Seems good but unlikely to accomplish anything. Manufacturers obviously don't want to make third-party repairs easier because they think they'll lose money, so if the EPA says one excuse isn't valid anymore they'll just find another one. This new guidance doesn't ask or even suggest that manufacturers actually do anything, it just says "hey if you want to help your customers repair stuff, we'd be ok with it".
As long as the manufacturer isn't on the hook for a violation of the EPA when the owner modifies their vehicle to be out of spec.
For automobiles, this has been the case - that the owner is responsible the vehicle goes out of spec... and the owner can also do a lot of customization of their vehicle.
For heavy machinery (which tractors fall into), the manufacture is almost always on the hook for any modification that the owner makes.
> Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.”
> ...
> And, if you service equipment that has been chipped, the warranty will most likely be denied and you will not be paid for your work. “That can also put your dealership in a sticky situation if technicians in the shop are not conveying to the rest of the dealership what is going in,” says Wareham. F
> Financial consequences can be harsh for not following the law. Under federal law 40 CFR § 89.1006, the penalty for a dealer who removes or renders inoperative emissions controls is subject to a penalty of $32,500 for each violation. Wareham says that one manufacturer of chipping software was initially fined $300,000 by the EPA and then $6 million to ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. “The EPA has stated that their intent is to crack down on defeat devices in 2020,” says Wareham.
> A dealer may face liability issues when customers tamper with the equipment they purchased, even if a dealer had nothing to do with the modification. For example, in instances in Ohio and Oregon, customers were injured as a result of modifications and dealers were sued.
But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody. Winning is what matters. That anecdote doesn't tell me anything, and the whole article reads as FUD. I wonder if it is paid for by John Deere?
> Whether or not someone is eligible for workers’ compensation depends on their state and the industry they work in. There are no requirements at the federal level that mandate states to have workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, every state, except for Texas, requires most employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. However, the majority of state workers’ compensation laws specifically exclude or limit agricultural employers from the workers’ compensation requirement.
Take note of 42:23 where it goes to who is at fault and the liability for it (the case study starts at 21:21 - jumping to 42:23 you can get the "who is paying for it" in two minutes). The entire video is interesting (if you're interested in product liability for industrial (farm) equipment ... but I can understand someone not wanting to watch an hour long video about it). It boils down to "every piece of farm equipment is dangerous from the insurance perspective and a manufacture allowing unapproved modifications to the equipment is still at fault, even if the modification was made by another party."
I know for a fact there are a gazillion youtube videos on how to bypass emissions regulations in about 2 minutes on my tractor, including pointing out the place in the repair manual (with people openly and notoriously doing it and posting the video of it for everyone to watch with their faces showing and under their real name) , and everyone in the industry knows it. But the EPA has recently advertised they are not enforcing that anymore anyway.
I don't think it gets pursued for farm stuff as long as you plausibly meet emissions when it's sold brand new. No one is coming out to your farm to inspect your tractor. No one is even coming after the people that post youtube videos of themselves doing it.
Exactly. My understanding is that the manufacturers interpreted the clean air rules as conveniently requiring them to use digital restrictions management (explicit or even just tacit) to prevent tampering (aka repairing) your own equipment. Low-emissions diesel engines then get hated on for the "EPA requirements", with the immediate bad actor corporations sidestepping blame (as usual). Removing the initial motivation / excuse isn't going to get rid of those digital restrictions, openly document the systems, nor provide the tools required to work on them.
The way this is framed, it doesn't even sound like the goal is to affect this dynamic at all. Rather it's to create a loophole of "temporarily" bypassing emission systems, such that if you delete and get caught you can just pinky swear that it's temporary for a repair that you're about to complete real soon. So the only real goal seems to be implicitly rolling back emissions enforcement across the board.
Actual right to repair action would focus on making it so individuals are able to self-repair the emissions control systems to function as designed. So this really just seems like yet another instance of a lofty idea being abused as cover for the destructionist agenda.
even when they do something nominally good, they gotta send it through the Propagandaministerium apparatus to glue on all the party-approved buzz words and various other bits and bobs so it reads like your grandma's facebook wall.
Right to repair is such a wild departure from their usual. It doesn't fit with grifting personal wealth, diverting tax income to billionaires, privatizing services, executing protestors, or similar activities. Makes me wonder what fucked-up horror is hidden behind this.
After reading over the EPA letter[0], I can't help but wonder whether the final paragraph gives a "bad faith out" to John Deere and their ilk. You could disingenuously interpret the "increment of time necessary to effectuate the repair" to mean the time it would take an official John Deere service technician with a full suite of tools to make the repair.
The following sentence admittedly muddies it a bit, but in general the suggestion that John Deere can still be the arbiter for when the machine can / cannot run without the environmental system in the loop seems like a significantly less meaningful change than what is described on the EPA.gov website.
If I'm reading this correctly, it's basically saying "the manufacturers interpretation of the Clean Air Act is wrong" and that's it? How does this move the needle on right to repair at all? Maybe it'll require some work on the manufacturers part to come up with a new excuse but that's it.
> ...they are finally getting the regulatory relief to break free from burdensome Green New Scam rules and...
One of the worst Trump-isms that will out-live him is how normalized name-calling has become, even in US agency press briefings. Just childish and shameful.
> The Clean Air Act has long crushed family farmers across America – but under the Trump Administration, they are finally getting the regulatory relief to break free from burdensome Green New Scam rules and focus on the vital job of feeding, clothing, and fueling America and the world
Huh, interesting framing here. Did some clever Right to Repair advocate figure out that they could get pro-consumer action through by phrasing it as anti-Clean Air Act?
I'm not too hopeful for this shift surviving contact with John Deere's counter-advocacy though. Remember the flip-flopping on sending ICE after farmhands and hotel/casino staff? That ultimately seems have landed on the maximalist deport-them-all stance on account of Miller's proximity to Trump's ear. I doubt there's someone with personal stakes so close to power advocating for Right to Repair, so the lobbyists will likely win this.
> Huh, interesting framing here. Did some clever Right to Repair advocate figure out that they could get pro-consumer action through by phrasing it as anti-Clean Air Act?
At least one of the excuses used by car manufacturers to not reveal details/etc on their engines has been that "modification could cause it to fall outside of emissions specifications." I don't see why Deere et all wouldn't try the excuse.
Oh, I know it's an actual excuse they use. That's what opens up this rhetorical angle. It's just a paper-thin legal justification though, without the CAA they would just use another excuse. Removing or weakening the Act wouldn't help consumers and would harm the public. What actually needs to happen is the EPA issuing a statement like this and backing it up with legal teeth. I just wish I trusted this EPA to actually follow through on that.
This must explain why when I shopped for a tractor, 25hp was a cutoff where prices change significantly.
I own one with a 35hp engine detuned to 25hp to legally bypass emission regulation. Just a fuel regulator screw turned down and timings modified. The exact same tractor with the screw turned up is about 10% more expensive and has a DPF which decreases reliability. The uptuned model also has an ECU and is harder to repair, whereas non-emission model can be (is) almost purely mechanical.
I own one (a Kubota L3302) with a 33 HP engine, and there are a few guys around me who have 25 HP subcompacts (Kubota, Kioti, and JD) that do similar work to mine. It's astonishing how much everything around those 25hp tractors stinks of diesel. All the time. And how everything gets coated in a fine black greasy dust. I have very little of that.
I've read before that for the average homeowner, the particulate/NOx/CO emissions from their little 5 HP 4-stroke carbureted lawnmower and 40cc 2-stroke carbureted blower/stringtrimmer/etc are often greater than that of their 150 HP automobile - which has an ECU and oxygen sensors and fuel injectors and catalytic converters and so on.
The price bump to go up to the 33 HP engine with the emissions controls was significant (much more than the 8HP performance bump), and every 30 hours or so it wants to run a "regen" cycle which always seems to be at the worst possible moment in my workload, but I feel a lot less guilty about running it knowing that my exhaust isn't nearly as bad for the environment and for my lungs as it could be at a slightly lower performance tier.
Also makes it so you don't have to avoid breathing the cloud of smoke when it starts up or grunts, nor get black shit caked all over your loader frame. Part of me wishes I bought >25hp for the emission system. Of course it's natural to always want more tractor than you have.
I keep waiting for the electric tractor. In the 25-30 hp class you can get reasonable runtime from a battery. Sure a Tesla can run for 4 hours on a full charge - but on the highway it is likely only using about 25 horsepower of fuel, it would run for much less time if continuously using all of the several hundred horsepower it can deliver on a track.
As a small land owner I don't think I could find a way to put 2 hours on my tractor in a day, so that I need to recharge overnight after 2 hours of use isn't even a loss. And not having to deal with diesel would be a big savings.
For sure. I often think about this when using my tractor to clean up trees I've taken down, for which there is a lot of grab, lift, hop off, chainsaw, repeat. Or really any kind of hoisting/positioning.
Via HN a little while back, I came across a guy importing electric versions of things like front loaders, forklifts, excavators, etc. Intriguing, but less compelling if you have to buy 2-4 pieces of equipment rather than one jack-of-all-trades. Although if I were going to have to maintain multiple pieces of equipment, I'd definitely prefer them to be electric!
I can end up putting in more than 2 hours a day, but I think the math still works out for most homeowner use. I think the only thing it doesn't work out great for is long dirt-engaging operations, which are unfortunately one of the main farming uses of tractors.
It would be really interesting to see what could be done with linear actuators instead of hydraulics, too. (Although working on hydraulics is pretty cool in and of itself)
Hey, this might be a case of "enemy of my enemy is my friend." If the Right needs to use the "anti clean air" angle to convince their base, so that we can take a baby step towards a DRM-free future, I say let them.
I mean this failed with the automotive industry. Many different strong laws were passed over the decades to ensure that anyone could repair their car, you can't refuse to sell them parts, you can't sue them for aftermarket, etc. etc.
The end result? You can't do anything to a modern car without going to a manufacturer and using their locked-in ecosystem entirely. They have been caught doing every trick they were told not to do and they get away with it.
Ultimately in this case it's a courts problem and not a law problem. The only place where law might be the issue would be in limiting damages for the companies in question.
It's simply easier for them to take all the extra profit they're getting and deflect lawsuits. From an American standpoint, that means the manufacturers are getting too much out of the deal and the only way to fix that is to make the lawsuits more painful. Because it's not like it's manufacturers vs. the public - it's really the manufacturers vs. third-party repairers AND the public.
> Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advanced American farmers and equipment owners’ lawful right to repair their farm and other nonroad diesel equipment.
> This is another win for American farmers and ranchers by the Trump Administration. By clarifying manufacturers can no longer use the Clean Air Act to justify limiting access to repair tools or software, we are reaffirming the lawful right of American farmers and equipment owners to repair their farm equipment
This seems to be very specific to repairing diesel engines. I can imagine this is not the win for farmers that they're trying to make it sound like.
Every piece of heavy off-road equipment uses a diesel engine.
I think you’re not up to date on what a racket the big equipment manufacturers have going. If you want to replace an alternator… simple part, should be a 1 for 1 replacement done in 30min, you can’t do it because it requires a John Deer tech to program the computer. This is done so they can mandate you use their service people and their parts, or your warranty is void on a million dollar piece of equipment.
And the service techs can be backed up during harvest, so you miss your harvest and your crop dies on the vine. It’s ridiculous
Seems good but unlikely to accomplish anything. Manufacturers obviously don't want to make third-party repairs easier because they think they'll lose money, so if the EPA says one excuse isn't valid anymore they'll just find another one. This new guidance doesn't ask or even suggest that manufacturers actually do anything, it just says "hey if you want to help your customers repair stuff, we'd be ok with it".
As long as the manufacturer isn't on the hook for a violation of the EPA when the owner modifies their vehicle to be out of spec.
For automobiles, this has been the case - that the owner is responsible the vehicle goes out of spec... and the owner can also do a lot of customization of their vehicle.
For heavy machinery (which tractors fall into), the manufacture is almost always on the hook for any modification that the owner makes.
https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/18110-what-you-need-...
> Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.”
> ...
> And, if you service equipment that has been chipped, the warranty will most likely be denied and you will not be paid for your work. “That can also put your dealership in a sticky situation if technicians in the shop are not conveying to the rest of the dealership what is going in,” says Wareham. F
> Financial consequences can be harsh for not following the law. Under federal law 40 CFR § 89.1006, the penalty for a dealer who removes or renders inoperative emissions controls is subject to a penalty of $32,500 for each violation. Wareham says that one manufacturer of chipping software was initially fined $300,000 by the EPA and then $6 million to ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. “The EPA has stated that their intent is to crack down on defeat devices in 2020,” says Wareham.
> A dealer may face liability issues when customers tamper with the equipment they purchased, even if a dealer had nothing to do with the modification. For example, in instances in Ohio and Oregon, customers were injured as a result of modifications and dealers were sued.
But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody. Winning is what matters. That anecdote doesn't tell me anything, and the whole article reads as FUD. I wonder if it is paid for by John Deere?
Not 100% sure about that one - though even that they were sued is an issue.
Note that part of this is also that worker's comp excludes farm labor. So you can't get compensated through workers comp.
https://nationalaglawcenter.org/workers-compensation-for-agr...
> Whether or not someone is eligible for workers’ compensation depends on their state and the industry they work in. There are no requirements at the federal level that mandate states to have workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, every state, except for Texas, requires most employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. However, the majority of state workers’ compensation laws specifically exclude or limit agricultural employers from the workers’ compensation requirement.
Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY
Take note of 42:23 where it goes to who is at fault and the liability for it (the case study starts at 21:21 - jumping to 42:23 you can get the "who is paying for it" in two minutes). The entire video is interesting (if you're interested in product liability for industrial (farm) equipment ... but I can understand someone not wanting to watch an hour long video about it). It boils down to "every piece of farm equipment is dangerous from the insurance perspective and a manufacture allowing unapproved modifications to the equipment is still at fault, even if the modification was made by another party."
I know for a fact there are a gazillion youtube videos on how to bypass emissions regulations in about 2 minutes on my tractor, including pointing out the place in the repair manual (with people openly and notoriously doing it and posting the video of it for everyone to watch with their faces showing and under their real name) , and everyone in the industry knows it. But the EPA has recently advertised they are not enforcing that anymore anyway.
I don't think it gets pursued for farm stuff as long as you plausibly meet emissions when it's sold brand new. No one is coming out to your farm to inspect your tractor. No one is even coming after the people that post youtube videos of themselves doing it.
Exactly. My understanding is that the manufacturers interpreted the clean air rules as conveniently requiring them to use digital restrictions management (explicit or even just tacit) to prevent tampering (aka repairing) your own equipment. Low-emissions diesel engines then get hated on for the "EPA requirements", with the immediate bad actor corporations sidestepping blame (as usual). Removing the initial motivation / excuse isn't going to get rid of those digital restrictions, openly document the systems, nor provide the tools required to work on them.
The way this is framed, it doesn't even sound like the goal is to affect this dynamic at all. Rather it's to create a loophole of "temporarily" bypassing emission systems, such that if you delete and get caught you can just pinky swear that it's temporary for a repair that you're about to complete real soon. So the only real goal seems to be implicitly rolling back emissions enforcement across the board.
Actual right to repair action would focus on making it so individuals are able to self-repair the emissions control systems to function as designed. So this really just seems like yet another instance of a lofty idea being abused as cover for the destructionist agenda.
even when they do something nominally good, they gotta send it through the Propagandaministerium apparatus to glue on all the party-approved buzz words and various other bits and bobs so it reads like your grandma's facebook wall.
My grandmother’s Facebook wall would probably be pretty reasonable if she had one.
She’s actually pretty cogent for 90 years old.
She does watch too much CNN though, winds her up a fair bit. Though at that age, your world tends to shrink so at least it gives her something to do.
Right to repair is such a wild departure from their usual. It doesn't fit with grifting personal wealth, diverting tax income to billionaires, privatizing services, executing protestors, or similar activities. Makes me wonder what fucked-up horror is hidden behind this.
It allows farmers to roll coal if they say it's needed for a repair. So environmental destruction is the angle here.
Politically, trying to exempt farm equipment from the clean air act to try to bias the rural vote to a more republican side of the ballot.
For all the things you can say about this administration's EPA, this is a great thing.
After reading over the EPA letter[0], I can't help but wonder whether the final paragraph gives a "bad faith out" to John Deere and their ilk. You could disingenuously interpret the "increment of time necessary to effectuate the repair" to mean the time it would take an official John Deere service technician with a full suite of tools to make the repair.
The following sentence admittedly muddies it a bit, but in general the suggestion that John Deere can still be the arbiter for when the machine can / cannot run without the environmental system in the loop seems like a significantly less meaningful change than what is described on the EPA.gov website.
[0] https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=64859&fla... -- It's only 3 pages, very quick read
If I'm reading this correctly, it's basically saying "the manufacturers interpretation of the Clean Air Act is wrong" and that's it? How does this move the needle on right to repair at all? Maybe it'll require some work on the manufacturers part to come up with a new excuse but that's it.
> ...they are finally getting the regulatory relief to break free from burdensome Green New Scam rules and...
One of the worst Trump-isms that will out-live him is how normalized name-calling has become, even in US agency press briefings. Just childish and shameful.
People will remember him for different things, and what they will remember about him will say more about them than him.
You managed to say absolutely nothing in your comment.
> The Clean Air Act has long crushed family farmers across America – but under the Trump Administration, they are finally getting the regulatory relief to break free from burdensome Green New Scam rules and focus on the vital job of feeding, clothing, and fueling America and the world
Huh, interesting framing here. Did some clever Right to Repair advocate figure out that they could get pro-consumer action through by phrasing it as anti-Clean Air Act?
I'm not too hopeful for this shift surviving contact with John Deere's counter-advocacy though. Remember the flip-flopping on sending ICE after farmhands and hotel/casino staff? That ultimately seems have landed on the maximalist deport-them-all stance on account of Miller's proximity to Trump's ear. I doubt there's someone with personal stakes so close to power advocating for Right to Repair, so the lobbyists will likely win this.
> Huh, interesting framing here. Did some clever Right to Repair advocate figure out that they could get pro-consumer action through by phrasing it as anti-Clean Air Act?
At least one of the excuses used by car manufacturers to not reveal details/etc on their engines has been that "modification could cause it to fall outside of emissions specifications." I don't see why Deere et all wouldn't try the excuse.
Oh, I know it's an actual excuse they use. That's what opens up this rhetorical angle. It's just a paper-thin legal justification though, without the CAA they would just use another excuse. Removing or weakening the Act wouldn't help consumers and would harm the public. What actually needs to happen is the EPA issuing a statement like this and backing it up with legal teeth. I just wish I trusted this EPA to actually follow through on that.
This must explain why when I shopped for a tractor, 25hp was a cutoff where prices change significantly.
I own one with a 35hp engine detuned to 25hp to legally bypass emission regulation. Just a fuel regulator screw turned down and timings modified. The exact same tractor with the screw turned up is about 10% more expensive and has a DPF which decreases reliability. The uptuned model also has an ECU and is harder to repair, whereas non-emission model can be (is) almost purely mechanical.
I own one (a Kubota L3302) with a 33 HP engine, and there are a few guys around me who have 25 HP subcompacts (Kubota, Kioti, and JD) that do similar work to mine. It's astonishing how much everything around those 25hp tractors stinks of diesel. All the time. And how everything gets coated in a fine black greasy dust. I have very little of that.
I've read before that for the average homeowner, the particulate/NOx/CO emissions from their little 5 HP 4-stroke carbureted lawnmower and 40cc 2-stroke carbureted blower/stringtrimmer/etc are often greater than that of their 150 HP automobile - which has an ECU and oxygen sensors and fuel injectors and catalytic converters and so on.
The price bump to go up to the 33 HP engine with the emissions controls was significant (much more than the 8HP performance bump), and every 30 hours or so it wants to run a "regen" cycle which always seems to be at the worst possible moment in my workload, but I feel a lot less guilty about running it knowing that my exhaust isn't nearly as bad for the environment and for my lungs as it could be at a slightly lower performance tier.
> has a DPF which decreases reliability
Also makes it so you don't have to avoid breathing the cloud of smoke when it starts up or grunts, nor get black shit caked all over your loader frame. Part of me wishes I bought >25hp for the emission system. Of course it's natural to always want more tractor than you have.
I keep waiting for the electric tractor. In the 25-30 hp class you can get reasonable runtime from a battery. Sure a Tesla can run for 4 hours on a full charge - but on the highway it is likely only using about 25 horsepower of fuel, it would run for much less time if continuously using all of the several hundred horsepower it can deliver on a track.
As a small land owner I don't think I could find a way to put 2 hours on my tractor in a day, so that I need to recharge overnight after 2 hours of use isn't even a loss. And not having to deal with diesel would be a big savings.
For sure. I often think about this when using my tractor to clean up trees I've taken down, for which there is a lot of grab, lift, hop off, chainsaw, repeat. Or really any kind of hoisting/positioning.
Via HN a little while back, I came across a guy importing electric versions of things like front loaders, forklifts, excavators, etc. Intriguing, but less compelling if you have to buy 2-4 pieces of equipment rather than one jack-of-all-trades. Although if I were going to have to maintain multiple pieces of equipment, I'd definitely prefer them to be electric!
I can end up putting in more than 2 hours a day, but I think the math still works out for most homeowner use. I think the only thing it doesn't work out great for is long dirt-engaging operations, which are unfortunately one of the main farming uses of tractors.
It would be really interesting to see what could be done with linear actuators instead of hydraulics, too. (Although working on hydraulics is pretty cool in and of itself)
> Huh, interesting framing here.
Hey, this might be a case of "enemy of my enemy is my friend." If the Right needs to use the "anti clean air" angle to convince their base, so that we can take a baby step towards a DRM-free future, I say let them.
Why EPA and not FTC?
I mean this failed with the automotive industry. Many different strong laws were passed over the decades to ensure that anyone could repair their car, you can't refuse to sell them parts, you can't sue them for aftermarket, etc. etc.
The end result? You can't do anything to a modern car without going to a manufacturer and using their locked-in ecosystem entirely. They have been caught doing every trick they were told not to do and they get away with it.
Ultimately in this case it's a courts problem and not a law problem. The only place where law might be the issue would be in limiting damages for the companies in question.
It's simply easier for them to take all the extra profit they're getting and deflect lawsuits. From an American standpoint, that means the manufacturers are getting too much out of the deal and the only way to fix that is to make the lawsuits more painful. Because it's not like it's manufacturers vs. the public - it's really the manufacturers vs. third-party repairers AND the public.
Repeal intellectual property law. No more patents. No more owning concepts inherent to physics.
> Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advanced American farmers and equipment owners’ lawful right to repair their farm and other nonroad diesel equipment.
> This is another win for American farmers and ranchers by the Trump Administration. By clarifying manufacturers can no longer use the Clean Air Act to justify limiting access to repair tools or software, we are reaffirming the lawful right of American farmers and equipment owners to repair their farm equipment
This seems to be very specific to repairing diesel engines. I can imagine this is not the win for farmers that they're trying to make it sound like.
Every piece of heavy off-road equipment uses a diesel engine.
I think you’re not up to date on what a racket the big equipment manufacturers have going. If you want to replace an alternator… simple part, should be a 1 for 1 replacement done in 30min, you can’t do it because it requires a John Deer tech to program the computer. This is done so they can mandate you use their service people and their parts, or your warranty is void on a million dollar piece of equipment.
And the service techs can be backed up during harvest, so you miss your harvest and your crop dies on the vine. It’s ridiculous