”

That said, this is an incredibly tough question, tending to spark more rumor and innuendo than uncover any truths, as onlookers try to determine who knew what when. Indeed, Combs had many friends in high places. But pursuing the question tends to spawn misinformation, like a viral song about “a Diddy party” attributed to Justin Bieber that experts now say was likely created by AI.

So far, a few bold-faced names who were on the guest lists at Combs’s celeb-packed “white parties” have come forward to say they were in no way connected to any of the crimes Combs is accused of. But it’s best if we all give the conspiracy theories a rest, wait for legal filings to learn more, and let the case be handled in court. Wild speculation is only liable to exacerbate the victims’ pain.  

What will happen to Combs’s businesses and brands now? 

In the weeks before Ventura’s lawsuit went public last November, Diddy made several media-grabbing moves, including donating $1 million to Howard University, performing and collecting a Global Icon Award at the VMAs, and throwing a high-profile birthday party for himself in London with Naomi Campbell and Idris Elba among the guests.

So much has since crumbled, not the least of which is his business empire. Diageo, the beverage brand with which Combs once partnered on vodka and tequila, quickly removed his image from its website, and the partnership broke ties after settling a lawsuit over another matter this January. Capital Preparatory Schools, a New York charter school network Combs helped expand, posted a statement on the school’s website last fall saying it was cutting ties with him (though the statement was later removed). Combs also stepped aside as chair of Revolt, a TV network he helped start in 2013, and then officially sold his stake this summer. And Sean John’s website, according to the Daily Beast, was taken down.

According to New York magazine, he also no longer has a dedicated “Sean Diddy Combs Day” in Miami, returned his key to New York City, and had his planned Hulu show iced.

As for Howard, his alma mater? It returned the million-dollar gift.   

If Diddy is convicted, how long could he be in prison?

There’s no guarantee that Combs’s case will go to trial or that he’ll be convicted if he does, so at this point it’s impossible to guess the outcome. But the Department of Justice has issued a list of the charges against Combs and what each could mean if he’s convicted. Unsurprisingly, the maximum sentences range, with a transportation for purposes of prostitution charge bringing a potential 10-year sentence, and that racketeering conspiracy charge meaning Combs could face life in prison. 

Update, October 1, 4:30 pm: This piece was originally published on September 26 and has been updated to include an additional 120 civil lawsuits filed against Combs and various codefendants.

When King Charles III and Queen Camilla are officially crowned at Westminster Abbey on Saturday, the Duchess of Sussex won’t be the only thing missing.

The controversy-stirring Kohinoor diamond — the 105-carat sparkler at the center of the violet crown Camilla was expected to wear — won’t make an appearance. The royals have good reason to want to keep the gem out of Saturday’s coronation festivities. The crown jewel of the crown jewels is widely considered an ill-gotten spoil of Britain’s colonial conquests, and calls for the British to return the stone to India have grown increasingly loud since the death of Queen Elizabeth II last year. (The current Indian government, under Narendra Modi, has vacillated on whether it wants the diamond back, but many others do.) The British have yet to heed them.

Flashing the Kohinoor (also sometimes spelled Koh-i-noor) might have attracted the wrong sort of attention, but attempting to simply hide away a colonial past doesn’t work when it comes to the royals: With the death of the queen last year came a massive reassessment of the symbolism of British royalty and the moral and cultural wrongs of colonialism it has perpetrated and continues to condone explicitly and implicitly, particularly by keeping plundered artifacts. Even in trying to avoid one controversy, they’ve stepped into another one. The Cullinan diamonds, chipped off a massive diamond taken from South African mines, will be part of the coronation, and sure enough, South Africans want those back, too. 

The Kohinoor landed in British hands in the 1840s, when the colonial British East India Company wrested it, and other property and land, from an Indian boy-king — a Sikh emperor who was just 10 or 11 at the time — in the cruelest of ways. The British imprisoned his mother, leaving him no choice but to turn over the gem. 

It was no accident: Vox has reported that the British plundered an estimated $45 trillion (in today’s currency) from India during its reign. It took art, artifacts, property, and lives. The Kohinoor, found in a mine in what is today the city of Hyderabad, had a storied history, having been set in the bejeweled throne of Shah Jahan (of Taj Mahal fame) and plundered by the Afghans at some point (the Kohinoor is also claimed by Afghanistan). The British had been angling for the famed stone for years, simply waiting for the right mark. They found it in a prepubescent boy. 

The British have been hanging on to the stone — even slicing away at it until it shined and glittered in a way that appealed to distinctly Western tastes — ever since. After making an appearance as a brooch worn by Queen Victoria, it eventually landed on the purple-flecked crown of the Queen Mother. 

Objects snatched up in the age of empire, as well as during the Nazi regime, have become cultural hot potatoes in recent years: Under pressure from other governments to return what is rightfully theirs, museums in the US and Europe have begun sending back (also known as repatriating) Nigeria’s Benin Bronzes, the Italian Orpheus and the Sirens, and Cambodia’s Khmer art, among other antiquities. 

But the British remain unapologetic holdouts, arguing to Greece that the Elgin Marbles were gainfully acquired, having been stripped from the Parthenon with permission from the Ottomans (colonizers themselves). Egyptians have lobbied for the return of the Rosetta Stone, which has sat in the collection of the British Museum since 1802. No dice there, either.

The words of Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” come to mind when trying to understand why the British don’t want to return precious artifacts to countries that would like to have parts of their culture back. The country’s actions suggest it doesn’t believe a poor brown nation is a capable steward of its own people or its own rich culture. 

The British, for all we can figure, loved empire, and still do today. The Kohinoor diamond has long been “a symbol of potency rather than beauty,” Anita Anand, who with historian William Dalrymple wrote the definitive book on the Kohinoor, told Smithsonian Magazine. The Kohinoor will stay with the British for at least a while longer; they’ve already made plans to display it late this month at the Tower of London, as a “symbol of conquest.”

That an effectively looted jewel is set in a crown is highly symbolic — symbolic of the British Empire’s legacy of bloody conquest, of subjugating brown and Black people, and of having made off with the artifacts that help carry on a culture. Simply hiding it away on coronation day doesn’t change that.