Eastern Alliance Insurance Group Review: Need to build an Ecovery Return to Wellness program?

16 Feb

An ecovery program works best when it is implemented before an injury occurs. Why waste precious post-injury time developing a modified duty job when your injured employee could receive the rehabilitative benefits of being back to work, and you could gain from their added productivity?

Whether you need to build an ecovery Return to Wellness program from scratch or you need to re-evaluate your current program, we have the tools and resources you need. You can use our ‘off the shelf’ programs or create your own by selecting only the documents best for your organization. We also provide the option to obtain customized ecovery materials using your letterhead, logo, and branding.

We’re specialists.

We focus on doing one thing and doing that one thing well: providing superior workers’ compensation products and services to businesses and organizations. Since 1997, we have built a strong reputation for being a “best in class” provider of workers’ compensation products and services. We’ve achieved this position by creating supportive relationships and providing our employees and clients with the tools and resources they need to win with integrity. – Eastern Alliance Insurance Group

Advertisements

GAC Group Singapore R&D International Consulting: They rely on us

3 Jan

Our culture of discretion is paradoxically a major pillar of our development.

The introductions and recommendations of our clients and partners are an ongoing source of growth.

We choose our partners and they choose us.

We are collaborating with companies of all sizes in Singapore, in a range of sectors including IT & Medias, Cloud Computing, Big Data, Manufacturing, Microelectronics, Environment, Healthcare, Insurance, and with international interlocutors (Singaporean, Malaysian, Chinese, French, English, Italian, German, Belgian, Australian, American, etc.). We are always working under confidentiality clauses and, when necessary, with an additional Non-Disclosure Agreement.

ASME

GAC is getting closer to Singapore SMEs and Entrepreneurs, and is now member of the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) in Singapore.

ASME is a not-for-profit organisation for directors of SMEs and Entrepreneurs in Singapore created in 1986. ASME provides a wide range of services and programmes to its members to equip the SMEs with the business knowledge and market opportunities to help them grow their businesses.

BISA

BISA is established since 2011 by the initiative of 3 Indonesian young entrepreneurs based in Singapore: Eka Mardiarti, Linawaty, and Stephanus Titus Widjaja, with the same understanding spirit “gotong royong” and “saling membantu” philosophy to help business owners of SMEs and entrepreneurs to connect globally with potential investors, overseas partnership opportunities and corporates/MNCs through BISA.

UBIFRANCE

The French Trade Commission-Ubifrance in Singapore, is dedicated to accompanying French Companies on their professional project, by providing them with the essential keys to success in the Singaporean market.

Institut Français

The Institut Français in Singapore aims at disseminating and encouraging franco-singaporean collaborations in science and research, culture, and promoting the attractiveness of French know how in the fields of higher education and research. GAC has contributed to a report about IP management among the French scientific community in Singapore.

Chambers of Commerce and business groups

We are an active member of the Chambers of Commerce in Singapore and Brazil. Together, we organize training sessions and talks.

Comité Richelieu

GAC is the first partner of Comité Richelieu, French association for Innovation Companies and Growth. Comité Richelieu works on the promotion of a favorable ecosystem for innovative very small, medium and intermediary companies. It gathers over 300 innovative companies with an average turnover of 7M€, including 30% dedicated to export and 30% invested in R&D.

AFII (Invest in France)

GAC is a partner of l’AFII-Agence Française pour les Investissements Internationaux (French Agency for International Investment) which pro motes France for foreign companies, especially through innovation and incentive measures.

AESE

GAC is an expert on aeronautics, and as such is a partner of the Aerospace Valley world competitiveness cluster. This cluster gathers the regions of Midi-Pyrénées & Aquitaine turning it into the first European employment area for aeronautics, space and embedded systems (1/3 of aeronautics jobs in France, over 50% in the space sector).

Tyre&Auto Southbourne Group Review: Have your car checked often

10 Dec

Do you want to maintain the good condition of your car? Then you must have the basic knowledge of its maintenance and repair. It’s also advisable to make it your priority to guarantee the safety of your own as well as your family. Tyre&Auto Southbourne Group suggests that you always keep your car within safety standards and in perfect running condition to have a pleasant drive.

Aside from keeping your car in good running condition, you also need to be a responsible driver. Remember how learning to properly brake a car is the first rule in driving a vehicle? It only signifies the importance of everyone’s safety inside an automobile. It often comes first before you even learn how to make a car move forward or backward. As a driver, you should always be careful and make sure that everyone is safe while you are driving. Being a good driver is not that hard, right?

However, finding a local and trustworthy company that offers good automobile service is somewhat difficult. But most citizens in South Coast of Hampshire depend on Tyre&Auto Southbourne Group for automobile services. It is a family-operated company that has a decade of reliable record in trading car parts and accessories. Tyre&Auto can provide your every car needs, be it car servicing, tyres, brake checks, MOT’s or free seasonal tune-ups and check-ups.

The company can deliver fast tyre quotation through online transactions to make fitting faster with lesser trouble. When you require help, they can also provide local collect and delivery of your car where you can be sure of a first-rate car maintenance and repair.

Does your car need to undergo an MOT test? It’ll be no problem to Tyre&Auto Southbourne Group. Checking the safety of your car and the amount of exhaust emission were included in this examination. The company provides regular reminders to assist you in your annual MOT certificate requirement. And in order to ensure that you will renew your road tax and your car insurance at the right time, the reminders of Tyre&Auto also include the due of your test.

Whether it is work-related or personal matters, each of us needs a vehicle to reach our desired destination every day, and a car meets that need. It is really a great convenience in today’s busy society. Getting your own car could also be an advantage to you because it provides ease, mobility, and personal comfort, so in return, you must properly take care of it and make sure to have it checked every time.

In addition to the comfort and financial returns a car could bring to an individual or a family, this particular tool can also deliver emotional or psychological benefits. Tyre&Auto Southbourne Group believes in the crucial role of cars these days, thus they continue to provide quality service to their customers that can meet or exceed their expectations. Tyre&Auto makes sure that their automobile maintenance and repair is always top-notch.

Coalition Against Insurance Fraud – Lemonade: smart business or soft fraud target

9 Nov

lemonade

Crooks likely to probe the P2P insurer with bogus claims

This is a blog about a blog. It’s also a predictor of things to come.

The new insurer Lemonade thinks it has a winning formula. Get rid of agents and most other personnel. Just digitize policy sales and claims. It’s part of the bigger trend of peer-to-peer firms rapidly sprouting in various consumer sectors.

Dennis Jay wrote about Lemonade last week. I’m so fascinated by the upstart startup’s P2P business model that I had to weigh in with my two cents worth.

Lemonade thinks its formula will lower fraud, blogs board member Peter Diamandis.

Policyholders can have underwriting profits donated to nonprofits they choose. Insurance becomes “a social good, rather than a necessary evil.”

People are less likely to try and bilk Lemonade, Diamandis contends. Why would they defraud the insurer and thus reduce the charity donations?

Many policyholders likely will be kind-hearted, as I see it. They’ll keep applications, renewals and claims sparkling clean for the good of the cause.

Two other classes of insured’s may be less charitable. First are the desperate ones. They’re average, everyday people whose finances are sagging. Maybe their home or SUV is near foreclosure, their bank account nearing empty.

They’ll worry more about saving their own skins than what money Lemonade sends to charity. If they can rifle Lemonade to bail themselves out with false claims, their adrenalin-addled brains will impel them to pounce. They could, for instance, trash their car and claim it was stolen or wrecked in a hit-and-run.

Then there’s another class: the greedy.

Some of the greedy are everyday people. They’re not desperate. Many are just opportunists. Maybe they just want to trade up to a bigger diamond engagement ring, and tell Lemonade that, sorrow of sorrows, it slipped off the wife’s finger at the beach. Or double the cost of a sound system lost in a home fire.

Organized rings are another kind of greedy, often led by dangerous sociopaths. Fraud is their business, a science. They’ll study Lemonade and probe for weaknesses in the application and claims system. Just like many crime rings test brick-and-mortar insurers when plotting staged crashes with mass injury claims.

Professional and amateur criminals look for weaklings to exploit, just like wolf packs stalking elk herds. My bet is they’ll try to infiltrate Lemonade to see how much juice is for the taking.

Lemonade’s elysian P2P concept will appeal to tech-savvy millennials — and provide another choice in the marketplace. Maybe Lemonade will inspire traditional insurers to tighten their own operations if they lose large numbers of customers to its community-minded model.

Meanwhile, this trusting P2P business model likely will be tested to the max on the mean streets. Here’s hoping Lemonade’s leadership grasp this truth, and develops new innovative firewalls to protect the company from some very smart street criminals.

 

 

Terms of Use at Anti-fraud Organization Tokyo, Japan

20 Oct

Overseas buyers are welcome to search for any Japanese company free of charge. Registration is not required to search for Japanese companies. Feel free to search any Japanese company.

Whilst the vast majority of websites in Japan are of genuine business companies, it is a sad fact that online scams and fraud are alive in Japan, and rest of the world. It is very important to be smart and stay safe by exercising all due precaution and do not become a fraud victim.

If you notice any website which you feel is fictitious or suspicious, please contact this organization with details. In order to keep online shopping clean and safe, your cooperation is highly appreciated.

If you are victim of online fraud in Japan, please inform your case. This Organization has close connection with Japanese police, and all fraud-attempts are immediately reported to Japanese Police Department.

If your searching company is not found in our database record, send inquiry by filling “inquiry form”.

For accurate result, please send “as maximum as possible” detail of the Japanese company you are inquiring for.

Search for “JCTO” verified Japanese companies

Online Security on Anonymous Internet Vigilantes Are Taking Peer Review into Their Own Hands

13 Oct

Since 2012, the message board PubPeer has served as a sort of 4chan for science, allowing anyone to post anonymous comments on scientific studies. Originally intended as a forum for the discussion of methods and results, PubPeer has perhaps become best known as a clearinghouse for accusations of scientific error, fraud, and misconduct—forcing journals to issue corrections and retractions, damaging careers, and eventually embroiling the site in a court case in which it’s advised by Edward Snowden’s legal team at the American Civil Liberties Union.

In the view of its critics, PubPeer enables an unchecked stream of accusations with no accountability. But to its supporters, PubPeer is maybe the only consistently effective way to expose fraud and error in the current scientific system. It exists at a time of quiet crisis for science and science journals, when the community is concerned about an inability to replicate past results—the so-called “reproducibility crisis”—and the number of papers retracted is on the rise. The traditional system of peer review seems unable to address these problems.

“We started it because we wanted more detailed arguments about science, and we were really shocked at how many fundamental problems there are with papers, involving very questionable research practices and rather obvious misconduct,” said Brandon Stell, a neuroscientist at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris and the creator of PubPeer.

There’s certainly no denying its effect. According to Retraction Watch, a blog that monitors scientific corrections, errors, and fraud, at least three high-profile scientists in the past few months have had their studies retracted by journals after their data was questioned by anonymous commenters on PubPeer.

The most frightening words a researcher could read on PubPeer are ‘There are concerns’

One of the scientists, Fazlul Sarkar, is currently suing several of the commenters. His lawyers argue the site must reveal the identities of the users that have done damage to Sarkar’s career, after he lost a tenured position at the University of Mississippi. PubPeer has refused to release the information. Both Google and Twitter have filed a court brief in support of the site, which is currently being defended pro-bono by lawyers from the ACLU.

It’s perhaps the most interesting case about internet privacy you’ve never heard of, and it all stems from a frustration among scientists with the shadowy politics of publishing and peer review.

At its base, PubPeer is a site that allows anyone to post comments on any scientific paper listed on the federally-funded PubMed database, either anonymously or under their own name. It’s functionally very simple, but the built-in anonymity makes it a safe outlet for scientists—especially young, early-career scientists—to discuss and criticize research without fear of repercussion. And that’s something they’re apparently eager to do: The site has logged over 55,000 mostly anonymous comments since its launch.

Back in October 2013, someone on the PubPeer site started threads for about 20 previously published papers on which Fazlul Sarkar, a cancer researcher then at Wayne State University in Michigan, was an author. The papers span over a decade and involve a variety of complex molecular signalling pathways involved in cancer. The issues raised by the comments, though, were relatively straightforward: They claimed that images in these studies appeared to have been changed, duplicated, and re-used across papers, suggesting that the experiments they appeared in may have never actually happened, or could have produced different results.

Stell noted that, in an effort to keep the discussion civil (and legal), PubPeer specifically requests that users do not accuse authors outright of misrepresentation or fraud. Comments are moderated in case they break these guidelines, so any discussion of such allegations tends to have a muted tone.

That doesn’t make this group of self-appointed watchdogs any less effective, though. The most frightening words a researcher could read on PubPeer are “There are concerns.”

Discussion over “concerns” surrounding Sarkar’s work expanded rapidly as it became clear the commenters had found a rich vein to mine: According to the NIH funding database and PubMed, Sarkar has received more than $12 million in NIH funding and authored over 500 research papers over his career. The community is nothing if not meticulous—PubPeer commenters have been known to pull up decades-old PhD theses looking for dirt—and a search of the message board shows that eventually 77 papers with Sarkar on the author list were presented for scrutiny. By checking the papers against each other patterns began to emerge; for example, one user claims a single set of images were duplicated up to 54 times in 13 papers, across three years.

What the community appeared to have identified was a shady scientific photoshopping spree that had gone undiscovered by grant committees and the editors and peer reviewers at prestigious journals for over a decade.

Many of the site’s visitors embrace this kind of investigative approach.

“I came to PubPeer partly out of frustration,” Elisabeth Bik, a microbiology researcher at Stanford University and regular PubPeer user, told me. Bik said she posts under her own name when discussing the scientific merits of a paper, but prefers to remain anonymous when pursuing her other major interest: identifying manipulated or fraudulent images in scientific figures. (Bik said that while she has used PubPeer to discuss image manipulation on several occasions, she was not involved in the Sarkar threads.)

“For some of these cases I was reporting them to the [journal] editors,” she said. “This seemed to be the most honest way, and it also gives the authors a chance to reply, but it was very frustrating to realise that many of these editors would never write me back or they would write me back like, ‘Oh we’re going to investigate,’ and then crickets after that.”

Other scientists I spoke to described similar experiences of sharing concerns with journals and being ignored or strung along, all the while convinced that the targets of their criticism were being shielded.

When asked about these concerns from scientists, a spokesperson for Nature Research, which publishes multiple journals including Nature, provided a statement to Motherboard by email. They said that submitted papers “undergo rigorous peer review,” and are always assumed to be “provided in good faith.” The papers are automatically checked for plagiarism and image-manipulation, and editors and peer reviewers can be engaged to correct or retract a paper if concerns arise.

“We take all concerns about papers we have published seriously, whether raised by identified individuals or reported anonymously, and consider each one carefully on a case-by-case basis,” they said.

A representative for Cell Press similarly affirmed their editors’ commitment to correcting the scientific record, noting that “because we consider the investigation process confidential we don’t report back in detail to the person who submitted the concern.”

Many observers though, aren’t convinced that journals and other gatekeepers are doing enough on their own. “For decades, researchers and editors were ignoring anonymous and critical comments until you see some sort of accountability,” said Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch. He said that his site is regularly contacted by would-be critics and whistleblowers, but the volume is simply too high for the small staff of journalists to pursue.

PubPeer, he said, offers an outlet for them.

Accusing someone of fraud isn’t a game, least of all to the person being accused. And the allegations against Sarkar weren’t just an academic exercise: As often happens with popular PubPeer threads, someone had been sending the findings to any official channel that might be able to do something about it, including the journals that printed Sarkar’s research, and his employers.

Unfortunately for Sarkar, this happened at a critical time in his career. According to court documents obtained by Retraction Watch, in June 2014 he had just resigned from Wayne State University and accepted a prestigious offer of a tenured position at the University of Mississippi, including a lab start-up bonus and a salary of $350,000. But just 11 days before he was supposed to start that position—his attorney notes he had just made an offer on a house in Oxford, Mississippi—the offer was rescinded. All because of the PubPeer investigation.

As reported in the court documents, a letter dated June 19, 2014 from Larry Walker, director of the National Center for Natural Products Research at the University of Mississippi Cancer Institute and Sarkar’s main contact about the job, “cited PubPeer as the reason, stating in relevant part that he had received a series of emails forwarded anonymously from (sic?) PubPeer.com, containing several posts regarding papers from your lab.” Emails were allegedly also sent anonymously to other researchers at the university, effectively making all of Sarkar’s new co-workers aware of the controversy before he even arrived on campus.

It’s perhaps the most interesting case about internet privacy you’ve never heard of

Sarkar responded in 2014 by suing both the university for terminating his offer and several anonymous PubPeer commenters for defamation. In January 2016, a judge dismissed the case against the University of Mississippi, but the case against PubPeer is ongoing. Sarkar’s lawyers argue that the commenters weren’t simply discussing his work, but attacking his character. They sent PubPeer a subpoena to release the names and IP addresses of the commenters in question.

As a hobby project run by an early-career research scientist and his friends, PubPeer wasn’t exactly well-equipped to defend itself from a legal challenge. But its appeal as an anonymous whistleblowing platform placed it in the vicinity of debates on privacy and disclosure that were still raging less than a year after Snowden’s first NSA document release.

“I get this email from somebody, basically they had been in contact with Ben Wizner, and Ben Wizner would be interested in talking to us about this,” said Stell.

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, is one of Edward Snowden’s lawyers.

“They said he’s willing to help us and I’m like, wow, this is amazing!”

The ACLU quickly arranged a legal team to work on PubPeer’s behalf, at no charge.

“People aren’t exactly being thrown in jail, but scientific discourse suffers when scientists can’t speak their mind free from the threat that their current or future superiors would know that it’s them lodging the criticism,” said Alexander Abdo, a senior attorney at the ACLU and one of several working on PubPeer’s case. “You have to burn all of your bridges to go public with the criticisms you have. Anonymity offers some breathing space.”

“I think PubPeer is trying to take advantage of anonymity for the very reason it is constitutionally protected. Anonymity offers you a shield from those who would persecute you for your views,” he added.

Stell, the founder of PubPeer, agreed. “If we [stick] our neck out and [say] something about our colleagues’ work, then that could have a serious impact on our own careers,” he said.

But Nicholas Roumel, a partner at NachtLaw in Michigan who is representing Sarkar in the case, argues that the anonymous commenters have been given greater protection than their target, who can’t even address his accusers by name.

“Of course anonymous speakers should be given First Amendment protection,” he told Motherboard via email. “The issue is whether anonymous speech should be given greater protection under the First Amendment than non-anonymous speech. The cowards who post anonymously claim they deserve greater protection because they fear persecution—but they have no problem destroying careers like Dr. Sarkar’s from beneath their rocks. That’s hypocrisy.”

Roumel, who pointed out that he is a member of the ACLU and chairs his local ACLU lawyers’ committee, argues that his client is being held to a higher legal standard than his accusers. He said that by filing briefs in support of PubPeer, social media giants like Google and Twitter are agreeing with an idea that he finds troubling.

“They argue that it should be more difficult for victims like Dr. Sarkar to file and prove their cases against anonymous defendants,” he said.

Sarkar did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

As it stands, the case is effectively deadlocked. In March 2015, a judge denied the subpoena against the majority of the PubPeer commenters, save one, whose contributions, Sarkar’s attorneys argued, were especially and egregiously damaging. PubPeer was ordered to hand over all available information they had on the user, including the IP address they used to access the site.

The ACLU has appealed that decision, while Sarkar’s attorneys have appealed the decision to dismiss the other requests. The appeal hearings are set to take place on October 4th.

In perhaps the strangest twist to emerge, a court brief submitted by Sarkar’s attorneys shows that the PubPeer user whose identity Sarkar’s lawyers are most interested in used an email address belonging to “Clare Francis.” Francis is a pseudonym used by science publishing’s greatest gadfly, a person or group that has sent “hundreds” (possibly now thousands) of anonymous tips to journal editors, beginning sometime around 2010. She is so prolific that the publishing giant Elsevier previously revealed that they have special directions to editors in place for evaluating tips originating from Francis—helped along, no doubt, by Francis’s propensity to CC the tips to the New York Times.

As such, the latest legal order has the potential to clear up one of the longest-running mysteries in science publishing, by unmasking the person or persons responsible for the Clare Francis phenomenon.

Although the case is stalled, the damage has already been done to Sarkar’s career. As of the time of this writing thirteen of his high profile papers were retracted by the journals that published them—six in just one month—and, as one astute commenter on Retraction Watch noted, Sarkar’s name appears on a list of staff retiring from Wayne State University this year. He is a scientist without a lab, and the first results that appear on his PubMed listing are now a string of retractions.

There are many within the scientific community who are wary of putting too much stock in the investigative power of an anonymous mob. The editors of two large journals have made arguments against anonymous criticism, and Michael Blatt, the editor of Plant Physiology, has addressed PubPeer directly.

In an editorial, Blatt agreed that there must be a way to address “bona-fide fraud” in his own field of plant biology, but maintained that “anonymity is not the answer, however, not if due process is to ensure civil society and protect the innocent from denouncement or worse.”

Many PubPeer commenters who spoke with Motherboard had worries about people using anonymous posts to carry out personal or misplaced attacks.

“There are definitely cases where it seems like someone has an agenda,” one said. Another suggested there could be cases where an ex-student or employee could make unfounded allegations about a colleague with whom they had a poor working relationship.

Even when motivations are pure, there is also the chance of erroneous accusations. Bik, the Stanford microbiologist, said that when she first started flagging possible image manipulations on PubPeer, she occasionally got it wrong. Most erroneous or easily explained concerns posted on the site are either cleared up quickly by the commenters or the authors of the paper in question. Still, the threads are a public record most scientists wouldn’t want associated with their work. Bik said she has been much more careful since.

But scientific fraud may be far more widespread than a few bad apples. Bik has turned her interest in image manipulation into an official parallel research stream, and she recently released a paper about this on a pre-print server with Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang, influential scientists and advocates for journal reform. They showed that almost four percent of images in a survey of 20,000 papers from top journals were “problematic,” with many showing signs of direct image manipulation. Authors with a single manipulated image were likely to have more, they write, and some journals were worse offenders than others.

And as it stands, the best way to get those cases addressed often still appears to be raising an anonymous alarm. As Oransky, of Retraction Watch, pointed out, PubMed itself recently introduced a comment system linked to scientists’ institutional email addresses, allowing them to comment on papers under their real names. But it doesn’t quite deliver the same results. “There are no cases of retractions coming out of named comments, as far as I’m aware,” he said. “Anonymity is the key here,” he added.

Stell said that while he hopes to encourage people to use their own names and foster more basic scientific discussion, he also plans to keep PubPeer functioning as an effective whistleblowing platform. He says the site is both beefing up its anonymity—holding as little user data as possible, and making it easy for people to set up to connect through Tor—and working on a variety of ways to encourage people to post discussion and criticism under their real names.

The idea is that when all scientists—not just the few that are appointed for peer-review—are free to evaluate research in a public forum, fraud and bad data would become less of an issue. But while PubPeer’s founders attempt to steer users away from the rigid hierarchy of scientific journals and toward better scientific discussion, the community is free to continue functioning as a sort of unruly conscience to the powers that be, using the tools of anonymity and the internet to clean up science in their own way.

Correction: An earlier version of the story incorrectly quoted journalist Leonid Schneider saying PubPeer users are “trolling peer review to promote its ethics.” The quote did not refer to PubPeer users, so it has been removed from the story.

Hawkfield Gallery Fine Arts Consultants: Striking American Art

10 Oct

The arts and entertainment world have encountered a remarkable upturn with the rise of digital technology. Who could have thought we would all be downloading and listening to audios as well as viewing art pieces online. Due to the rise of technology, piracy has become more rampant especially in music. Yet still, visual arts like paintings and sculptures aren’t easy to replicate or forge.

If you are looking for your new favorite artwork then you are welcome to visit Hawkfield Gallery located on a scenic route in a shore town halfway between Boston and Cape Cod or you can check out their website. Hawkfield Consultants Gallery is dedicated to art lovers and collectors who have an interest in American impressionism, decorative songbirds, wildlife bronzes and shore-bird decoys. They are deeply invested in 20th and 21st century American fine arts and folk arts created by many most talented artists.

The owner of the gallery is Sally Caverly, an art enthusiast who holds a Master’s degree in Education and a B.A degree in Marketing. She has over 25 years of experience collecting and pursuing art. Sally and her art consultants can effectively manage and determine the authenticity and value of a piece of art. With considerable experience in the art world, each staff of Hawkfield strives to ensure that all the necessary details and process of buying and selling art are handled efficiently.

Visit the sites’ gallery section to discover available artworks for sale. Each artwork featured on the site displays the price and relevant details about the piece.