I would like to thank the organizers for the invitation and for this very nice conference. I enjoyed all the talks so far. So what I'm going to talk about is water wave. So basically, the question is, how to understand the wave in the middle of the ocean. So you have some wave form. Sometimes you want to understand how does it evolve, what kind of typical behavior it is. So for the water in the middle of the ocean, we use this basic assumption that the air density is 0. That means we neglect the wind. And the water density is 1. And the water region is, in general, below the air region. But of course, you can overturn like this. And we assume that the water is inviscid incompressible irrotational. So inviscid incompressible are reasonable assumptions for the water in the middle of the ocean, in this large scale. Irrotational is assumption that we do have rotational waves, rotational fluids. But here we assume it's irrotational because we know that if the fluid is initially irrotational, it remains irrotational for all time. We neglect surface tension because the surface tension is responsible for the ripples. So we only care about the large wave motion. So we just neglect surface tension. And there's a gravity. So this is a basic equation. And we have seen already last week in the lecture of Professor Tataru. So this is the first equation is Euler equation. The left-hand side is acceleration v is velocity. And the right-hand side is force term. So here we assume the density of the fluid is 1. So this is really force equal to mass density times acceleration. And divergent 0, coke 0. So incompressible irrotational. And because we assume the surface tension 0, and the air density is 0. So the only pressure force is from the air is 0 on the interface. So the pressure is 0 everywhere on the interface. So now for this type of problem, there's an important sign condition that's called Taylor sign condition, which was discovered by G.I. Taylor around 1949. So basically it says that the pressure has to be increasing in the inward normal direction. Because if it's decreasing, then there's a force rip open the fluids. And then the bubble will form. Then, of course, this formulation will not hold anymore. Because here we are assuming that the domain initially is, I mean, you have new boundaries form inside the domain. So this problem is no longer well set. So this is an important assumption. So of course, water waves is a very common phenomenon. And the study of it can trade back long, long time ago. So I just give you, on the top line, some great names, Stokes, Levi-Chervita, and G.I. Taylor. And I just give you a brief review of some branches of water wave. So here a lot of work exists in the existence of solitary waves and periodic waves, starting from maybe even earlier than Levi-Chervita. Of course, we have Stokes earlier, but we have Levi-Chervita, Friedrich Hayes, and these people. And actually still more work is produced. For example, the very last person, Miles Wheeler, is now in Quran. It's, I think, two years out of PhD. And there's also a lot of numerical works. So this list is by no means complete. So about these are some important papers. So what's interesting is this problem, apparently, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s there. So these work, either numerical or, I mean, existence of solitary wave. Let me mention that actually it's still a widely open subject on the stability of solitary wave. So we have very little known about the stability. We do have this Benjamin Fair instability for the Stokes wave. That's modulation instability. And there is a dynamical system approach given by the proof by Tom Bridges and Alexander Mielke. And for solitary wave, I'm only aware of the work of Pago and the Sun on the spectral stability of small solitary waves. And Zuling has instability of large solitary waves. And of course, there are numerical works to demonstrate the stability and instability. But for time-dependent problem, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, very little could be done. So basically, most work were in analytic class. And we have the work of Kano Nishida and of Sannikov. So the reason that the work was done only in analytic class is for the time-dependent problem is that if you really want to work on the solvive class, you have to understand what is the nature of the quasi-linearization of the equation. So whether this equation is hyperbolic type or elliptic type. Because in analytic class, it doesn't really matter. But if you want to build energy that in solvive type energy to close, you have to know what type of quasi-linearization is this. OK, so the first work in this direction was given by Nadymov for infinite depths to the water wave. And there he assumed interface flat initial velocity small. So this paper was written in Russian. Now I put an important name here, even though he didn't write a paper on this. But Nishida was a very good great Japanese mathematician. And he was visiting Paris in the late 70s. So he saw the paper of Nadymov. And he could read Russian. So he translated it into English and gave it to his student, Yoshihara. So Yoshihara, if you read the introduction of Yoshihara, he basically says that I followed the approach of Nadymov. And what he did is he could prove for finite depths to these small data. Well, post this for a short time. OK, and then we have seen the work of Walter Craig in 1985, where the main contribution is he get KDV asymptotics, deriving regularity from the water wave equation. OK, so now there is another important work is the Tom Bill, Tom Hoh and the Rowan grab. So in this work, the importance of tons of Taylor sign condition becomes apparent. So they basically say that if I just take a solution of the what, suppose we have a solution water wave equation. And if we linearize about this given solution, then the problem is linearly well opposed if this condition holds. So this shows importance of this assumption. So therefore, and we look at this and we just think whether this could be true. And we actually proved it. In the first proof was given in 97. And then I gave another proof that in 97, the papers on 2D and then 99 was 3D. So the first thing we proved is that the Taylor sign condition always holds for incompressible irrotational water wave of infant depths. As long as the interface is non-self-intercepting. So actually, in the 97 paper, I gave a precise formula, which is still very important for the work I'm going to present today. And in 97, 99, and in the 3D case, I used maximum principle. It's a more vague type of result. OK, so now the key, the important new tool we introduced in this paper was to use Riemann mapping. As explained by Professor Tataru last week, the Riemann map, so there is a Dirichlet Neumann operator in this problem, which is fully nonlinear. It's difficult to understand. In fact, we just by looking at the work of you, Shihara and Nalimov, it's quite apparent, like the derivation of quasi-linearization is messy and then only work with small data. And we realized the Riemann mapping just flattened the domain and can simplify considerably the problem. And we can understand the problem much better. So we used the Riemann mapping valuable and we derived. So the second important part of the paper is to derive the quasi-linear equation in the Riemann mapping valuable. And we realized that this equation actually is of hyperbolic type. And so here I just want to emphasize that, well, in 2D, it looks like, OK, you use Riemann mapping. So what about 3D? So in 3D, there is no Riemann mapping. So the basic idea is you just try to understand as much as possible using as much tools as possible available. So for example, we use Riemann mapping and we derive the quasi-linear equation. And then we find that actually Riemann mapping is not needed. So in 3D, we actually just find that we can actually just use Lagrangian coordinates. And actually the same proof also work for 2D. So use Lagrangian coordinates also can prove local well postness in solvable class. But this is all for S sufficiently large. OK, so let me just also mention that actually Riemann mapping, as mentioned by Professor Tataru, is really not a new tool. So it's commonly used to study potential flow, 2D potential flow. And for example, it was used in the paper of Zakharov, Dychenko, Vashiliyev, where an adhesion norm operator actually is absolute value of k. So to do the numerics, it becomes much easier, right? So you just calculate the Fourier modes as evolution by absolute value of k, and then it's much easier. And here in the work of Asanikov, he studied, he apparently the equation becomes simpler in his setting, but he still studied in the analytic class. So he didn't derive the quasi-linear equation there. So in both these previous works, quasi-linear equation was not derived. OK, so the local well postness seems to have been extended to many more complex settings. For example, you can include non-zero surface tension and finite depths. And you can also include non-zero vorticity. So let me just mention that. So far, finite depths always, the height, OK, so the bottom of the fluid and the interface do not interact. So this is the fluid, and this is bottom. So the minimum height, so the height, has a strict lower bar. So this is the bottom. So in this case, but in all these work, the Taylor-San condition do not hold automatically, and you have to assume it. So in the crystal lembrad, the energy estimate was obtained by fluids with non-zero vorticity. And for example, Ambrose-Masmoudi gave the approved for non-zero surface tension. And the W-Lion was finite depths. But importantly, it's in Euler coordinates. And we have more work, OK, so in the general setting. And more recently, we also see compressible fluids with free boundary, right? So yesterday, we have just seen the proof of Hans and his student, Chen Yunru. OK, so by now, there are also quite a lot of work on global behavior for small, smooth, and localized data. So here, in order to go to global, it's very important to have localized data. So in the 2D case, in this work, we were able to show that if the size of the data is epsilon, then the solution and the data is sufficiently smooth and localized, then you can solve the equation for the time e to the 1 over epsilon, OK? So the main idea in this work is that we find a nonlinear change of coordinates and a nonlinear change of unknown. So as explained by Professor Tataru last week, OK? So I mean, if you perform the Shata type of normal form change, and there was a loss of derivative, OK? So it depends on in which level you're looking at. So if you look at the velocity potential and interface of the loss of derivative, but if you look at the velocity and acceleration level of the equation, then there's a small divisor at origin. So anyway, the Fourier symbol of the transformation is not bounded. So you have to deal with this. So the way we dealt with there is to find a nonlinear change of unknown plus a nonlinear change of coordinates. So this new unknown in this new coordinate system actually satisfy a equation that contains no quadratic nonlinearity. So the quadratic nonlinearity can completely remove. That's why we can, and using the dispersion relation in 2D, we can prove almost global. And for this global 3D paper, we use a similar idea. So this idea, so as I said earlier, always this is our strategy, is we try to understand the 2D case as well as enough, and then we hope that we can extend it to 3D. OK, so Jermaine Massoudi-Shata gave a different approach independently for the global existence, and they also get scattering for the 3D case. So the method they use is the so-called, they call it spacetime resonance method. And now the 2D work has been extended independently by Ionescu, Pesateri, and Arasadolo, and to global, and where they also showed, both showed modified scaling. But all of them are small, smooth, and localized data. And last week, we have just seen another proof by Daniel Tataru using modified energy. And so now there, so I don't think this is, I can just make a complete list and just mention a few. So this is, Shresen Wang is a student of Ionescu and wrote a paper on 3D water wave with global and small, smooth localized data and with flat bottom. And we also seen the lecture of Daniel last week and for flat bottom in the 2D case. So for cubic lifespan. So essentially I would, so even though this work is not global, but I would group them together because the essential idea is the same that the quadratic non-linearity can be removed one way or the other. So now I mentioned this very important new work. Then Ionescu, Pasatari, and Posada, okay, they look different, is it very? Okay, it's okay. Yeah, I see, the order is correct. Else before S, right? Okay, so this is for 3D gravity capillary water wave. So apparently with both gravity and capillary, the resonance set is no longer just one point, it's really a circle. But they can actually still handle it and got global existence for localized, smooth data, small, smooth data. So here I also mentioned our recent work with Lydia Berry, Shuangmiao, and Sorab Shoshani where we studied self-gradient rotating fluids. Okay, so here the main difference is the gravity is no longer constant. The gravity is a non-linear one, which is a self-gravitating one. And still we can find a change of unknown and a change of coordinate system so that the quadratic non-linearity is just removed. There's no quadratic non-linearity in this new unknown, for this new unknown and in this new coordinate system. Okay, so there are also efforts in other directions, such as try to prove well-posedness in low-regularity class. So the reason is, of course, if you assume less on the data and on the solution, maybe you are able to get the scaling level and then you could prove global existence. Okay, so what was achieved by Aladair Burke-Zuri is that they're able to prove local well-posedness in sub-level spaces and the regularity equivalent to requiring the interface is C3 half, plus a little bit, and then they use strict house estimate to lower the regularity, just C3 half minus a little bit. So more or less it's C3 half. And last week we have seen the presentation of Daniel in the 2D case, so in a similar class, I would say. Somewhere in between, as explained by Daniel. Okay, so let me also mention there was also work of the called about Feyferman group on so-called splash singularity. So splash singularity basically says it is possible to have a non-self-intercepting interface it becomes self-intercepting at certain later times. So there exists something like this and becomes at later time become self-intercepting. So the basic idea is you just start with something like this and you find a velocity field to put open and then you use a time reversibility to prove there is one to go from here to there. Okay, so the 3D is given by Corten's Scholar. So since I'm mentioning this, so maybe I'm not going to mention later. So in fact, so remember I mentioned that we derived the quasi-linear equation for the water wave equation in the Riemann mapping variable. In fact, if you look at the quasi-linear equation, this is the quasi-linear equation about the velocity and acceleration. So you don't see the interface anymore. So in fact, this quasi-linear equation applies to self-intercepting interface as well. As long as you have a conformal mapping takes a lower half plane to a fluid. For example, this is a Riemann surface. If you can just regard it as a Riemann surface. Suppose you have a conformal mapping to take it to there and the quasi-linearized equation holds. Of course, here you are cheating in this case, right? Because in the real fluid, when the fluid intersects like this situation, the pressure is not zero here. But of course, you pretend your pressure is just continuous to be zero, then that's not physical. But theoretically, the quasi-linear equation actually do not rule out self-intercepting wave. But in order to show that, when you solve the self-similar solution, you actually don't know whether your interface is self-intercepting or not because you are solving equation about velocity and acceleration. But when you try to recover the solution of the water wave equation, you have to cut off at the time when it becomes self-intercepting. Because after that, it's no longer physical. Okay. So the real contribution of the Phefermann and the Kodoba group is to find the velocity field is really, they show there is a velocity field to pull it open. But actually, they approach, they didn't use my quasi-linear equation. Okay, so let me just, they actually just did the whole thing from scratch. Okay, so this is the picture we really want to understand today. So if you look at this, this is not, this really seems to be quite singular. So of course, it's like, it's probably not even C1. It looks like there's a kink on it. So how do we understand this picture? So if we look at this, for the first approach we want to say is, I mean, where do we start? So we try to say, maybe this thing is self-similar at the kink. At the kink, it could be self-similar. So let's see whether we can, I mean, because this is a very important method in PDE just to find self-similar solution. So in other, so the basic question is, what type of singular behavior we find in water wave and where does it come from? What are some basic structure? So the first thing we want to find is, are there any self-similar solutions? Okay, so now in order to find self-similar solution, we have to understand what kind of scaling is important here. So if we look at this wave, we think that, well, if you really look at the wave, you see this thing happens, the kink happens is due to the motion. So this means that the convection should be important. This should be driven by convection or the velocity. So this means we need to use a hyperbolic scale. So spatial valuable is scale like time valuable. So in other words, you try to plug in, you answer us look like t to some alpha f of z over t, something like this. And if you try to, if you use this answer, you have to ignite gravity, because the gravity scales differently. Time is x over t square. So it's like gravity is scale different from, so we neglect gravity and surface tension. Surface tension also has a different scaling, but still we need to assume Taylor-San condition hold, because we know Taylor-San condition is a stability condition. So in order to see the wave, this has to be true, otherwise we won't see the wave. Okay, so what we realized, first thing is by plugging the answers is that, well, if there is such a wave, the wave have to look like this, concave up on one side, and it's possible to turn a degree and then concave up again. The concave up, concavity is due to the requirement negative dpdn is non-nactive. So this is really like that. If you write down it, it's very clear that, you know that concavity is secondary to positive, okay? And another thing is that if such thing exists, this angle has to be less than pi over two and this wide angle at infinity is bigger than pi over two. Okay, so this is in order for the wave to not roll up infinitely times, okay? Okay, so the question is, well, is this anything real, like anything real like this, concave up on both sides, right? It's kind of because I'm not so sure, actually I was not so sure at that time because I don't really see waves that much in Ann Arbor. Okay, we have a river, we don't have ocean. Okay, so anyway, what we could find is something concave up on both sides. So now I'm going to show you some photo I took. This is in San Diego and to convince you what we found actually is not far away from reality, it seems. So this is, I was standing here and looking at the wave underneath, okay? So you see the waves coming in and then reflect out, okay? So the wave reflect out like this and then some wave train forms. The next thing is they click up, right? Come on, crest up and break, okay? So if we look at the crest, look like it's concave up on both sides, okay? So it's, so because we saw this photo, actually not we saw this first. Because I saw this, I went to actually find the solution because I knew the answers for a while but I was not convinced enough. This is anything meaningful to find such a thing, okay? So, okay, so now, and we also see this, this is a photo I took from internet, okay? So concave up on both sides. And now once you see, and once you realize things are concave up, actually you see it almost everywhere, okay? So this is on the river here. In Paris I was standing on the bridge and then this boat going forward and then the wave behind it, okay? So this, so you can basically say, think that the way the fluid is pushed out and outside the velocity is zero. So there's a relative motion of the velocity and then the things look like concave up, okay? So it looks like we could be happy now, okay? And this is concave up also. So, but of course we, it doesn't really mean a lot these photos because in real situation there are many factors in it. And in the equation we are thinking that we assume there's no wind, no surface tension. I mean it's quite idealized. So still this is a question to be answered what how relevant is a self-similar solution? We really want to understand the relevance of this, okay? Okay, so I'm going to change a topic for now. Just forget about self-similar. So we are going to go back to self-similar later. So for the moment, so for the moment, so I just want to change topic. So remember that, so far what has been studied is there's no interaction of the fixed boundary and the fluid. And also all the situation required as really a strict lower bound of the negative dpdn has a positive lower bound, okay? Okay, so very common of course we really want to understand how does the interface interact with fixed boundary, okay? So even if of course in the real situation if it's a sand it's very difficult to model. But even if we assume this is a smooth rigid boundary it's not easy to understand, okay? Okay, so how does the interface interact with a fixed boundary, okay? So of course on a rigid smooth boundary that's what you would have to assume v dot n equal to zero. That means the free particle only slide along the interface. Okay, so this is a difficult situation to understand. But okay, so but there's one particular situation it seems that, and this is equation that you want to write down, okay? So the same equation plus this boundary condition, okay? So there is a particular simple situation that we can understand. So this is like just imagine you have a cup, okay? If you have a cup and you have just a vertical boundary, okay? You have a vertical boundary and then you shake the fluid in the cup, right? So you shake your cup and then you see how the fluid interacts with it. There's no fluid here. Very little fluid, don't worry. So how does this interact, right? So why this is easy because you know so if you have fluid going up like this so you think about this fluid going up and like this but roughly you can also think, you know this is if you just symmetrize, do a symmetric reflection, it's equivalent to this problem, right? So you reflect the fluid, okay? And you can just remove the solid boundary, right? So these two problems as a purely equivalent. So if you have something symmetric and the free particle has to go only up and down along the interface, right? So this satisfies automatically the boundary condition. Okay, so I thought this is a quite easy problem. So I gave it to my student, right, Kenzie? Because I thought, and I waited, actually I thought about it and I thought, oh, that's a good problem for students. So I waited for a student to arrive and then gave it to him. So why don't you study this, okay? So there are two situations here, okay? So one situation is you make an angle like this. Another situation is you make an angle, just a 90 degree angle, right? So if you reflect by 90 degree and you remove and you can see that the problem is reduced to something like smooths, okay? So in fact, this situation has been studied by Alazard books really in their paper. So in fact, they also, they really just did the reflection and reduced in the 90 degrees case and basically they reduced to a smooth case, okay? So the whole domain. So boundary or no boundary, it's by reflection that you remove the boundary and they studied in the C3 half setting, okay? So I told Rafe that, well, we have to avoid the 90 degree situation, right? Because it's difficult to tell people why you're new, okay? Anything you get is anything new. So we want to understand whether it's possible to form an angle which is not 90, okay? So that's the main question. So whether this can be not 90, okay? So the question is, is it possible for the interface to interact with a wall with a non-90 degree, okay? Okay, so to put the problem easier, I just told Rafe that, okay, well, why don't you just, you know, assume there's only one angle? So you have a cup, okay? You have two sides, you can reflect on both sides. Let's assume that on one side is just a 90 degree angle and on the other side is a not 90. So just try to understand what type of angle can this be, let's assume this 90. So you reflect, so this is a graph, reflect on this side and then remove the singularity here, right? There's no singular, so there's only one angle you have to understand. So it turns out that, so the question is whether this angle can be other than 90 and we want to understand in the frame, answer the question in terms of getting a proteasimate and local existence, okay? So it turns out just by trying to understand whether it's possible to have one non-90 angle and we can actually treat very general situation, okay? So what we can answer is quite general, quite general. The answer is yes, it can be not 90, okay? So in fact, we can treat arbitrary situations right. It's not just one angle here, it can be many angles inside the free domain, okay? So this angle can be many, okay? And we also don't have to treat a fixed, two fixed boundary here, so you can have, so either you have a fixed boundary and this, you can have as many as angle as you want, okay? Or you can just treat a better way like this, okay? So if there is angle, okay? This angle is, if there is angle, this angle with this vertical boundary has to be mu, has this to be less than 90 degree, okay? If there is, it does form angle which is not 90, then it has to be less than 90. In other words, it is not possible to have angle like this, okay? So this angle is not possible, okay? Such a situation is not possible and of course we can also have angles in the interior, right? So for the interior angle, this angle has to be no more than 180, okay? So in other words, we don't see water wave like this, okay? Like this, okay? So of course that's quite obvious, right? Every kid knows if you ask them to draw, you will never draw a graph like this, okay? Okay, so everybody knows this and actually this fact is purely just determined by the water wave equation, okay? So I will explain why, okay? So in fact, this is really just by purely coming from the quasi-linear equation we derived in the 97, you can understand these simple facts, okay? Okay, so now what we did, what we have, so the main result is the following. So we are able to construct another framework. This framework is more general than just sublif class, okay? So include all the sublif class, I mean this four S big enough, less than three, okay? So four less than two maybe, okay? And we, but this framework can also include interface with angle crest, okay? So now this interface, so if and we obtain a purely estimate and we obtain the local existence in this region, which include sublif and include angle crest, okay? And what I want to really say is that this, by now we can say that by understanding, this is a more fitting framework to study water wave equation. So in other words, previously we had studied, we used the sublif class, you know, when we did it, we always feel there was something not completely fit, okay? So here it seems that this is quite fit, okay? So I have a feeling that this we got, we finally got things right now, okay? But of course things can still be better, okay? Okay, so the purely estimate was done jointly with Ralph Kinsey, my student, okay? So in other words, okay, just explanation, okay? So such a picture is possible, okay? So now, so this, so how do we understand this, okay? So I guess in this community, nobody questions. So in fact, I gave this lecture in many other community and they say, well, I mean, what you do is really just, not right because, you know, in order for wave like this to form, you need wind, okay? Chinese, there was Chinese phrase says, no wind, no wave. Okay? So how come you have this, right? But the basic fact about wave is that, you know, we know that a storm can form in very far place, okay? And once it's formed, then the wave is formulated, formed, wave forms, but this wave can travel for long distance. So the wave in front of you could be coming from far away. It doesn't have to come from the wind right above it, okay? So this could still be a situation that under a vacuum, okay? This is not caused by the wind right blowing above it, can be wind blow like far, far away, okay? And this is a way of travel. So in other words, once it forms, it stays like this and we're not, okay? So this is possible. Okay, so the main difficulty to study wave with singularity angle crest is that actually, so we can still prove negative DPDN positive, non-negative. So in fact, this fact has already been proved in 97, okay? So if you look at the formula, you do have lower bound, greater than equal to zero, okay? But the negative DPDN equal to zero at the wall where there is a non-90 degree, okay? So if you form angle like this, negative DPDN equals to zero and the negative DPDN equal to zero in all the angle crest. So negative DPDN equals to zero where there's a singularity angle crest, okay? So the main difficulty is if you allow angle crest in your wave, then negative DPDN becomes zero in these singularities, okay? Okay, so why this is a case, okay? So let's just derive briefly. Actually, I'm going to derive briefly the quasi-linear equation because it can be done pretty easily, okay? So this is the interface in Lagrangian coordinates. So we write down the Lagrangian coordinates. So taking derivative to t, you get velocity. To derivative to t, you get acceleration. And we normalize gravity equal to one, so minus i is a gravity. And the pressure zero equal to zero on interface means that the gradient P is pointing in the normal direction of the interface.  So a is just a real value quantity and precisely is given by minus the Jacobian times DPDN. So has the same sign as negative DPDN. Okay, so then we can write down the Euler equation, right? So the Euler equation is acceleration equal to gravity on the right-hand side. So this is acceleration minus gravity equal to gradient P. Okay, so this is negative gradient P, okay? And now divergence co-equal to zero means that the velocity field bar is a holomorphic function, okay? Being holomorphic, you can write it in terms of the Hilbert transform, okay? So this is a direct consequence of the Cauchy integral formula. And here I will show you the difficulty of not using remap mapping, okay? So you can see that. Oh, I'm going to show you the difficulties here, okay? But so this Hilbert transform actually is written like this, okay? So difficulty is you have the unknown in the denominator. Just too nonlinear to understand this, okay? So that's why we use remap mapping in the first paper, okay? Just to understand this. But this quasi-linear derivation actually was the one version of 99. So this is after we understand it in the 2D case in 97 using remap mapping, okay? So here this derivation actually is in Lagrangian coordinates. So briefly speaking is just by taking one time, we realize, okay? So of course, I mean, this is a normal procedure of taking quasi-linearization is just, you just take derivatives to the equation, right? You get, but the question is which equation you take derivative to? Do you take time derivative or space derivative or which one, okay? So it turns out that we only need to take one time derivative of the first equation, okay? And then, so this had become two term, right? So one of the terms is higher order and one's lower order. So we just move one of the terms to the left. So the left-hand side, the higher order term, the right-hand side, the lower term. And the reason is this quantity a is real value and you use the projection i minus h to project and you get a lot of commutative. I don't go into detail. So the left-hand side shows clearly the Taylor sign, whereas it is, okay? So u is z t bar. So if z t bar is holomorphic, then i d alpha of a holomorphic function, i d alpha of a holomorphic function actually is really the normal derivative. Dirichlet Neumann operator acting on norm derivative. Okay, so this is the Dirichlet Neumann operator. So this is how it goes about. So the left-hand side is the main operator of the water wave equations like this. And we know the Dirichlet Neumann operator is a positive operator, right? And this a is the net-to-dipedian times this. So this clearly shows that if net-to-dipedian has a strictly lower bound as this is hyperbolic type, right? If net-to-dipedian's negative, it's elliptic type and it's ill-posed. So because we have shown net-to-dipedian has a strictly lower bound in the smooth case, so the problem is hyperbolic type and we were able to prove the energy estimate. So now the question is the situation we are facing is net-to-dipedian actually equal to zero sometimes. So if it's equal to zero, then we are in trouble, right? So the lower order term on the right may not be lower order anymore, okay? So the type of the equation could change, okay? So that's the difficulty, okay? So okay, so I already explained that we really need to use Riemann mapping. So this was actually still the derivation of 97, so we actually use the Riemann mapping. The reason of using Riemann mapping is here, okay? So we just rewrite everything in terms of Riemann mapping variable, okay? So it takes the Riemann mapping from the fluid domain to the lower half plane, okay? And now we just rewrite everything in terms of Riemann mapping variables of compulsive with H inverse acceleration compulsive. So capital, the sine capital sine means it's in the Riemann mapping variable, okay? So everything is the same, right? So this quantity capital A is just, we have this Jacobian that's come from Chandler, right? So the first equation basically is of the same type except in the, you just do the Chandler, okay, here. What's really make a difference is the second question. So the velocity field, okay? Now velocity field, so the velocity field after composed with the Riemann mapping becomes a holomorphic function in the lower half plane which has a boundary value as CT bar, okay? So to characterize a holomorphic function in the lower half of plane then we only need to use this flat Hilbert transform which is much more simpler and it's linear, okay? So just using this, so let me just keep the notation that, okay, so capital Z is phi inverse and Z bar is this, okay? So now we two, this was still the early work in order to show the Taylor-San condition pose we actually just multiply the equation to both sides by Z alpha bar and we get A1 and we derive the formula for A1 and we show that A1 actually have a lower bound. So this is a precise formula and this formula just implies Nectar DPDN is non-nectar, right? Because we can write down Nectar DPDN is A1 divided by this is greater than equal to zero, okay? So A1, this quantity A1 has a lower bound which is one, okay, that's very important. So, okay, so if the interface is smooth then this is a Jacobian of the Riemann mapping, right? The Jacobian of Riemann mapping have upper and lower bound so obviously it has a strictly positive lower bound and that was the case dealt with in 97. So now you have, this guy is actually has singularity so that means this bound may not hold, okay? I think I, did I skip some transparency? Anyway, that's okay, I thought I have a simple argument. Okay, anyway, I don't know, that's okay, actually I don't have time now, right? So, okay, so this is a quasi-linear equation. I just give you an idea how it looks, okay? So let me just, so since, I mean, you have seen the lecture of Daniel last week and they look quite different from his. Actually, this is, the difference, main difference is really the notation.  Same structure. Same equations. But the same very, but it has a very different meaning in your notation as in our notation. Okay, so, yeah, so this B, particularly this B is the same B, okay? So, so, so, I mean, that's not surprising, right? It's just really a matter of how to use this equation. I mean, we use, we have, I mean, because we're dealing with the same equation and of course we have, and we use the same variable. If we get different equations then, I mean, it's scary for the young people, okay? If equations different, that would be pretty bad. Okay, so this is a very important equation as a consequence of this derivation, okay? So, ZTT plus I, Z alpha bar is I, A1, so we just use it as like you just divide over, okay? So this is the same equation as this one, okay? So that's the same equation, okay? So A1 has a lower bound greater than equal to one. So in other words, one over Z alpha is similar to ZTT minus I, because A1 is a low order term. Ah, this is a transparency. So, so here I give you an argument which is very early on given by my student, Rafe-Kinsey, more formal student, okay? So, so he said very quickly that negative dp, dn equals to zero, we are in trouble, okay? So why negative dp, dn equals to zero? So this equation, the, the, all your question, if you write down in terms of components, you can rearrange like this. And tangent of mu, okay? So this nu is this angle, okay? This angle, this angle nu. So of course this is your tangent vector x alpha, y alpha, right, tangent nu is given by this. So now we know the fluid particle only move up and down, okay? So xt equals to zero, okay? So of course xtt is also equal to zero along this line, okay? So this means the denominator is always zero. Now in order for mu to be not equal to 90, then ytt plus one has to be zero, right? Because otherwise, nu is pi over two. Okay, so this means that grade in p has to be zero because now xtt plus i is zero. So grade in p has to be zero. So grade in p has to be zero, that means n dot grade in p equals zero. So in other words, a zero at the corner. Remember a is, a is like one over c of times n dot grade in p, okay? So this is like n dot grade in p equals zero, okay? Okay, so this is a very simple argument. Now why, so I give you also a derivation why this angle has to be less than pi over two. So the reason it is less than pi over two is a following. So you just look at the Riemann mapping, okay? So it's very simple. You look at the Riemann mapping. Can I borrow a few minutes? I will only need five minutes, five minutes. Too much? I started late. I started late. Okay. So if you look at the Riemann mapping, okay? So this is like, you know, this is, so this is your angle mu, right? This is phi, okay? So you take Riemann mapping from here to here. So in order to take the angle mu to pi over two, you need at this point a power law to open up, okay? So this is a power law, it says that, okay? It's given by this relation. So if you take derivative, the Riemann mapping, z alpha prime is like alpha prime R minus one. So if this angle is bigger than pi over two, then this R has to be bigger than one, that means z alpha has to be zero at the corner. And z alpha has to be zero at the corner, means dt has to be infinity, right? If you look at this formula, because A1 is greater than equal to one, okay? So dt is infinity. So this means y dt has to be infinity at the corner, because x dt, we already know is zero, right? Because x dt is zero around this line, okay? Okay, so, but remember that was the formula for the tangent of the angle. So this means that tangent of mu has to be infinity, right? Because the denominator of zero at the top is infinity. So at the end, if you start with anything bigger than pi over two, it has to be pi over two, okay? So you cannot have anything bigger than pi over two. So this is purely determined by this relation, which is the Euler equation, okay? Okay, so let me just show you how we construct energy function, okay? So we use this weighted derivative, okay? So still we use this so-called quasi-linear equation, even though in this case it's not very clear it's still hyperbolic type, and even, okay? Because A could be zero somewhere. But we still use it, and we use a weighted derivative, okay? And now, of course, there is an obvious energy coming from the left-hand side. I mean, this is elementary, but this doesn't work because this becomes infinity if you want to deal with anything singular. Okay, so what ends up is we use these two weighted energy, and you take one derivative to apply to this one, two derivative apply to this one. So it's difficult to see from here, so let me just explain what are we doing in this energy. So this energy is equivalent to this one, okay? So this is a quantity. So basic quantity is the acceleration on the surface taking derivatives in L2, okay? So now if you want to take further derivatives, you have to put appropriate weights, okay? So what is capital D alpha? A capital D alpha is one over the alpha, the alpha, okay? So now two derivatives, one over the alpha, okay? And the T alpha. So now this guy is basically in L2. Now if you want one more derivative to be in L2 because if it's singular, you take derivative become more singular. But remember that in the angle crest, precisely one over the alpha is zero, right? So if there's a singularity, one over the weight is zero, okay? So this means in order for the derivative to be in L2, you have to put two weights to weight it down. So two zero to weight it down, and this is stealing L2. So overall, so overall you get this energy, okay? So this is weighted energy, and I just want to emphasize everything here has a derivative. So in other words, we don't really require the surface itself is in L2, okay? So it's like, you know, the behavior at infinity can be wired, okay? The velocity at infinity could be wired. Only the derivative is in L2, okay? Everything has a derivative. So things can be quite big at infinity here, okay? Okay, so I don't see the talk about difficulty. So why is this energy works, okay? So anyway, this energy works, but what makes us believe this works because you know the real derivation is long, right? You have to really have a confidence, otherwise you won't be able to continue. So the real reason is really I just go back, okay? The self-similar solution, I plug in the self-simulation, I find this finite. So I say it must work because it took us a while to find the right energy, okay? What's the right weight, the self-similar? And I also want to emphasize that when I say this energy allows angle crest, this angle, interior angle in fact, cannot be all the way about less than 180. In the energy, this angle has to be less than 90 degrees, same as the self-similar solution, okay? So in other words, the stokes wave of maximum height do not have finite energy because the stokes wave's interior angle's 120 degree, okay? So what we proved is first we have a poly-esimate and then we have the local existence in this framework. So assuming the data satisfy this new energy's finite, then there is a time, depend only on this new energy so that you can solve for this finite time and this energy remains finite. So let me just remark that actually, so this was observed first by Ralph Kinsey using a heuristic argument and Cetan gave my current student here, he's here, Cetan, gave a rigorous proof as they showed that if initially you have an interface like this piecewise smooth and contain some angle, if initially you have something like this, then the angle actually do not change for the time period the solution exists, okay? Okay, so in order to prove the existence, we use approximation arguments using the previous result, okay? But this is a crucial, this is a crucial criteria we need because when we use the previous results, all the existing time depend on the solverif norm, okay? So we need a time do not depend on solverif norm but only depend on this new energy. So this theorem says that for any given smooth data, okay, you can solve for finite time, okay? And now if we let t start to be the maximum existing time, then either it's infinity, then we are all happy or if it's finite, then the interface, this energy has to blow up, okay? So when the singularity happens at finite time, then this energy, so this give us a blow up criteria in other words, a criteria to find some singularities, okay? So I, thank you very much. One comment and one question. So one comment on the difference of notations, just to clarify things. So the meaning of the tangeribbative and the notations that you are using and the tangeribbative and the notations that we're using are different. In the notations that you're using, the tangeribbative is the Lagrange tangeribbative. That's true. So it does not commute with the alpha derivative. That's true. So the notations that we're using, the tangeribbative and the alpha derivative are in the same frame, so they commute. My question, so. No, actually we use the same notation because why? Because actually, because I go too fast. Okay. Went too fast. Let me just answer. You see, this is a quasi-linear equation. So this is really the Lagrange and, this is Lagrange material derivative. So you do, you also have dt plus bd alpha, right? Yeah. So you have two first order equations and we have one second order equation. So in other words, it's really that, so I checked because I go back after your lecture. I checked that your w is essentially z of minus one and your r is ct bar. Okay. So these are the two quantities, your evolution. And if you like, you can say that we are using, so this is Daniel Tartaru and Mihalyer Ivry. And what we are using is, you can say, because it's second order zt and ztt, okay, ztt, right? So this capital ztt is dt plus bd alpha, zt bar, okay? So why I'm saying that these two, to a large extent, is equivalent. So again, we go back to this magic formula here. One over z alpha is in terms of regularities like ztt, okay? So you see, there, no, of course I mean, we cannot do different things, right? Because that's one of us, I said it would be wrong. And I saw some questions, so the questions are following. So in these solutions that you obtained, do you obtain solutions at all possible angles, less than 180 degrees? No, no, no. That's a very good question. So in here, the energy only allowed here is less than 90 degrees, okay, it has. So this is consistent with self-seminar solution. Yes, but this question, I think, can you obtain any of this angle process in a solution? Yes? For self-seminar, yes, yeah. No, no, no, for that level of solution, can you have solutions which evolve at any possible angle less than 180 degree in this approach? No, I say that the energy only allowed this angle to be less than 90. And so the statement, okay, let me show you the statement. So somehow you can take initial data that has many of these angles if they are less than 90, then you can solve for small time. That's true, no, no. Of course, so in fact, let me clarify. So of course, if you have data smooth, you can solve. No problem, that fits in the previous work. So what's new is you can also take data like this, but not arbitrary. So you need this finite. So in order for this finite, it allows interface with angle less than 90. So you allow this, not every interface with less than 90 satisfy this finite, but the opposite, okay. So their interface with less than 90 degree satisfy this energy to be in finite and then you can solve for finite time. And as shown by C. Tom, that actually, this angle do not change during the time the solution exists. Maybe, no, okay, I have one question, in fact. You are passing time. But my question, just yes or no. Okay, okay, okay, okay. I'm counting seconds. You say your self-similar solution was in the energy space. No, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, so first, okay.  Oh, good question. No, I wish, which energy, yes, the answer, yes, yes. That's a good question, okay. No, no, if you plug in the self-similar solution here, the energy is finite. Yes, but not this energy. This energy, Hamiltonian. Hamiltonian, no. No, everything has. Because we, in fact, here, I emphasize that we do not require Z alpha in L infinity. So this is equivalent to, Nectadepedian has a lower bound, positive. And we also do not require one over Z alpha in L infinity. So we only require one point to be in bounded. Yeah, yeah, question, yeah? No, no, but private question, yes, I think. Okay, okay, I think it's,


Luis, a lot of walks tonight. What do you attribute the issue with the walks tonight, too? Well, yeah, today, you know, I was really excited about getting another start here in the big leagues. And I felt really good out there. But yeah, I could, like you said, you know, those walks there put myself in trouble. My command wasn't exactly where I wanted. And I can say that it's the first time that that happens to me that I walk seven batters in a game. Yeah, first time for me, I think I have to keep on working, you know, keep on working hard and try to make the adjustments that I need to. Why do you think the command was not there for you tonight? And specifically, talking about the command, why do you think, specifically, that it didn't help you with the command tonight? Well, at some point in time, you know, when you're going to physically feel good, you're going to be prepared to launch and execute what you want. I was up there, which I couldn't find, you know, but I was trying to do what was possible to control myself. I don't know what really happened, but we're going to work on that from the moment you learn. Yeah, it's hard to pinpoint, you know. I didn't like today. You feel really good and really excited to get on the mound and start doing your job. And you never find a groove in the game. You know, you're fighting to get into a groove and to a moment there where you can keep the line going. Unfortunately, I couldn't do that today. But like I said, you know, for sure, I'm going to be working hard to address whatever I need to. And it's one of those outings that you got to learn from.


And we're back to Think Tech. I'm Jay Fiedel and we're at Goodman's Garage. And we're talking about a movie that is really a classic, all quiet on the Western front. This is really interesting with Steve Goodman. We'll be right back. Steve, Steve Goodman, thank you for joining us. This is a very important movie. You've done a lot of examination of this movie and the two predecessors of this movie and the book, right? Wow, this is like a college course, at least three points, maybe six. So did you dive into it the way I think you did? Well, as to the book, that was a long time ago that I read it and I'll admit that if we had to do a review on as to the book only, this might be a much shorter discussion, but the movie is really, I mean, it's fascinating the differences in the movies. They're basically telling the same story and it's an anti-war story, but one is much more clearer about that fact than the other two. And that's really the original film. It was kind of fascinating to see how they differ. Well, I was fascinated with the write-up in the Smithsonian. So this film played, the book came out by Eric Maria Remarque, who Remarque, 1929, and it was an instant bestseller. And it's still a good book. People have the nicest things to say about it. It was a classic. Now he wrote two sequels, by the way, to that book and made two movies, but they're not as famous as All Quiet on the Western Front, which was the name of the movie. And just to clarify, the Western Front is the German Western Front. They were pushing West. So this is from the geographical vantage point of the German army in World War I in 1917, et cetera. So what I found interesting in the Smithsonian write-up and in other write-ups, too, is this movie has itself, it has historical context. Because after it came out, it was played in Germany. I guess that was in December of 1930. And Hitler and Goebbels didn't like the movie because it was an American movie and it was made from the American point of view, not the German point of view. It was, as you say, it was an anti-war movie and Hitler didn't want to have an anti-war movie. He wanted to have a little war. Obviously, that came to pass a few years later. And Goebbels was his propaganda guy. So when it played in early December in Germany, they sabotaged it. They used a sneezing powder, Goebbels did. To make people in the audience sneeze. They had shills there calling out anti-semitic remarks about the movie, saying it was a Jewish movie. And the audience responded and cat called the same anti-semitic remarks. They put white mice on the floor of the movie theater and people were horrified with the white mice running around. And they did all kinds of things to scuttle the movie. And they effectively used it as Nazi propaganda. And it's quite something when you read the story of how this debuted in Germany. It's dead that Hitler used it. And what's interesting, by the way, is that the book was very popular in Germany. It was the movie that Hitler attacked and that Goebbels attacked. And it was outlawed. In fact, how about this one Steve? Later on, it was a crime to possess the book. You were required to turn your copy of all, all quiet on the Western front into the Gestapo. Later in the- I hadn't heard that. And if you didn't do that, they would come and arrest you. This is part of that same mentality where they were burning, Goebbels was burning books in the city square and so forth. So it was a crime, a serious crime to even possess this book later on. So it took on a historical meaning for sure. Meanwhile, the critics who reviewed this movie, the 1930 version of the movie, even today feel that it was the best of the three movies that were made about this book. Certainly, if you're from the political standpoint of the underlying theory of war as feudal and doing war is not a productive use of humankind. The 1930 version is by far in the way getting that message across. The war scenes in the current version are really up to Sergeant Ryan's standard. I mean, the battle scenes and so forth are the cinematography is of extremely high quality. I don't think they had the camera equipment to do what the current version did back in 1930. So you get some of the traffic back and forth and the fact that people basically for the length of the World War II, in most cases, the troops really were in the same position at the end of the war then where they were right at the beginning of the war. You don't have any really advancement but you have this massive amount of killing that went on. That trench warfare and running from one trench to another is just suicide missions. And that comes across in the current version but the 1930 version really has a storyline more in terms of the back of the war, in terms of what was happening back in the German community itself where they could thought right to the very end that it was a winnable war and they were gonna march on Paris. And I mean, that never was to be and it never was. It's just an incredible difference in the whole attitude that's being shown. Yeah, one element was the propaganda around the movie. Even while World War I was happening, the Germans in Germany believed they would win. Absolutely. Just as you say, they would march on Paris but in fact that was not so easy because French warfare was really a man killer. So many people died. I think the number of people who died in World War I in only three years was something along the lines of 27, make that 37 million people. That was a substantial percentage of the whole population of Europe. Yes it was. We don't know because the history of war is told through the survivors. Those who died are not in a position to tell us. But one interesting thing about the 1930 movie is that a lot of the people in the movie were in fact, World War I veterans and they were wearing army surplus outfits. They were using army surplus equipment in the movie. So it was very authentic and they understood what it meant to be involved in French warfare. The movie has been complimented for the emotional accuracy largely because the people in the movie were the people in the trenches, the same people. Yeah, and it really focused on four individuals, all of which died during the course of the movie. And that's what the book did too. I mean, that there really is nobody that really survives who you get to know in the movie. What's interesting, the last one, Paul dies a little bit differently in all three versions of the movie. It's all in the last day at the last hour. But they did not do it exactly in the same way. And I quite frankly don't remember what the book did in terms of which version was, if any of them directly followed from the book. Well, I'll tell you what was there originally. Paul Bauer was his last name, German name. He was the most prominent character in the movie and the book. He's alone, all his friends have been killed and this course really bothers him. And she's a butterfly. A butterfly on a battlefield So the 1930 version was the book version. Yes. It was a little bit different in the current version and that there's no butterfly scene in the current version. Right, right. And there's a little bit different in the 70s version. I think it's a little bit closer to the current version. So tell the people what the butterfly ending was. Well, he's sitting there, he's looking out and suddenly there's an actual plant and the butterfly's on the plant and he's reaching out to the butterfly and then there's a sharpshooter from the Western forces and they actually, he gets killed by the sharpshooter and at that point, the armistice had already been signed but it was delayed in terms of the start and that's one of the more interesting things about the current version in terms of the fact that it emphasized the fact that even though the armistice had been signed they right to the very end, the fertility of the killing just kept going on and on and on. Well, then I saw the 2022 version which is really interesting because there were parts of it at the end which were not in the earlier, when in the book or the earlier version and two of them I would mention to you. One is the negotiations for the armistice. We all knew that was conducted in a railway car. Right. And later on Hitler criticized those discussions and of course the people in Germany knew about how these discussions went and that was so aggravating to them. So they made, they were very angry about what happened in the railway car and you see the railway car in the most recent version, the 2022. You have, I think it was Marshal Foch was it on the French side? He had a kind of, I guess he was a public official of some kind of a politician on the German side and the German guy is at the moral high ground. He is saying, look, we have to stop killing here. Let's do an armistice right now. And Foch says, no, I have my conditions. You can't just, after this war and all these people died, you can't just come here and tell me that you wanna surrender. You have to accept my conditions. And I don't remember what the conditions were or even if they discussed them in the movie, but- They didn't discuss it in the movie. Yeah, so what happens is- That would be a different movie really. It would be. Yeah, but what happens is the conditions were impossible for the German guy. He didn't, I guess he didn't have authority to agree to those conditions. And so it held up the armistice and the French were being completely unreasonable. And now, of course, we have to take this into account. The first movie was made in the US, 1930. The second movie was made in the US, 1979, which wasn't as good as either of the other two in my opinion. Well, that's clearly the, yeah, it's not a, you could skip that movie. Yeah, you could. But the one that was made last year, now that was made in Germany by, from the German point of view, that doesn't mean it's less powerful in many ways, it's more powerful. And you have to look through the lens of the German soldier. And so in this railway car, it seems to me that they portray, the French has really been unreasonable.  And the French guy doesn't wanna do that. But the other incident, which has to be discussed here, is the German general. Yes. Who doesn't, who believes that Germany has not, not realized the glory. And he hears about the armistice, which is not effective immediately. It's a couple of hours away. And then he calls all his troops, thousands of them into a square on the German side of the line, the lines. And he tells them that Germany has to realize it's honor.  And he wants them all to go out there. But he tells them that the armistice will be effective at whatever, 12 noon, they have to go out right now at 11 o'clock and they have to kill the French right now. And there are some people in the German army who say, are you kidding me? You want us to go to war when you know that at 12 noon, there is no war? We settled this, we have an armistice.   And there are some of these German groups who don't wanna go. And so this general, boy, this is really bad. He calls some of his special troops and they shoot the German troops who don't wanna go out and continue the war. That is a remarkable scene, remarkable. Yeah, and you have a similar thing going on right now in Ukraine. I don't know if you saw the news clip, but in terms of some of the Russian soldiers who are being forced to go in and those that are not really willing are actually being shot in front of the new troops to make sure that they actually go fight. So a lot has happened, but a lot has not been learned despite the obvious message that is being conveyed in terms of war, just as I said, being feudal. Yeah, this thing about Insta-Board Nation also appeared in a movie called The Combatant, which is the French women in the war. And it was about the battleground at the Vosges Mountains, which are in the southeast of France on the German border there. And the same thing was happening. If you were resisted, if you demonstrated a lack of willingness to listen to your senior officer, they would shoot you dead right there. And this of course motivated all the troops. And we forget this. I mean, our view, the American view, maybe the view in the world today is that, no, no, this never happened. It did happen. And in World War I, and you were in some way, if you failed to follow orders and subordinate in any way, they shoot you right there, kill you right there. And so the rest of the troops would stand around and say, gee, I think we got to listen to them because if we don't listen to them, everybody, you know, we'll all get shot. That's what happened with the general in the square in the movie. Yeah, yeah. And then the movie goes on to see them do one more run from the trench out in the open field. And that was just, it was a suicide. It's, but that's why I kind of prefer the 1930 version because it was getting the same message across without all the killing occurring. One, the interesting though, those scenes that's in both the 1930 version and the current version was when Paul did the killing of the one wrenched soldier and then had regrets about having stabbed the fellow and then that whole sequence, those were powerful scenes in both the original movie and in the current movie. Oh, you bet. And that was key, I tell you, in the current movie that was pretty powerful because he stabbed him many times. He kept stabbing him and you really wondered whether the guy would survive. And he was terrible shape. He'd been stabbed in his torso, his chest and neck and he was dying. And that's what we call it. Yeah, we kept him alive more in the current movie longer than they did in the 1930 movie. But both scenes, both actors, both who played Paul just to simply did a superb job, especially in that sequence. I mean, it's one thing just to have a gun and you're just shooting out into space not knowing if you're gonna hit something or not. It's another thing to be one-on-one and on a personal level with the knife. And that point was really made very clear in both movies. He apologizes. We quote him. Yes, he does. Very powerful for that reason. The man is dying or about to die and he apologizes to a very emotional scene, a very powerful statement in support of this whole anti-war thing. And you know what? I don't know if you remember, but in Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg, the Spielberg statement on the bar, he has a German soldier and an American soldier in a building and they're having a life and death fight. And the German soldier prevails and he, again, with a knife, he stabs the American soldier and the American soldier is dying. And the German soldier, he holds them, he cradles them as if he's sorry, as if he loves him. It's a statement of humanity between these warring soldiers and it's the same thing in the sense that it's up close, it's personal. He's touching, holding. He's embracing him in his moment of death. It's the same thing in that spectacular scene and all quiet on the Western front. Yes, it is. It is. It is one of the more powerful scenes in the whole movie. Also in the current version, the score, the musical score, is of extremely high quality. I mean, you could tell exactly where the movie was going just by listening to the sound. The score, I mean, it's nominated for nine Oscars and one of them is a musical score. And I mean, I haven't seen the other movies that were nominated, but this one really was powerful in terms of connecting up the music to what was happening on the screen. Interesting that in the first one, in the 1930s one, I forget his name exactly, it was something like Milestone was the filmmaker. And he put a certain kind of music on that 1930s version and they changed it. They redid the movie and it was very controversial. They wouldn't listen to him. But finally, after some years, they changed the score back to the original score in that movie. And you're right. The score in a movie like this is really important. It's an emotional thing and it defines the action. Yes, it is. There's so many things that you could talk about in terms of the current film, in just in terms of how it relates to what's going on in Ukraine and the fighting and then the fact that you just don't have a learning experience going on that you got people making decisions that are not on the front line and are not the ones that are being killed. And what's also interesting, there's only in the current version, just a couple of remarks about the fact that the Americans were just coming in. At that point, I think both the French and the Germans were so tired. Americans have come in on the French side. You've had the same result. But I mean, if you come in on the German side, I mean, the Germans would have won just because they were fresh troops. Both these countries had really had destroyed their own population on a very feudal war. And Germany was kind of ahead in some ways and it had bigger supplies of poison gas. Its artillery was more advanced than the French. I think it had planes too when the French did not really have planes. So Germany had some advantages. And as you said, the trenches stayed that stationary for years. They didn't move, you know, but on foot. And they were a tremendous investment of labor to dig them and build them and fortify them. The bottom line though is they were killing pits because it was one scene in the 2022 movie where there's a tank coming on top of the trench and the sides of the trench are falling in on the men who are in the trench. I mean, terribly bloody, brutal experience. By the way, I wanna mention one other thing. In the 1930s movie, the character Cat who ultimately dies, they all die. You know, has a moment with his friends where he has, it makes this really profound statement. He says, if these politicians in generals really want us to go to war and kill each other, why don't we put them all in a box and have them fight it out without us? And whoever wins, wins. Right, right, right. That's what I was saying. The 30 version is much more blunt about the attitude it's a little more subtle in terms of the current version. One thing is clear though, from both versions, you as the viewer, you tend to associate and sympathize with these poor guys on the ground who are probably gonna get killed. Oh, absolutely. The stats were so bad. If you went into this war, however optimistic you were, the chances were you were gonna get killed or at best maimed. And in both movies, my experience anyway, was my God, I wouldn't wanna be there. This is hell, not only for me, but for my friends. And in fact, there was this incredible part of the 2020 movie where he says, I miss my comrades. I miss my buddies and he's torn. He's so upset about that. And you realize that they form these bonds and then they're torn apart. And that's the last thing they have is their friends in the trenches. But you don't wanna be there. This is the most awful experience imaginable. And that's what both of these versions of the movie tell us. Yeah, in both films, you really have the, just how bad it was in the trench for the soldiers. I mean, all the rain, all the water that's down there. I mean, you could die of disease separate from the bullets. It's just, it's nasty, very nasty. But they're both worthwhile to see.  I didn't know it was like that. For both sides. Both sides. Both the Germans and the French. Indeed, I'm thinking of the Barbara Tuckman book called, what was it? The Guns of August. The Guns of August. Oh, right. Where she ties, this is Columbia history professor. He tries to make you understand how this war, World War I got started. It's very hard because they were all, they were all spending their time completely invested in making war plans. And the war plans were like a chess game. And if this happens, then this happens. And you have these alliances and agreements and defense arrangements. So, you know, the killing of the Archduke of Serbia was really not too consequential, but it triggered all kinds of other moves. And before you know it, all of Europe is in a conflagration and they don't realize, they don't know why. And then they're sending their best and brightest by the tens of millions into the meat grinder and being killed.  That's the story of World War I. Absolutely, absolutely. And the movies get that point across. So. They do. Yeah. There's a lot to be said about this. I mean, in terms of the quality of the film, the acting, of course, the book was written by a veteran of World War I, Erik Reymarke. He was a veteran of World War I. He was in those trenches though. He knows what he's talking about. And so, you know, that and the screenplay, very, very powerful. The question is, and this one, the 2022 is going to win or has won? You may follow it more closely than me. An Academy Award or multiple Academy Awards for the quality of the film. Well, it's nominate. We'll have to see what it actually wins, but it has won a number of international awards. There's no question about that. At a minimum, I'm sure it's going to win the international film Oscar. That one, it's a clear favorite to be the winner on. Were you troubled by the fact that it was made by the Germans about the Germans? Mind you, the book was written by a German. No, I wasn't troubled at all. You know, one of my all-time favorite war movies, did you ever see a movie called The Boat? The Boat? The Basta submarine? The Basta Boat, yeah. Basta Boat? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's an incredible film. And made made by the Germans about warfare than being in a submarine. No, I mean, you could have done a similar movie from the French side, but it was a German author and Germany had the ability to, you could at least understand why they felt they had the military might to win. But what's so sad is that once it became clear that it was a no-win situation, nobody back in terms of political power was willing to basically say, time out, we really need to bring this to a halt and do so. And a little more honorable way before it got to the point of where it was with the armistice, which only helped lead us to World War II. I mean, that the terms were so one-sided that it wasn't necessarily a Hitler, though that you could have had a World War II even without Hitler based on those terms. Yeah, that's the problem and there are many problems about war, but the problem about war is if you don't have an end game in mind, if you don't have an exit strategy, it tends to go on way, way longer. I mean, World War I was supposed to be over in a month. It was over 37 million people later and it was three years and it required the US to come in. If we hadn't come in, it would have gone on longer. Oh yeah. Yeah, that was what was motivating the German fella. I mean, there was new troops, fresh blood. I mean, he could see where it was going. It was just gonna get uglier and more death. Pretty ugly and the rule about it goes on forever if you don't have an exit strategy, that seems to be the case in Ukraine. And as it was the case in Vietnam and in other wars you can think of. Right. So I mean, war has to be looked at more scientifically and avoided. I think the assuming that Ukraine comes out on the side of Ukraine, that may be the end of invasion of your neighbor, kind of war. You can only hope. We can only hope. So I mean, I've seen reviews of this movie, this one and for that matter, the 1931, because they seem to be reviewed together. Well, you know, you always hear the reviewer talk about the comparison between the two. And there's some very good comparison videos showing this event in the 1930 movie as against the same event in the 2022 movies. Interesting. And the same screen at the same time, you see these comparisons. So a lot of these reviews have been 10 plus. And they run out of numbers when they try to review the movie. What's your review, Steve? No, yeah, this one, you've asked me in each one of these, but this is the one that does get the 10. They both get the 10 for a little different reasons, but the quality is absolutely superb. We gotta learn from movies because we know that when other people watch them, it changes their sensibilities about the way they think about the world.  And a lot of our American movies do that right now on Netflix and Prime, or you can teach them that violence is not so good. And the message here for most of these movies is a really, really important message. That violence is bad for you and war is bad for you. And so I would also give it a 10. If I could give it more, I would. Right, right, thank you, Steve. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for coming around. Thanks for this discussion. We'll see you in a couple of weeks for more. You know what I'm saying? Goodman's Garage, I love the name of that. Goodman's Garage. Stay tuned. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.


Thank you for staying with us. You're still watching the breakfast on plus TV Africa and it's time for our next hot topic And this one we're talking about how Nigerians have turned to traditional healers as Prizes of drugs go up and we have our guest here. Nick at Nick Aguile. He's a public affairs analyst I'm just here to dive into this topic. Good morning. Nick. Thank you for joining us Yeah, good morning. Good morning to our viewers. Good morning. Thank you so much Thank you for for being here. Okay, so we're talking about prices of drugs being Ridiculously expensive and I know, you know, it's it's in peri pursuit with the whole dollar rate and dollars gone up So drugs has also gone up, but people are now moving into traditional healers because of this. What is your thoughts and we'll just go right in Thank you very much for that question. Yeah We cannot blame the people who are seeking alternative Solutions to their health care needs way from orthodox Because of the current situation in the country We know that people's incomes are largely remain the same whereas the cost of living as escalated Especially coming from the increase in the cost of petrol which is impacting on the cost of Transportation and then the cost of goods in the market because those goals are transported to the market and Also the foreign exchange reforms adopted by this government because we are not Manufacturing most of the Orthodox medicines that we consume in Nigeria. We are having to import a huge chunk of the medicines that come into Nigeria and this has been impacted by the cost of imports because The same medicines are the same cost One dollar was four hundred Something we now cost much higher with dollar now being a thousand five hundred error. So this is The reason that we now find so much Inflation in the market and this is this is pushing people to seek alternative medical Medicine for their medical conditions and You can't blame them because if you cannot afford Autodox medicine, what would you do?  So this is a background to what is happening in the country right now. Yeah Okay, so I know I know that I mean people go for This traditional healers right now because of the prices of the orthodox medicine or the The drugs that you get from all these pharmaceuticals, but how effective at this traditional medicine? I want to believe that people would tell you. Oh, you know what even all of these pharmaceuticals They're getting them from the herbs that this Traditional healers use but my my my worry now is most of them are not NAFTA approved So what are you putting in your body? Are you just going to take something because you're saying I cannot afford this other one are there are there like Ways to ensure that you are careful with what you're even ingesting into your body Yeah, so That's a very good point that you are raised What is the efficacy of this medicines? Yes Sometimes you you even find out find out that Because these medicines are not regulated You even cut back dosage. Don't see how it dosage because there is a particular quantity of these substances that you take That instead of day being helpful to you They rather become harmful because you're taking too much of it and your internal organs like Your liver your kidney can no longer possess so much quantity of it That is why in the orthodox medicine and drugs are given with specific dosage Yeah, some of they would you have in a five milligram ten milligram So just say it is 10 milligram and you need five milligram into break it into into two and things like that You often don't find us with the authority medicine So there are risks involved, but when people are pushed to the wall and like I said, I mean if you fall ill and You cannot afford orthodox medicine What what are your choices? Your choices are either you just stay where you are and Eventually die of your illness or you will seek any help available anywhere And that is where government needs to come in Now that government knows That a lot of Nigerians are patronizing this alternative medicine Our traditional medicine as well. We call it government needs to step into that space and try to see if they can control that sector Regulate it and ensure that there are no sharp practices and that the medicines that have been sold to Nigerians and Are going to actually cure their illnesses instead of making their conditions worse So it's a big area for government to step in and do Some work. Okay, so I mean from what you said government needs to step in to make sure that they really Regulate them make sure that there's efficacy to this but now Is is there anything any initiative that the government is doing to even ensure the affidability of health care in Nigeria? Because I don't think anyone wants to just go to a traditional Healer I think most people would rather just have the you know the the counter drugs where you just know that okay This is my dosage is what I'm having and you know in a few days You're sure because most times right why I think people might not really want to go to traditional healers is because a lot Of research have been done with these other drugs like you're getting from the pharmaceutical There's been research. There's been testing. So you there's there's that form of Trust with the with the with the medicine right compared to traditional healers that you don't even know how this was formulated by someone So now my question is is the government even doing anything to ensure that people can actually afford health care in Nigeria We're talking about the affordability of the health care because that's the reason that is pushing people to these traditional healers What do you think? my question so if you look at it globally There are two Areas that governments even in the pure capitalist economies hardly live entirely in the hands of businesses And those two areas are education and health care So if you go to the UK for instance, even though it's a free market economy is capital is You see how the NHS government is the one providing education Yeah, the government is the one providing education and it's free of charge Free of charge education from when the child is three years until when the child is 18 And after 18 the child is either going to university or going into some vocational and technical skill training So it's at the university that the child will have to pay and the same thing for health care The government of the UK is providing total comprehensive healthcare free of charge to all the citizens You know and you know that includes everything so when you go Through the health care system in the UK You are not expected to bring out your money and pay for anything and that is right from primary health care You know a lot of people confuse primary health care to be a ruler health care No primary health care starts with you going to see your family doctor even if you're in the city or in the village Yeah, you see your family doctor and your family doctor will examine you and If the family doctor believes that your condition is what they can treat they will treat you And and give you the drugs if your family doctor believes that your condition is hospital care Then they are the ones who will refer you to the hospital So in the UK don't just walk into a hospital You you have to be referred to the hospital by your family doctor who is called a GP general practitioner Yeah, so then you go to hospital in the hospital they carry out tests for you You know if it's a surgery they perform surgeries They do all sorts of things for you and if the hospital now thinks that your condition Require specialist care Say for instance the hospital eventually now discovers that you have cancer the hospital We then will now refer you to a cancer hospital You know and that cancer hospital is a tertiary health care So you start from primary health care your GP secondary health care the hospital tertiary health care a special hospital Where if you go to a cancer hospital right from the gate to the top most in that hospital It's only cancer they think about it's only cancer the research only cancer they treat You know and all that is for free in an economy like the UK where they are high Employment levels high income levels, you know how the tracing levels and all of that yet to go Mint is coming in basically subsidizing head care and the Nigerian constitution provides that Nigeria citizens are guaranteed head care is one of the duties of government You know when they say the duties of government is welfare and security in that welfare is head care Nigeria's are expected to enjoy Comprehensive head care either totally free or at very subsidized rates and you know in Nigeria In the days that some people like me was growing up in the 70s We enjoyed total and free comprehensive in Nigeria then you go to a point where If you go to hospital At least they will call you do consultation they would do tests for you and all of that they come out in diagnosis and they were no drugs in the Again in the hospital so they will write a prescription for you to go and buy your drugs that is why Janani Abacha in his cool speech when they were overthrowing and He said that our hospitals have not become may consulting clinics But today as we speak today, you cannot even get free consultation in any government hospital Without federal state what check it out if you go to a government owned hospital today You are expected to pay money and this money is that you are expected to pay or not tokens You know, I have someone that we took to further medical center in kefir to treat her of She had a kidney kidney problem They were charging bills that were running into the millions of Naira. You won't believe this a government hospital That is being funded by government money, which is basically our money So there is almost a near total collapse of public health care in Nigeria The government hospitals that are available now either some of them have been commercialized or they are just taking this kind of big Monies, and you are not even sure if those monies that they are taking are going into Government post so there is a need for this government at the federal state and local to actually Declare a state of emergency in the headcare center And and and let the government The leaders also by the constitution to protect Abide and work by the constitution look into the constitution where nigeria citizens have been guaranteed head care So that they cannot provide a care for nigeria's a lot of money needs to be put into that sector But you see in nigeria today instead of putting money in the essential services like education or Head care, which are the social services We're putting a lot of money into into defense and security So instead of buying drugs and books for schools we're buying bullets and guns And ammo tanks and and and fighter jets to kill nigeria citizens who are Engaging in budgetary and all sorts of things. So I think Government needs to realign its priorities because a lot of nigerians are going through a lot of problems So if you had to advise the government on how to go about this prices of drugs quickly because we have to wrap it up now If you were just to give about two or three advice on how to ensure that the prices of drugs You know just come down a litre for people to be able to afford it. What was the advice that you would give Okay, so like uh, I can give it the uk mother about drugs. Okay In the uk They run something like an insurance system for drugs So they have a drug funds. They have a drug fund And uh, anybody who is prescribed a medicine And that person is working and paying taxes Then that person can access any drug in that drug bank Pay the same amount of money so Even if you are Getting a prescription that let me say in agiria money is worth a two thousand and that drug fund You are expected to pay Five thousand you pay five thousand even if you are taking a prescription that is worth 50,000. You are paying five thousand So whatever you're paying is coming into that drug fund the government is using that drug fund To nam buy drugs. So it's like an insurance policy You know in insurance Where all of us pay the same premium But some people make claims, you know what others don't You know, so that is the kind of thing The government can think about that by by setting up a drugs fund where You know government hospitals with dispensed drugs at a fixed rate You know, so those whose drugs are not as expensive are contributing to help those whose drugs are expensive So at any of the day everybody has access to drugs, you know And you know those who are either unemployed or they are now old or are suffering specific Amat and all of that they access that drug for free Also, what that means is that other citizens who are paying for drugs are actually contributing that These citizens who are who are not as Well of can also have drugs and that's why they're taking their drugs for free And that is something specific that nigeria government can look at but apart from that I think there has to be a A very deliberate and intentional action By by governments at all levels and you know, we mostly focus on the federal government forgetting that The state governments are also taking a lot of money just as the local government I mean if you look at the federal allocation committee, you discover that The monies that both the state governments and local governments are taking combined is more than the money that the federal government is taking So this subnational government, we need to have a lot of focus on the what are they doing with their monies? you know, like since This government came into being the federal allocation Accounts on allocation committee fact has been Disbosing over a trillion each time And these monies are going to say what are they doing with these monies government need to understand that If the citizenry is not having Their productivity is going to be low and what productivity is low? Everybody suffers Because that is where you see that there will be no much of economic progress and You know citizens are old This is a duty that those who are in leadership position all the citizens To provide them a comprehensive aid care So I think that there has to be a state of emergency declared in this sector A lot of money needs to come in hospitals needs to be Doctors need to be recruited paid well nurses You know pharmacies all the head care workers need to be you have a lot of them recruit them pay them well You know like in the uk like I said national health service, which is the head care system of the uk they pay the poor very well They are one of The best paying organizations in the uk employ millions and millions of people Okay, and those are the kind of models that I respect Nigeria to copy Thank you. Well, hopefully We we copy those models and you know our health care system becomes better because I mean, I don't think anybody just wants to go and start to take traditional herbs herbs are good fine But you want to you know take something that is tried tested and trusted But um anyways want to say thank you. Thank you for coming and thank you for just bringing in more insights into this topic Thank you so much Thank you so much too and Happy day to address Thank you. You too. All right. We've been speaking with nick Agulay. He's a public affairs analyst And we're talking about why Nigerians have turned to traditional healers as the prizes of drugs go up This is where we have to drop draw the curtain here on the breakfast It's been a wonderful day, you know Just having all of these topics and reviewing the papers as well. We'll see you again tomorrow Bye for now. My name is Rumeh Holson You


Hot damn, are you okay?   I can't! I can't!  Look, I had to use your horse for a special officer distress call that I had. Yeah, well, my horse is in distress because it's gone. Did you hear that? No, I ain't hear nothing. We gotta find him. We gotta go to E-8. I'll shoot whoever that was. Why do we have to go E-8? I'm looking for my partner, Officer Misgif.  E-8, hot damn, that's far away. Well, alright then. Alright, I need a bed too. I'm tired. Hey, you know how to say, Me Casa is to Casa.  I'm hungry. Alright, can you make me a sandwich while you're at it? I'm starving. No, man! I ain't eaten since I came up.  Well, alright then. See if anyone's outside. I went ahead and knocked. See if someone outside will open it. I've got a key for you. I got the key right here.  No, this is mine. This is mine. Does that have any ammo? Yeah, it does now. Alright, never mind it. Let's go. Oh, it's hot damn. My bad. I didn't have the safety on. Ooh, trigger discipline. My bad. I'm just sorry about that. False alarm. What's this? We can kill him.  Hold on, let me talk to him. Hold up right there.  That's a cockass, dude, and we got him. Why does that fire on us?   A little boat vendor. Hello, travelers. Is something I'm interested in? Now I'm just looking around. I'm trying to find that shit, dude.  What? Hey, hey, I got an idea. I got a special negotiation tactic. We might try. Am I bleeding? I'm bleeding. Uh, Asman. Asman. It wasn't a gun. That was a rock, wasn't it? You were hostile still. It didn't say hostile only for one minute. Did you grab my stuff? What's up? I died. That's crazy, dude. How did that happen?  Damn, that's too bad. Who's there? It's me. It's me who? It was a horse. No, it was a horse the whole time. See, I thought I made you. I made you think it was me, but it was a horse. It actually was a horse. His head clipped through the wall. Yeah, there you go. Wait, hello.  We have a customer. Hey, it's Officer S. Van. Hey, buddy, welcome to the force.  Look, look, look, you win, honey. Give me a kiss. Look, I don't got any food. I'm starving.  Welcome back, Ace Van. Ace Van, go upstairs up the hall to the left, down the hall to the right, up the elevator, and then you should be able to find some Natsuki here. Come on.  We got Hassan, Hassan's trying to call. Before she gets away, she's trying to call the center. The directory. Oh, 40195637. It says wrong number. Ace Van, get off the phone. He might be trying to call. It's the wrong number. You said wrong. No, no, no, no, that's R. No, are you idiot? Oh, God, damn. When Hassan Piker comes in here, I want you to go talk to him. Okay. And bring him in there. Tell him to have a seat and we'll be able to talk to him. All right. That sounds good. Oh, here comes someone. Here guys. That's an effort. I'm getting the ball. Great. Let's see him. Let's see him. Let's see him. Greetings, traveler. Oh, he left. Oh, he left. Oh, there's two. Wait a minute. I want to stand back now. What is about to happen? Get. All right. Relax now. I saw all the ground. That was an aggressive movement. Pick me up. She just attacked an officer. She attacked an officer. I don't care how many followers on TikTok.  What's going on, Hassan? You look, you we wanted her dead or alive. All right. Listen to me. We wanted her dead or alive. All right, then. Well, regardless, then I brought her up. We can pick her up. That's fine. Pick her up. She deserved it. She shouldn't attack. All right. And anyway, Hassan, come follow us down this way. Right here. We're going to get. Is there a chance? Yeah, that's right. We got we got the whole nine yards right here. Now right in here. We're doing a we're going to be doing a say poggers. Yeah. We're going to be doing an interview right in here. Interview. What are you? You're not you to become an officer.  I do, sir. Wait, I just want my bounty. I'm a farmer. Well, listen. Yeah, but we still need it. We need to do a little bit of background check. Make sure anybody's work.   Hey, listen, listen. Hey, stand your ground. Put the torch down. Get the torch down. Put the torch away. Officers are prisoners here in your custody. Can I please get my bounty and be on my way? I got my my base is decaying. I need to go back and listen. We got to do a background check mask for it. All right. I'll give you. I'll give you what you came for. All right. Thank you first. She needs to be locked up. She needs to be locked up. Close the door. Close the door. Officer of her misgift. Close this door right here. You better follow what they say. Oh, who's that? Hey, hey, hey, hey. Put it down. Put the snowball down. Put the snowball down. Put the snowball down right now. Oh, hey, hey, hey, hey. We're going to bring you in for questioning. God above us. Brooke, come here, sir. No, you can stand up. You don't need to squat in there. To the cage. Brooke. Brooke. Wait, no, no, no, no. Brooke, get in the cage. Hey, get in the cage. Brooke, you are under arrest for play. You played Candy Shop in 2014 on your stream. Congratulations, you were in here for 24 hours.  Excellent job, Hussone. I'm very, very proud of you. All right, can I get the bounty now? If you'd like to show him the bounty, sir. Yeah, the bounty's right in here. Y'all are going to lock me in here if I get in here. Oh, I mean, look, he's in there. Why would I lock you in there with him? All right, what's up?  I'll play along. All right, what's going on? All right. Now, wait, hold on. I'm in here, too. Hold on, this doesn't work.  No, but he was talking to me, because I'm standing in here. I'm not supposed to be in here. Why am I supposed to be in here? Do you have a seat there? Why don't you have a seat there at home? Anyway, have a seat.  Wait, what? Do you see this? Sit down. Sit. Put the gun down. Why are you hurting me? Sit down. I will throw this snowball at you if you get aggressive. Put the gun away. OK, I'm sitting. I'm sitting. All right, what's up?  Let me tell you that right now, OK? We don't have extra money. Listen, listen, there's a lot of people out there that say defund the police.  Listen, I've heard your tweets. I've seen your clips, Hasan. You don't seem to like us very much. You talk very dirty about us. I have no idea what you're talking about. I have absolutely no idea, sir. I am a law-abiding, peace-loving, police-kissing farmer, humble farmer. See, that's what I like to hear. Here's what I want you to do. Ready? So, here's something, man. What are we doing? Of course. Hank is my moniker. All right, Hank. Have a drink. Nobody's home, sir. Nobody's home. Open the door. I'll kill him. I'll kill him myself to show you how I feel about how I feel about journalists. If you open the door, I will go murk him right now. Oh, who's there? Who's out there? Can't hear me, right? I trust him. I trust him. I trust him. Come, come. All right. All right, prove your loyalty to the department here. Oh, I can't, I can't. How am I going to open the door? I can't open the door. Officer Miskip, can you? Yeah, there we go. Oh, really? Oh, really? Hot damn, are you OK?    I can't, I can't, I can't. Here, get up. Yes, you can. Here, here, close the door. Close the door. Close the door. Oh, what? Saved, boy, saved. Saved. Oh, my good. Oh, my, are you OK? Here, just give me a six. You don't need food. Here, take this photograph. No, you can eat it, all right? Listen, I know you're on one of them strict diets, those LA diets, but come on, Brooke. It's perfectly fine. It's good fiber for you, OK? All right, this is kind of fun. Oh, whoa, whoa.  Hey, hey, hey, get down on the ground, on the ground, get on the ground right now. No, oh, sorry, sorry. Get back down there.  Get down, right now, or I'll shoot. I will shoot.  You're trying to get back in your cell. Excuse me, I'm trying to get back in your cell. Hey, hey, hey. I'm fired a warning shot at her hand. Look, I warned her good.