I'm not even going to say alrighty because I just woke up, I have not had my iced coffee, and I am just now in a miserable mood.  I'm sure all of you know by now that the John Tory of Toronto has announced that all events and fairs are cancelled up to September 6th, and to me this absolutely is crazy and doesn't make sense. I get that there's people on all different sides of the spectrum in terms of lockdowns and safety and all that, and trust me you will see me wearing a mask well past the CDC suggesting not having to wear one anymore, and I will keep my distance, I will get my vaccine shot, the minute I'm able to get my second dose I will get my second dose, but lockdowns are crossing a line. They are crossing a line and the the the length of cancellations and lockdowns is crossing a line. If we're losing the C&E and other events up until September 6th, that's absolutely insane. Our federal government has told us that we can travel abroad internationally without zero restrictions upon return this summer, so if we're able to go to the United States or go to the United Kingdom or go anywhere in the world and come back with no restrictions, no testing, no quarantining, but we can't even go to our own domestic events here in Toronto, here in Ontario, here in Canada, that makes absolutely zero sense. What does that say about you as a government? So we can go abroad, come back, but we can't go to the C&E, we can't go to Canada's Wonderland, we can't go to our next-door neighbor's house, we can't go to the Quebec. We get like, what are you thinking? And on top of that, okay, let's take percentage numbers into into the equation here. Most places started relaxing COVID measures and opening up at around 40% and we still saw a decline in cases. Furthermore, at around 50% vaccination rate, first dose as well, in the United States, COVID cases dropped significantly, significantly. So with that in mind, and Canada at 42% as of yesterday vaccination rate, and Ontario are approaching, I think, 50%, I think they're at like 45% right now, fact-check me all you want in the comment section. And our Ford, the Ford government is telling us that we'll be at 65% by the end of May. Now mathematically, me doing the math, I think we're actually going to be around 55% to 60% by the end of May. I don't see how the 65% will work, but regardless, we're going to be well over that 50% line at the end of May. So restrictions need to start easing. We are losing businesses. It was just announced that we're losing inter-federal travel with, what was it, Greyhound. Okay, Greyhound is a very important service for those that can't afford the train or don't have money for a car. It's extremely important service for First Nations. And on top of that, the CNE is saying they don't know if they can survive. There are now $70 million in debt with this announcement. So they are going to have to reassess their financials in order to see if they can survive with this two years of not going. And there are a lot more businesses that are leaving Canada. You have Disney Canada pulling out their stores, whether that be from COVID or not. This is just the final straw that broke the camel's back. It's just really scary. And we're going to see a lot of businesses, the longer these lockdowns go, announced they're leaving Canada or ceasing operations in Canada, or just those family-owned businesses not being able to survive. It's gone too long. It made sense, and I was 100% on board science-wise for a very long time. But it doesn't make sense to continue this. And what sucks the most is knowing coming out of the lockdown on June 2nd or two weeks after June 2nd, whatever our government decides to do, it's going to be a phased reopening. It's going to be a really slow phased reopening. And it's going to be annoying. It's going to be like, okay, you can go see your neighbors now. You can get into bubbles of five, you can get into bubbles of 10, four weeks later, you can get into bubbles of 15 or 20. But places like Canada's Wonderland will be punished as usual, regardless of having the safest safety measures you can possibly imagine that you've ever seen in Ontario or Canada. Literally, if you read their safety plan, it is the safest place ever. Man, I don't even think I took a breath of air during that whole rant there. I'm just obviously like, I'm frustrated. It doesn't make sense based off of what we've seen, based off of the promises our government is making. It doesn't make sense. Scientifically, I am in favor of science and the health officials, and yes, maybe extending the lockdown till June 2nd works, but with the vaccination numbers that we are being promised, opening everything up or opening everything up within a four week period after lockdown should be the case. We should be exactly like the rest of the world with vaccination numbers. Okay, we are catching up to the United States in terms of population vaccinated. And their cases are 35,000 per day. That means the average state is pulling around less than 1000 per state. Okay. That's crazy. So that was after they crossed the 50% line. We're about to cross that 50% line in Ontario. So we should start to see numbers dropping like that, meaning are we going to get to see the same thing? Are all businesses going to be allowed to open? And then after a certain amount of time, are all businesses going to lose those restrictions? Are you going to be forced to wear a mask or not? It just seems like this is going to go on way too long here in Canada and Ontario, and we're not being given dates. We're not being given a plan. We're not being told anything. And it's just so frustrating. Like, tell us anything. Give us some sort of, okay, our goal. This is our vaccination numbers. Mathematically, this is where we're going to be at this date, which means based off of what we've seen around the world, we'll be able to relax some restrictions in this sort of format. Here's our plan. This is what's going to be allowed to open. This is what's not going to be allowed to open. Or this is what you're going to have to do to open to meet their new requirements. Anything like they're locking us in our homes and we're allowed to go out for exercise, but we're still like mentally, this is not the same. Some people will argue, well, you're not being locked in your home. Yes, you technically are mentally. It is literally being locked in your home.  Okay, being locked up, nothing to do other than go out for a bike ride or walk every day doing the same thing, seeing the same things. It gets old mentally. It's draining. Yes, I understand there are two sides to the argument. There are people who really like this and feel safe like this. But those people who do not want to go out and do things, you do not have to go out and do things. You can stay in your house by choice and still have these benefits up until September by the federal government. But for those of us who are vaccinated, okay, we are now crossing a majority of the population that is vaccinated, can start to go out and boost the economy again. We can start to go out and drive business to those small businesses in our local towns. We can start driving business by traveling internationally. It just doesn't make sense. These promises the government keep promising us don't add up, so we can we can travel anywhere in the world, but we can't even do anything domestically by this summer, according to what we're seeing so far. Explain it to me, anyone. I'm open years. I know I'm ranting and it sounds like I'm angry, but if you're on the opposite side of the spectrum, comment down below. And honestly, I'm open to debate. I'm not going to get angry. It'll be a very good conversation, I promise, as long as you're polite. But I'm just over it.  And yeah, I'll wear my mask, I'll get my vaccine, no social distance, but I want some of my freedom back. I want it back.  I know it's such a touchy subject and everyone's on different sides of the spectrum with this argument, and you know that I've been very in favor of lockdowns and vaccines and all that. But for me, it's just crossed a line. We've gotten to the point where we need we need answers and we need dates and we need action. Thanks so much for watching. I hope you guys have an amazing weekend. Stay sane. It's my new catchphrase I say at work as well.  Thanks so much, guys. Bye.


Let's move on to the Maps app and take a look at these catchments. So again, like I was saying, we don't make the catchments in DHS2. These are made externally by our partners, Grid3 or Crosscut, and you are able to import those via the API into DHS2. So I'm going to turn on population by age layer. Again, the population by age layer is coming from Google Earth Engine. This was a feature we released in the previous version of DHS2. So that's been there for a little while. I am going to turn on my under five population for male and female. I am going to go to my Org units tab. And now what you see in the Org units tab is this thing called associated geometries, this option here. And I'm going to open that drop down box and choose catchment area. And I'm going to select both just so I'm not making a huge map and add layer. So I need to select the level to facility and not district. Okay, let's try that again. All right, so now you see our catchment areas have shown. And I click on catchment area. This represents a single facility. And I can see say the under five population as world pop Google Earth is defined it or has projected it for this particular facility, 2,422. You can also see that I can see the sum for each one of these sex and age disaggregations. All right, so I mean essentially that is it. It's just in all of the layers that you have here. When you go to the Org units, you have this option for associated geometries. And again, it doesn't have to just be catchments. Catchment seems to be the driving use case for why we developed this feature. But it could be any number of other associated geometries. There's really no limit to it. And so I'm only able to apply this catchment area shapes to a facility level. You could of course have other geometries for different levels. So something that may be for district or something for national. It's really, there's a lot of flexibility here. So it's not confined just to catchment areas. But catchment areas seems to be again the use case that is most required. I'll just make a quick point about this catchment area. Just to show you another example, it of course is not confined to just the health sector. So this could be broadly applied to any sector which GHI is being used. And here we're looking at a map of the Gambia. And you can actually see that we have developed catchment areas for each school in the Gambia. And so if I click on a catchment area for a school, you can see that I have the school age population for that school catchment. And again, you can have, if you have different types of schools, for example, say maybe you have a basic education or secondary education schools, maybe these have different types of catchments, right? So right now, this is showing that all schools are the same essentially. But we know in real life all schools are not the same or all facilities are not the same. So you could have different catchment areas for different programs or different school types. And again, you can show, you can have all of those available to you as options. You're not limited to just one. You can have a catchment area for basic secondary schools or just a catchment area for referral hospitals and then a separate catchment area for health facilities or catchment area for facilities that are providing specialized treatment for like HIV AIDS and some other facilities are not. So that means that those catchment areas are bigger. They cover some area that may be covered by another facility for some other health program. Hopefully that makes sense to you. But I do also want to stress that we are very eager to support and experience anyone using this functionality. We are keen to continue to develop it, to continue to improve it. So if you have any questions or issues about using catchment areas, do reach out to us in the community practice. We will definitely get in response to you and try to help you out. If you have any suggestions on how we can continue to improve it, please do also reach out to us through the community practice. We're very happy to hear your thoughts and suggestions. That being said, I do think it would be great if everyone could look at the websites for our partner organizations, Crosscut and Grid 3. They have some really exciting functionality coming out specifically. Crosscut has developed an application within DHIs to support the development and import of these catchment areas that's connected to their own software. So the point is that we're just trying to work with multiple partners to make it as easy as possible for you all to have access to these multiple geometries specifically to facility or school catchments.


Venezuelan immigrants to the United States. A super-colored right wing. They're right wing on economics. They're right wing on cultural issues. Indeed, immigrants out of Venezuela are going anywhere in Latin America to the United States. A right wing. They're not socialists. They've done socialism. Been there, done that. They don't want to have anything to do with socialists. They're more right wing than the Cubans. Do you think the Republican Party is welcoming a Venezuelan immigrant? No. They might be right wing, but they don't look like us. They're going to change the demographic of the country.


The mission, if you choose to accept it, is to know that Mission Impossible is the better action franchise. Your franchise is up against the Die Hard trilogy. It's a Mission Impossible. Tom Cruise has some personality. Outside of action movies, Bruce Willis' catalogue is, Look Who's Talking, and Look Who's Talking 2. Tom Cruise is this wee little man. I feel like I could pick him up, throw him in the air, and he would just drift off into the netherworld. That's a thing, right? Bruce Willis is rough and tumble. He's got some meat on the bones, and I appreciate that. I appreciate the action hero that I believe in. Yeah, there's plenty of meat in Die Hard, but where's all the gorgeous women? Mission Impossible, like James Bond, knows how to put females in the cast. Having women in the film takes away time. Bruce Willis could be better spending, snapping necks, and throwing bodies downstairs. Welcome to the party, pal! Let's talk villains! Hans Gruber. All I need to say. But I'm gonna say more. It's played by Alan Rickman. His first performance in a feature film blows everybody away, and he's still the best villain to date. So Die Hard had one villain back in the late 80s. Mission Impossible, John Voight, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, right up there with Alan Rickman.  Apparently you forgot Jeremy Irons is in this film, or is he better known as the voice of Scar from Lion King? The cast just keeps getting better and better with every Mission Impossible movie. You have the addition of Simon Pegg in 3 and 4, Jeremy Renner, and not to mention Ving Reims, Diamond Dog himself. Deep Blue C's Samuel L. Jackson, the Mack guy, and Carl Winslow from Family Matters all say hi. It takes a great cast to get you into the mindset that is Mission Impossible. It actually makes you think it's not just broken windows and car explosions. Die Hard is ranked on the IMDb Top 100 list. Mission Impossible, however, nowhere to be found. Mission Incognito, Mission Nowhere, Mission Other Things. I think the reason Die Hard works so well from a story level is John McLean is so relatable. He's always put in these terrible situations and he has to find the smartest way to get out of them. Much like you or I would do. Which is kill everybody in the room.  I wouldn't be surprised if Die Hard 5 had a tool belt So his character gets a little shifty in Die Hard 4. I think everybody can agree that's the weakest of the pack. But let's not forget Mission Impossible 2. I'll give MI2 this. Tom Cruise is here. A masterpiece.  The entire mask theme through all the Mission Impossible movies was awesome. Like a fine wine, the effects of Mission Impossible get better with age. From the tunnel scene of Mission Impossible 1 to jumping off the world's tallest building in Ghost Protocol. Die Hard is unmatched when it comes to awesome set pieces and effects. He's the MacGyver of movie action heroes. In the first movie he jumps off a building with a fire hose. In the second he's ejected from an explosion. The third he slices a guy in two by bungee jumping off a bridge. And in the fourth he kills a helicopter with a car. The Die Hard franchise can't hold a candle. There's a lot of different types of weapons and gadgets in the Mission Impossible franchise.  That's his gadget. Everyday appliances he makes them. So basically John McLean is Kevin McAllister from Home Alone just grown up. Corey's Tom Cruise in for a bruising. If he thinks MI is any chance of winning the musical category. Coming up now. Just go ahead and give me the music category. Mission Impossible theme song. That's as memorable as Jaws or Indiana Jones or even Star Wars. Die Hard's composer Michael Cayman. His body of work includes the Lethal Weapon franchise. X-Men. The Last Boy Scout. And of course the biggest action film of them all. Mr. Holland's Opus. So I think the guy knows a thing or two about how to compose a goddamn action movie. Lalo Schiffman's won four Grammys for his theme song. And he also gets help from Hans Zimmer in Mission Impossible 2. Hans! Thanks for that. The guy's got a freaking star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Let's not forget about the soundtrack to all these movies. You've got Limp Bizkit, Metallica, Godsmack, Rob Zombie. Talk about action movies. Action soundtrack. So this is how Lalo Corey's got in on this show. He's listing off bands that were popular in the late 90s to justify the movie.  It's been all downhill since Die Hard 1. But Mission Impossible is getting better with every new release. I'd call that Mission Accomplished. This has honestly been the biggest waste of my time. Nothing is comparable to the Die Hard franchise. Nothing ever will be. And for Corey to say otherwise is just a complete joke. Let's bury him in the comments. Yippee-ki-yay, Movie Feuders.


So, let me start this off by saying that I'm not willing to disclose exactly where the events of this sighting took place, but I can say that I live in the US. The town I live in is not densely populated, but it's not a rural countryside either. Just a nice peaceful urban town. There's only one thing that's a little special about my town, and that's the rain. We get a lot of rain, and I mean a lot. Three or four times a year, we get a rainstorm so bad that my town had to implement special drains and flood prevention systems just so there wouldn't be disasters. The rain is so bad during these storms that you can't even see more than a few feet in front of you. So it makes driving or traveling anywhere practically impossible. Our town has nicknamed these types of storms we get a few times a year as mega rainstorms or MRS for short. The news is always warning about the next MRS weeks in advance. The police and fire department strongly advise the entire town to stay in their homes and don't dare to come out until the storm is over. I've lived here all my life, and I would always ask my parents about the storms. They told me to never go out in them that it's too dangerous.  There was no point looking out the window at it, because the rain was so dense that visibility was terrible. I'm 21 now, and I've never even once dared to leave the house during a MRS, but that changed yesterday. Yesterday was a mega rainstorm, and it started around 5pm. I was already inside and watching TV. When at about 5.43pm, I got a text from my best friend, Sean. He said he was caught out in the storm driving home, and he couldn't see anything. He ended up running into a telephone pole, and his car was stuck. He called the police, but they told him that they couldn't respond in the storm. So he was asking if I could come by to help him and take him back to my place until the storm was over. I didn't really want to go out in the middle of a storm, but Sean always had my back when I needed him, so I decided to go help. Sean told me what street he was on, and it was only about 10 blocks away, so I decided it would be best not to drive. With no visibility, it actually might be better for me to walk, so I wouldn't get into an accident. I put on my rain boots and grabbed my umbrella. For the first time in all my 21 years, I was finally going to go out during a mega rainstorm. It was honestly a scary thought, and I was getting nervous. I opened the front door, and the first thing that hit me was the sound. The sound of the rain hitting the ground was so loud, it was like nothing I've heard before. I opened my umbrella and stepped out of my house, and immediately felt the weight and pressure of the water falling down on it. I could barely see anything outside the radius of my umbrella. The entire town seemed completely vacant.  I slowly started making my way towards the street Sean was on, making sure I stayed on the sidewalk so that I wouldn't lose the street and get lost. It wasn't until I got about four blocks away from my house, when I saw the dark outline of what appeared to be the figure of another person in the distance, they happened to be in the direction I was going. So I slowly started to get closer. And when I did, I could roughly make out that it was the figure of a man, a tall man. They didn't have an umbrella, and they weren't moving either. They were just standing there at the corner of the block. Once I finally got about 10 feet from the man, I saw that he was about six and a half feet tall. And he wore a long black coat that went almost all the way down to his shoes. The collar of his coat was flared up so high, I couldn't see his face from the side. In atop his head, he wore a black fedora style hat. I found it a bit weird that someone would even dare to come out in this storm without an umbrella. As I passed by the man, however, I noticed something that made me freeze. I couldn't see his face. There was nothing there, but darkness. But possibly even just as disturbing was despite the downpour, he was completely dry.  The man didn't move or look at me at all as I slowly walked past him. I was freaked out and I started to walk faster, trying to get away quickly. After I walked another block, I looked behind me and the man was gone. I started wondering if I was just stressing out being in this rainstorm and that it was anxiety getting to me. After walking a few more blocks, I started to calm down and dismiss the things I saw as being nothing more than just anxiety. And then I saw another figure walking the same direction I was on the other side of the street. This person wasn't as tall and they had an umbrella so I knew it couldn't be the same man from before. I didn't pay them any mind as we both walked on opposite sides of the street from each other for another block or so. When I looked over at them this time though, I saw a figure walking behind the person with the umbrella. It didn't take me long to recognize this familiar figure as the tall man from before. I was shocked. How could he have walked all the way here and caught up to us that quickly? I watched from the other side of the street as the tall man slowly got closer to the figure with the umbrella until eventually he was right behind them. It was then that the tall man in his dark coat reached out with both his arms and grabbed the person. He pulled them in tight, a large cloud of dark blue and black smoke enveloped them. And when the smoke dispersed, the tall man and the person were gone. The umbrella fell under the ground with a clack as I stood there in disbelief. I started to think I was dreaming and that this was just some sort of nightmare. But the occasional rain and wind hitting my face while under the umbrella reminded me that I wasn't dreaming. At this point I was scared and I started to walk faster and faster, just trying to get to Shawn as quickly as I could. I only made it another block when I saw the tall, dark figure coming straight towards me on the same side of the road. Chills ran down my spine and I immediately turned around and started running. By now, even with all the flood drains around, there was two or three inches of water across the whole street and sidewalk. This combined with the rainfall caused me to lose my footing. I fell down and got soaked as I lost grip of my umbrella. I looked back and the dark figure was getting closer. I got to my feet and took off. After about a block, I saw an alleyway that had a roof and looked like a shortcut back to my neighborhood. I took it and was finally able to get out of the relentless downpour. Going back at the tall man again, I noticed something else chilling. He appeared to be phasing in and out of reality, almost like he was teleporting a few feet at a time. No wonder he was catching up to me so quickly, even though he was only walking. He'd already made it into the alleyway I was taking. I saw him clearly walking through puddles and not making any ripples in the water at all. After this tall, dark figure was, it was clearly not human. Somehow I got past him and I started to run back to my house, trying my hardest to not slip. When I exited the alleyway, I was relieved to see that I was only one block from my house. I looked back at the figure and noticed he was now closer than ever, only about 30 feet from me. Fearing for my life, I ran faster than I ever had, desperately trying to get back to my house, but the rain was making it hard to see. I was so tired and out of breath, I felt like I was going to pass out when I finally made it to my door. I ran inside and slammed the door shut and locked it. I took a deep breath, and then I looked out my living room window. I saw the tall man in his long, dark coat and hat, standing on the other side of the street. He was just standing there, staring at me, completely dry, like he was never out in the rain at all. Until the same large cloud of dark blue and black smoke covered him, and when it cleared, he was gone. I took another deep breath, still in shock over what I just experienced. I kept wondering, why didn't the figure grab me when I was so close to it? I must have been no more than 10 feet from him. When I first got a good look at him, he could have easily grabbed me there. So why didn't he? Who was the person they grabbed ahold of earlier? What happened to them? I grabbed my phone and went to text Sean. But when I unlocked my phone, I saw something. A text from Sean, and it read, Hey, never mind. I actually found an umbrella in my glove compartment. I'm going to try to walk and make my way to your house, see you in a bit. It was sent 10 minutes ago. I texted back, telling Sean he needs to stay in his car, and did not set foot out in the storm. I never got a reply. It's been two weeks now, and no one, including myself, has seen or heard from Sean at all. I went to the street and I found his car empty. A search was conducted to find him, but they were unsuccessful in finding any trace of him at all. I never told anyone about what happened to me out there, and what probably became of my best friend, fearing people would think I was losing my mind. But I know. I know what really goes on out there during these storms. I know what really happened to Sean, and I miss him. I wish I could have seen that text sooner to warn him of the Rain Man.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we will learn about pyramids. Now you must have heard or seen the Egyptian pyramids one of the seven wonders of the world. How does it appear? It has a rectangular base and the little faces are the triangle and these little faces are joined at a single point which is called apex. So we can write a pyramid is a pyramid that has one base and the little faces are triangles that are joined at a single point called the apex. Now let us discuss the types of pyramids. Now triangular pyramid, rectangular pyramid, pentagonal pyramid and so on are some types of pyramids. That is if base is a triangle then that pyramid is called a triangle pyramid and if base is a rectangle then that pyramid is called and if base is a pentagon then that pyramid is called a pyramid. If the base is a square then we have a square pyramid, if the base is a hexagon then we have a hexagonal pyramid and so on. Also in a pyramid the number of little faces that is the number of triangles depends on the number of edges of the base. Now in a triangle pyramid you can see that the number of edges of the base which is the triangle is three. So in a triangle pyramid the number of little faces in a rectangular pyramid the number of little faces is four. Then in a pentagonal pyramid the number of little faces is five. Now let us draw a pyramid. Now suppose we want to draw a triangular pyramid. In the first step we will draw a triangle as the base and the triangle as the apex. So we have drawn a triangle as the base and we have taken a point outside the triangle as the apex vertices by the apex. So we have connected the vertices of the triangle by the apex and we get as the little faces and the hidden lines must be dashed lines. In the same way we can draw the other types of pyramids also. Now to find the surface area of a pyramid. Now we know that the parts of the pyramid are base, little faces and the vertex that is apex as here you can see. In this triangle pyramid the base is the triangle BDC and triangle ABD, triangle ACD, ABC are the little faces of this triangle pyramid and A is the vertex that is the apex. Now to find the surface area we must know the altitudes of each of the little faces and the slant height of the pyramid. We can find the surface area of a pyramid by net and for this our first step is to draw the net of the pyramid. Example, and that is you have the length made of crystal in the shape of a square pyramid with slant height 8 cm and square base width side 5 cm is required to cover the length. Now here we have to find how much placed paper is required for this we have to find the surface area of the lamp so that we can find how much placed paper is required to cover the lamp. Now here this lamp is given to us which is in the shape of square pyramid. Now we have drawn a net in which first of all we have drawn a square base then at each edge we have drawn the little faces in this manner. Now surface area of the pyramid will be the sum of the areas of all the faces that is area of the base that is the triangle. Now area of the square base will be equal to side into side which is equal to 5 cm into 5 cm which is equal to 25 cm square. Now we will find the area of the triangles by the formula half into base into height so the area each triangle is equal to half into base which is 5 cm into height which is 8 cm. Now 2 into 4 is 8 to 4 is 20 so this is equal to 20 cm square. Now here the number of naked faces that is the number of triangles is 1, 2, 3 and 4. Now we have one triangle that is 20 into 4 which is equal to 8 cm square. Now the surface area of the pyramid is equal to area of the base plus areas of the little faces so the surface area of the pyramid will be equal to area of the square base which is equal to 25 cm square the little faces which is equal to 80 cm square so this is equal to 80 cm square plus 80 cm square which is equal to 105 cm square. Hence 105 cm square of base people is required to cover the length. In this manner we can find the surface area of any type of pyramid if you know the dimensions of the base and the front height. And the surface area, area of the base, areas and little faces learnt about area of pyramids. And this completes our session. Hope you all have enjoyed the session.


If this week, if it starts basing finally breaks above this channel here on May 18, then you can start this next leg up. So that's the whole point, right? Big run, got tired, came in, right? Now reclaimed, and now it's ready to go higher again. Look at Shopify, right? Shopify had a really nice quarter. Again, another example of a big, big run, right? Inverted hammer. Remember, we just saw an inverted hammer. It's a cell signal, right? So what happened? The stock started coming down, two, three, four, maybe even a week now, okay? And now the key is can Shopify get back above and reclaimed 10-day moving average this week? I won't watch it. Tesla's my favorite stock. This week, it did what it had to do. Took out two big levels here. We traded both those levels this week. This 170 went into the 174s. And then Friday got above this channel here. Most important, reclaimed the 50-day moving average. And this is the highest close in this whole formation. If Tesla can just get above this whole channel here for this week, right? There's a whole gap here to around the 190 area.


Hello, whoever and wherever you may be, I'm James Randi, or did you guess? There are well-accepted accounts from the Bible that Christians and others never question—events and locations that are part of the story told of Christ and his history. One such is the account in John 1 of the birth of Christ in the lower Galilee town of Nazareth. This town is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament nor in any of the extensive rabbinical literature, and the only established site there is the ancient town Waterwell, now referred to no surprise as Mary's Well. The modern town is covered with churches, also no surprise, and though archaeology offers no support at all for them, the Nazarenes can point out sites such as Joseph's carpentry shop, and the spot where Mary received the Annunciation, the message from the angel Gabriel that she was pregnant with Jesus, as well as the exact location of Mensa Christi, the table where Jesus dined with his apostles after his resurrection, and the site of the synagogue where Jesus preached as a lad. But Nazareth may be overrated as an historical site that proves the inerrancy of the Bible. Author René Solom has written The Myth of Nazareth, the Invented Town of Jesus, a book that effectively demonstrates the controversial archaeology of the town where the Bible has Jesus Christ being born. Of course, the religious faction has reacted furiously to the book, specifically in The Bulletin of the Anglo-Israeli Archaeological Society, B-A-I-A-S, which devotes some 47 pages to five angry rebuttals. There is, we are told, an ambitious commercial enterprise presently under construction in Nazareth to rescue the facts about Jesus' hometown. It's a resort known as Nazareth Village. It is designed to eventually contain streets and several dozen stone houses inhabited by actors and storytellers in authentic garb, who will illuminate the life and teachings of Jesus. The notion perhaps inspired by the phenomenal success of Disneyland, where Tinkerbell and Mickey Mouse are seen flitting and strolling about, also in authentic garb. As of ten years ago, an international consortium of Christian groups called The Miracle of Nazareth International Foundation had raised some $60 million for the project, with contributors in the U.S. such as former President Jimmy Carter, Pat Boone, and Reverend Reggie White, formerly a Green Bay Packard football star. Scholars associated with the Nazareth Village project, Stephen Phan, Yehuda Rappuano, and Ross Voss, none of the archaeologists now say that evidence has been discovered there for a town that existed at the time of Jesus, a settlement before the First Jewish War that took place in 70 CE. This evidence was simply lying on the open surface of the site, they say. This claim, author Psalm shows, is bogus, and it results from misdating, mislabeling, misinterpreting, and from pure invention. These artifacts and facts were somehow missed by the previous crowds of professional archaeologists who had been digging on that site for the last century. The Nazareth Village Resort lies on a 15-acre plot of land called the Nazareth Village Farm, the NVF. The scholars under discussion surveyed the farm, dug on it, and published a lengthy report in the 2007 issue of the BAIAS Journal. There is little difficulty to show that their evidence for a town there, 11 small pieces of pottery shards, actually dates as late as the second century CE, and Psalm's research shows that the rest of the material from the Nazareth site dates well after the time of Jesus Christ. There simply is no demonstrable evidence from the Nazareth site that dates to the time of Jesus Christ and to Hellenistic times. In fact, one awkward fact after the other stands in the way of such a claim. For example, the Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth, the largest Christian structure in the Middle East, is a primary destination of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Of course, it is there that the faithful believe Mary received the Annunciation from the Archangel Gabriel at her home, but the existence of a number of tombs directly under the structure firmly established by archaeologists is just impossible. As for the faithful, tombs have no place under such a structure. According to Jewish religious law, Jews cannot live in the vicinity of tombs, which are a prime source of ritual impurity, so the ancient commentary on Jewish law mandates that tombs must be located outside of the village proper. Thus, tombs under the house of Mary are denied by the tradition. These post-iron age tombs are also post-Jesus, middle Roman and later, and the wealth of pottery found in them is also later. Consider, continuing pilgrimage to Nazareth, which fortifies the convictions of the true believer while supporting the community financially, depends on the sanctity and the reputation of the site. As author Salm points out, perhaps the entire Jesus story depends on it too. He also tells us not to be too surprised if remarkable finds at Nazareth conveniently appear in the next few years, finds that substantiate a settlement there at the time of Christ. To fit the demands of the Christian tradition, the upcoming material will have to be early and non-funeral real. And just recently, as if Salm himself had prophetic powers, the NVF now reports that a cache of Hellenistic and early Roman coins has recently been found at Mary's well, at the northern end of the Nazareth Basin. But strangely, nothing even remotely similar had ever been found there before in the entire century of professional digging about. A cache of Hellenistic and early Roman coins, a bonanza for any archaeologist, is exactly the sort of evidence which the believers need in order to decide the matter in their favor. But the earliest coin found there dates to about 350 CE. In fact, a 2006 report from the Israeli Antiquities Authority, signed by the archaeologist who dug at the Mary's well site, mentions no early coins at all, when coins found in wells are very frequent discoveries. The only datable coins she found there were from the 14th and 15th centuries after Jesus. The facts are that no demonstrable evidence dating either to the time of Jesus or to earlier Hellenistic times has been found at Nazareth. It is a late Roman Byzantine village, not a mythical settlement at the turn of the era. His author, Psalm says, that question has already been answered and answered convincingly. Here we have a parallel with the situation re-evidence for the parapsychological miracles. For generations, the believers who support the Nazareth myth have been defending their case by demanding, prove me wrong. When empiricists come up with the required facts, they discover that the facts don't seem to matter to those people. They also know that there's no way to disprove the myth. Psalm notes, as I have, that no one can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, for example. We can go to the North Pole, we can dig up there all we want, and we can find absolutely no evidence for his gift manufacturing facility, nor for his team of flying reindeer. All the believer has to say, under those circumstances, is, well, you just didn't look in the right places, or he's hiding, or even he's invisible. Ooh. Measuring chimneys, tracing gifts back to the factories in China where they were made, and discovering that the serial numbers on watches were stamped there in a little Swiss town, those things proved nothing to the true believer. The mythology of Jesus is every bit as weird. Oh, one additional fact. There are the so-called venerated sites in which the various Franciscan pseudoarchaeologists have been digging for the last century or so. They were situated where they are to make them fit, as much as could be done, the requirements of the Gospel's description. For example, according to Luke 4, verses 16 to 30, quote, he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read. He spoke some controversial words, and all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereupon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong, end of quote. By the way, Jesus escaped by some sort of subterfuge, but we don't have to get into that. But let's examine these infallible facts, shall we? According to these holy words said to be written by St. Luke himself, there was a synagogue at Nazareth. But extensive archaeological excavation over a century, remember, has only found the city well, nothing else, not one stone of construction remaining from this temple, anywhere in the vicinity. Also there is no Nazareth hill, thus no brow of the hill, nor cliff exists, or existed within the last hundred thousand years. There is no such elevation, nor is there any reasonable place where such a cliff could have existed. The bare fact is that no evidence of buildings or cliffs of any kind dating to the turn of the era has ever been found at these venerated sites. The tourists are barking up the wrong tree. St. Luke, and thus the Inerran Bible, was plainly, demonstrably, dead wrong. Shall we also question the rest of the Holy Bible? Hmm, yes, I think so. We thank you for watching this latest episode of James Randy Speaks. For more of James Randy and the Educational Foundation, make sure you visit randy.org.


Study and dedicate all of your time, all of your time, mastering the craft of selling until you can be in the negotiation and see what will happen before it even happens. They ended. Yes. I do have a question. Do you have a good work track for someone? I guess it doesn't happen too often. I like to have an animal for everything. Spit it out sunshine. What do you want? Well, let me ask you.  Do you? Okay. Well, then you probably have a tough one with this, right? Because you don't understand why people need to pray. Okay. Well, I want to explain something to you. I need to pray about it is not an objection. Okay. It could be a stall, but it's not an objection. I am not a religious person, but I do have faith in God. I'm not a religious. I don't go around and talk to religious stuff everywhere. I go, I do believe, I believe in God with all my heart.  You know, I do believe that there is a bigger power and God has our back in our favor. So I'm going to explain something. When somebody says they need to pray, I understand that they're wanting comfort and peace. What does God give in order to understand why people pray? They don't pray for the right answer. They pray for peace. And if you were at peace, you would feel like you have the right answer. Am I right? Does that make sense, Steve? Yeah, it makes perfect sense. Okay. So when your customer says they need to pray about it, they're not at peace, Steve. If you would have done a better job closing, would they have ever said they needed to pray about it? Because they'd have been at more peace. Am I right? So really, it's not about what do I say when the objection comes up? It's how do I do my job better so that objection doesn't come up? But let's say you did and I did do my job. You see, Steve, I'm not a shy person anymore because I've learned that getting me shy gets me broke. Hey guys, sorry to interrupt the video right now is the time to take yourself to a whole new level. Listen, the market is going to demand you to get more skill right now than you've ever needed to have.  I would love to talk to you. Tell me what you need help with. Text me right now. If you see on the screen, my cell phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Let me say that again.<PHONE_NUMBER>. Shoot me a text message. Tell me what you need help with. I'll reach out and call you. Let's take you to the next level. Let's get back to the video. Also, I've learned this that I'm actually a genuinely good person. You know what that means? I'm not a fraud. I'm not fake. I don't have a problem saying, Hey, give me your hand. What do you mean? I'm going to ask you to give me your hand.  I believe also, I'm going to pray over the deal. And if it's meant to be, let's do it. Can I say a prayer for us? Can I? I mean, I'm asking you, whether you buy the car or not, would you be upset if I did pray with us? Would you? No? Cool. Then let's just pray. Let's not make any decisions till after the prayer. And I'm just going to say, Hey God, put them at peace, man. You know, I'm sure they prayed about coming here. I'm sure they prayed about the opportunity to get a car when it came. So now that it's here, I mean, did the prayer get answered? Maybe. I mean, I think it did. Yes, sir. What kind of prayer or like right off the top of your head, what kind of prayer would you get to that customer? Man, it depends on who they are. I mean, I believe in Jesus.  You know, like it might be different. So maybe say like a generic prayer, like just like, Hey God, give us peace.  You've gave us choices. You told us you were going to give us choices to make. And I truly believe that this truck that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson today is going to keep them safe. And I'd like to ask you to surround these beautiful people with your strongest angels, protect them. Thank you for keeping them at peace and for giving us opportunity to get to know each other. Look forward to a long relationship with them. That's awesome. That's it. I mean, just be real guys.  You guys will understand this. Closing isn't some deal that you just blurt out. It's not. It's learning how to say things to make your words flow like water being prepared. Why? Because people are around so many amateurs all the time that it's nice when you're comforted by a professional.  Somebody dies at a funeral. Okay? They could get a guy to speak at the funeral about the person that just died and like slaughter that funeral by doing a bad job and being like, hey, you know, this guy, you know, he was a good guy, right?  Like he was just a good man. It was just his time. Everybody's like, oh, and who is this guy? Or the guy gets up there and is like, man, you know, this guy, this guy made our life better when he was here. He's still with us, you know? And they do the funeral the right way. People are in certain places in life to help make things easier for other people. Okay? And I'm praying that you guys, funny, I said I'm praying, I'm praying that you guys would literally understand that your words, one word can make a woman fall in love with you. One word can make her fall out of love with you. One word. So we got to use our words wisely. And I'm not going back to the Bible, but I will tell you this. There's lots of things in the Bible that we're done that we're all selling. And it's funny that he said that, but I just want to say that, like, I truly believe that, you know, are your words pleasing to hear? Are they? Okay? I worked very hard in life to learn new skill, new word tracks, new ways to say things and to never sound like anybody else they've ever spoke to. That's my goal. My goal, I'm going to make you guys the best speakers in the entire world. I guarantee it, but I will tell you this. You will have to study this long after this meeting. This is a meeting to get you ready for the training that the real training starts when we're off to meet right down the word track, saying it over and over, memorizing it, and then literally you adopting it in the way that you speak and making sure that you can make it sound nice and smooth. I said become machine like in the ability to negotiate close transactions and you'll be forever well healthy. Hey, close transactions. There are those there's two types of people in this world. Those that close and those that don't. There is no middle ground. No middle ground.


Welcome back. Now that you're all so comfortable with graphs, we can move on into three dimensions. We'll skip two dimensions, go straight from one to three. So I'm going to talk about the doubled handle body model, which is, remind you, up is up here. This is one picture of it. This is another picture of it where you're supposed to think this is in the three sphere, and I've glued A to A bar, B to B bar, and C to C bar. So this is picture one. This is picture two. It's the same object. Oh, OK. They're different objects, A, B, C, A prime, B prime, C prime. This is A union A prime. Yeah, B union B prime, C union C prime. So this is kind of A, and this is kind of, that's the front of A, and that's the back of A. OK. I'll just call them A, B, and C. OK, so that's the model.  OK, so those are the automorphisms expressed in the generators. How do I model those in this picture? So let's do the sigma ij's first, sigma first. Well, it's pretty clear what you do. You just take a homeomorphism of this picture that permutes the A's, A's, B's, and C's. So if I put A over there, B over here, and C over here, you should be fairly easy to convince yourself that what you have is homeomorphic to what you started with, yeah? So there's a homeomorphism that does that, that sends this guy to this guy, this guy to that guy, and that guy to that guy. And similarly, flipping A to A inverse, let's put A over here, then it's really easy to think about that. So on the handle body picture, you just twist the handle body, twist both of them. Yeah, so that'll send the bottom to the top, twist both of them and glue by the identity, and that's a homeomorphism. And that sends A i choose a homeomorphism that permutes these spheres A sub i. Oh yeah, I guess in order to do that, I should explain how I'm identifying the fundamental group of my manifold with my generators. I've got, I'm going to pick a point that's not in one of the spheres and draw a loop. That's A, that's B, that's C. So those three loops, if I choose, if this is my base point, I should call it P maybe, those three loops generate the fundamental group of my handle body. So each of these spheres is dual to one of these loops. It, the loop punctures the sphere exactly once. So if I permute these spheres, it's going to permute A and B.  OK, is that clear? I can, those things are supposed to be obvious. One that's maybe not so obvious is these row ij's, but it's actually not that hard. Let me take, let me draw my handle body a little bit funny. Let me draw the ai sphere here, the aj sphere here. And then I have all these other spheres down here. And I've got generators ai and aj. OK, so in order to, I need a homeomorphism of this thing that's going to send the generator ai to the generator ai times aj. So I claim what I can do is take this sphere. I'm basically going to take the connect sum of these two spheres. So I'm going to draw a little tube between them. And after I straighten out this tube, it will look like this. So I'm going to draw a little tube between them. And then I'm going to mess around with that tube until it looks, till that. So that's, you know, if I take two spheres and I connect them by a tube, I still have a sphere. And then I'm going to push it out until it just intersects this half of my handle body in a disk. And I claim the disk will look like this. So this is a picture of ai connected sum with aj. So I've taken those two spheres, joined them by a tube, and then made it look pretty for you. OK. Now I want to take a homeomorphism that interchanges the a-j sphere with the, yeah, the a-j sphere with the, interchanges these two spheres. So maybe I'll draw this in pieces. Let me first cut this open. Let's solve this mess down here. OK. So now I've got, these are my, now I'm just going to switch these two spheres, switch these two spheres, do a little twist up here, do a little twist down here, switch these two, and switch these two. And so this one, ai, ai connected sum aj. We'll show up over here. And aj will show up over here. And ai hasn't moved. I'll glue it back the same way it was before. And I won't do anything at all to these. OK, so that's, that's a homeomorphism. Now I'm going to glue them back together. I just, I just do it apart because I thought it was easier to see what I was twisting after I glued it apart, but I didn't really have to glue it apart. I could just say, interchange these two spheres. But I guess I think it's sort of easier to see if I take it apart, then twist here and twist here and glue back together. Anyway, so now I have a picture that looks pretty much like it used to look, but these spheres have different names. This now is ai plus aj. This is aj, and this is ai. But let's look what happened to my generators. Of course, nothing happened to these guys, but what happened to this? What, this ai, it goes up to, at first it hits the ai sphere, then it hits the ai plus aj sphere, then it comes back to the base point. So over here, first it's going to go up to hit the ai sphere, then it'll hit the ai plus aj sphere, and then it'll come back to the base point. Similarly, this one, what did it do? The aj sphere went up and hit the ai plus aj sphere, then it hit the aj sphere, and then it came back to the base point. So first it hits the ai plus aj sphere, then it hits the aj sphere, then it comes back to the base point, okay? So can you see that? So this orange, when I did this, and did this twist, and then did this, this is what happened to the orange graph. So if I think of this as the same manifold as this, with those things switched, then what happened is the ai sphere got mapped to the, well, the ai plus aj sphere. And the ai loop used to be over here, it got sent over here in this manifold. So it used to be over here, now it goes like that. So it sent ai to ai plus aj. Aj, on the other hand, got sent to its inverse. Okay, so that's a homeomorphism of my original manifold. This is what it does to the fundamental group. It sends ai to ai aj, and aj to aj inverse. It's not quite rho ij, that's, if I compose this with iota j inverse, this goes to ai aj inverse, that goes to aj, and this is rho ij inverse. Okay, so if I'd done this slightly differently, I would have got rho ij instead of rho ij inverse, composed without iota j. But this is the basic move. You take a sphere ai, so that's the basic move, that's basically a diffeomorphism of the three manifold that realizes one of these rho ij's. And let me just point out what I did in this picture. I had, well, this was an ai. So I took these two spheres, ai and aj, and I took their connected sum. So I do a little tube, and I got this sphere. So in this picture, of course, the ai is glued to ai bar, aj is glued to aj bar. And what I'm doing is switching this sphere with that sphere. That performs that automorphism up there. So I take a homeomorphism of this manifold, I just got two spheres in the manifold, I'm performing it, taking a homeomorphism that switches the two spheres. And that's how I model the rho ij's. And I realize that this is hard to swallow if you haven't thought about it before, so I want you to think about it a little. So an exercise on the exercise sheet is to explain how you would get, that was a right transfection, rho ij, explain how to get lambda ij. What's different? What do you do different? Or to get rho ij instead of rho ij inverse. Okay, so after you've struggled with that for a while, you should be completely comfortable with these pictures. So, whoops, we used folds, excuse me. So we used folds to prove that these guys generate odd of fn. I should point out here that I'm being, I haven't, yeah. I guess I have been drawing a base point in my pictures, but I really don't think about these homeomorphisms as necessarily preserving base points. So I usually think about outer automorphisms instead of automorphisms. But maybe it's easier to see the automorphisms. So these generate odd of fn, so they also, so their images generate the outer automorphism group with just the quotient of odd of fn, modern inner automorphisms. So what these pictures prove is that the map from homeomorphisms, this is a homeomorphism that I've described over here. Pi not of homeomorphisms of mn to out of fn, is onto. So that's theorem. So you have to combine that with the fact, so we know all the generators of out of fn, and we can model each of them by a homeomorphism, so that means that map is actually surjective. So that's the beginning, so Whitehead knew this in the 1920s, 1930s. So Whitehead used this fact to study automorphisms of free groups. So, What do you mean? They're non-trivial automorphisms. So if a function has a, this is a non-trivial, oh they're not inner? These are not inner? Yeah, abelian eyes. Abelian eyes, what happens to an inner automorphism? It's the identity on homology. And when you abelian eyes, these guys are not the identity on homology, so they're not inner. Good question, thanks. Whitehead in 1930s used this picture to give an algorithm to decide whether a map phi is an automorphism. Now I'd like to point out that we already have an algorithm to decide whether a map is an automorphism. Namely, Staling's folding gives another one because if you take this map and that I described and try to start folding it, if that's an automorphism, that's a homotopy equivalence and every time you fold, you'll preserve the fundamental group and yeah, if you get stuck someplace you can't fold, then you don't have an automorphism. I don't wanna, actually I don't wanna, I don't wanna dwell on this because I really wanna concentrate on this. This is a, so Staling's folding gives another one and Staling's fold also tells you how to factor your automorphism into a product of rows, lambdas, sigmas and iotas. But this one is a different algorithm, very different and it's nice and easy to program on a computer for instance and gives you an easy test, immediate test to see whether something's an automorphism and the point is that if it's an automorphism, so if the ith generator goes to some word, w i, that's a, being an automorphism it's the same thing as saying these w's form a basis. So what Whitehead did is give an algorithm to decide whether a set of words is a basis or part of a basis. Okay, so the algorithm, yeah, so the algorithm is gonna tell us whether a set of words is a basis. So how does that work? So given, so the idea is that we've got this, let me back up a bit. We have an automorphism, we have a map from FN to FN, we wanna understand whether it's an automorphism. We know from what we proved over there that if I have an actual automorphism, I can model it by a homeomorphism. So if is an automorphism by a homeomorphism and I'm getting bollocksed up with automorphisms versus outer automorphisms again, I'm really talking about automorphisms. And if you notice my picture up there, I didn't move the base point. So actually I've proved that that map is onto. I can do all these things without moving the base point. That's what I've actually proved. So let's just talk about automorphisms for now. So if is an automorphism, model it by a homeomorphism, fixes the base point, okay? So here's my MN, I'm only drawing half of it and I got some homeomorphism. I wanna draw the picture I've been drawing up there, namely I'm gonna redraw exactly the same picture, I guess. I'm gonna choose N spheres and choose a dual basis. This picture is different because I'm calling them A1, A2, A3 instead of A, B and C. So good thing I do a different picture. Okay. Right. And the other picture for this, I'm also gonna draw, those are my spheres. Here's my base point, P and I've got a sphere, A1 goes in one side of A1 and out the other side. This is A1, A2 goes in one side of this and out the other side and A3 goes like this. There's one picture, there's another picture, okay? Okay, so now I'm gonna apply my homeomorphism and watch what happens to the orange graph. I'm not gonna, I'm gonna keep the A's the same place they were before. I have a homeomorphism from this manifold to this manifold. I'm not looking at the moment at what happens to the spheres, I'm looking at what happens to the orange graph. What happens to the orange graph, well, P goes to P, but it gets all messed up, it does stuff. I shouldn't make it too fancy.  This is a homeomorphism. It becomes some other graph, right? So now let me cut this open again and look at this picture. So P went to P and this orange graph here got messed up. It goes all over the place. Maybe it looks something like that. Whoops, actually I'm gonna prove that it can't look like that, but okay. So now, yeah, now squint, I can do this and make all those spheres become just dots and you get a graph. I'm not going to draw it accurately. This thing is called Whitehead's Star Graph. If you think about carefully what happened, you'll see that there is an edge from the sphere A i to the sphere A j, if and only if A i, A j inverse occurs in some W k. So you can check that if you want, but topologically the picture's clear. I have a manifold, I take a homeomorphism, I see what happens to the orange graph. Gets messed up, to the orange graph gets messed up and then I cut open along my canonical spheres and I get a new graph called the Star Graph and here's Whitehead's Lemma. If W1 up to Wn is a basis, then the Star Graph has a cut vertex, which is not the base point, okay?  I love this proof. Yeah, so that's what we're proving. Yeah, proof. Why is the code left like something that's standard basis? Where's the what? I'm gonna graph for this stuff. Star Graph has an outer vertex or is this. Thank you. If you got this graph, you're happy. You got the basis. Right. So why is this? What time am I supposed to stop? 11.30? Okay. Okay, so in that picture, all I drew was what happens to the orange graph. Well, something also happens to the spheres AI. Proof. Did I quit a name? I guess I called it fee, which I shouldn't have. Okay, this time it's gonna be more convenient to look at this picture. So under homeomorphism, a sphere is still a sphere. The image of a sphere is still a sphere. Make. And by general transversality theory, we can isotope these spheres to be transverse to the spheres AI. Okay, so now I have a sphere running through this picture. F of AI is some sphere. It's got a different color. And it's transverse to this picture. And I claim that that means that, yeah. So here's a piece of it. Maybe here's another piece, another piece, et cetera. I've got some surface here. It's a sphere cut into pieces by the circles of intersection. So here's my green sphere.  The white circles cut the green sphere into planar surfaces, right? But the green sphere is still a sphere. So I've drawn here, you know, the complementary components are the planar surfaces. Here I've drawn them as they would appear inside this three manifold. There, yeah. Here's a pair of pants here. Here's a pair of pants here, et cetera. But nevertheless, they are planar surfaces. And since this is a sphere, there have to be some disks. The innermost pieces are disks. So F of AI, a bunch, is a union of planar surfaces, including at least two disks. Take innermost things here, they're disks. Can't put anything inside a disk. So there's at least two disks. Here's one in this picture. And there has to be another one, which I haven't got yet in the picture, and maybe it's here. So that's what F of AI looks like in this picture. Now let's bring the orange graph back into play. When it started, A1 intersected A2 or A3. And it didn't intersect A2 or A3. So I'm going to continue over here. A1 intersects A1, not A2 or A3. So I'm supposing this is a picture of F of A1. Then F of little A1 was this guy. It intersects the green sphere in exactly one point. So it has to miss one of those disks, A1 in exactly one point. So F of A1 intersects F of A1, not F of A2. Or F of A3.  So let's just look at F of A1. I've got my graph, wherever it is, so this is F of A1 union F of A2, union F of A3, that's my graph in this picture. It intersects at most one of these disks. So this whole thing misses D1 or D2. Say it misses D2. So whatever my graph looks like, it doesn't intersect any of this green sphere. I have to be very careful how I draw it so I don't make it intersect the green sphere. Could intersect that disk in exactly one point, but there's no other points of intersection, right? I'm not using anything deep here. Okay? Yeah? Explain again what this D1 looks like. Are we saying that this third sphere is completely inside of this D1 in some sense? No, okay, so this is my, this is my sphere F of A1. I'm just looking at, I'm taking one of those spheres, my favorite sphere, say A1, and I'm looking at its image under this homeomorphism. So this is my sphere under this home and I made it transverse to those original spheres up there. So in particular, it intersects my original white spheres in circles. So now I've drawn these circles in this picture. Those are circles of intersection. In this picture, here's the circles of intersection. I haven't drawn enough of them, but they're there. Maybe I have drawn enough of them. I don't know. So this planar surface here, this is a surface of the green sphere. It's, this is a pair of pants, so it might be this pair of pants, for instance. But there's at least two discs in this picture. So I've drawn two of them. Here's one of them. Here's the other one. Now, so this is a picture of the green sphere sitting inside my manifold. And now I want to look at my star graph. The star graph is this.  All three of these things intersect F of A1 in exactly one point. So there's at least one of these discs, either this one or this one, that doesn't contain that point. And in this case, it's this one. Okay, so there's no point of intersection of my star graph with this disc. So I'm done. Because, so that, so if the boundary of this disc, what did I call it? D2 is contained in that, this is AI bar. Then AI bar is a cut vertex, right? So I have this disc. I have this star graph. This disc may have other things in here. I have this star graph. Some of the star graph is outside this disc. Some is inside the disc. I don't know where the disc is. The disc might go up here. Some of it's outside, some of it's inside. This, this vertex cuts the graph into two pieces. So it's a cut vertex for the graph. Is that clear? Is that, does that, have I answered your question or not? Okay. How do you know the stuff that's stuck inside? How do I know there's stuff, because there are vertices inside, because there are spheres inside. And if I missed a vertex altogether, I wouldn't have an automorphism. That would mean I had a set of words that didn't use a certain letter. So that's not gonna be an automorphism. But good, good question. I remember you from classes. I was asking these good obvious questions here. Okay, then AI is a cut vertex. So that's the end of the proof. So the reason I said, pointed this out, this is just keeping track of what I did. Point is, if I have a set of words, it's, this is just thinking about what I did. This makes it easy to draw the star graph without drawing three manifold pictures. The three manifold picture gives you this really cute proof that there's a cut vertex.  So, so how do we turn this into an algorithm? Yeah, so how do we turn this into an algorithm to decide whether something's a basis? Well, first you take a set of words, to draw the star graph is if there's no cut vertex, then you don't have a basis, that's easy.  So let me tell you how to do the rest of the algorithm. And you get to do this in your exercises. So the algorithm, draw the star graph, no cut vertex, then the base point, then it's not a basis. What if there is a cut vertex? So here's the cut vertex. This one's a cut vertex. Cut vertex is my, I erased the wrong picture. So if this, remember these points or dots are really spheres, supposing there's a cut vertex. Then I can draw a sphere that separates, draw a sphere that separates, oops, I forgot to draw the base point, oh well. Cut vertex A that separates A from its opposite number up here. Now I actually have two choices here. I could have drawn this one or I could have drawn this one. I think I wanna use one that contains the base point, but I can't remember. If I'm thinking about outer automorphisms, I don't need a base point, and that's what I usually think about. But yeah, draw a sphere that separates A from A bar, S. And now I'm gonna do, so this is like the picture I had where I wanted to model the rho ij. I had an ai and an aj, and then I took a sphere that had, that separated ai from ai inverse, ai from its opposite sphere. And then what did I do? I exchanged those two spheres. So take a homeomorphism, exchanging a with S. Okay, so then I'll get a new star graph. So this one maybe I will try to do a little bit carefully. So I'm gonna replace A by S. Everything else remains the same. So look what the orange graph does. The fact that this is a cut vertex means that there are some edges inside, according to Joe, and there are some edges outside. But the sphere S intersects the orange star graph in fewer points than the sphere A did. So A intersects the star graph in all of these points. S misses that point, star graph, the star graph. Intersecting S in fewer points well the star graph intersects S in fewer points than A. It's the same star graph, the star graph. Star graph intersects S in fewer points than A.  I don't know, these guys have the same valence. S now has valence one, two, three, four. Where A had valence one, two, three, four, five. I won't connect the dots. But that's what this new star graph looks like. And... Can you actually connect the dots? I don't really understand the process. Yeah, well, if you have a segment of your star graph going from A to B, you still have A and B over here, it still goes from A to B. If you have a segment of your star graph that went from B to A through S, then now it goes from B to S and out S on the other side. And yeah, so it goes, yeah. If you used to go from B to A, it now goes from B to S and out the other side. And yeah. And this guy... Yeah, what happens to this guy? You can draw a new star graph if you carefully look at what your old star graph did. So the intersections with these spheres haven't... So all these changes, you've switched one of the spheres with another one of the spheres. And yeah, it's still the image of a bunch of loops. It still intersects these spheres and a bunch of points, and you connect them when they connect to spheres. I claim it's the same picture. And I'm sorry, I can't... I've been talking for two hours. I can't be expected to do things like that at the end of two hours. Sorry. Yeah, I'm not sure if you said this, but do you need to specify that your sphere is separated from the components of the component? I wanted a sphere that separates A from A bar. So that guarantees that it's a non-separating sphere with people in this room who know too much. It seems to me you could draw other spheres on that graph that are separated A from A bar, but also what you want. But also don't do what I want? Yeah, no. I want to separate... There are lots of spheres that separate A from A bar. The important feature of this sphere is that since it goes around the cut vertex, it misses some of the edges coming out. So that means that it intersects the star graph, this image in fewer points than the valence of this vertex. So I claim that that means that a new star graph using this sphere instead of this sphere will have smaller valence at S than we had here. So the valence of all the other vertices will be the same, and the valence at S will be smaller. Is that okay? So I can't... I don't want to... The reason I needed a cut vertex was to get a sphere that intersected the graph in fewer points than the valence of A. You say it would. What happens to that? Right, most... Yeah. One that's inside of S, it doesn't intersect S at all. It will definitely be somewhere in the new star graph, right? I've done a... I have to see what... So in order to answer your question properly, I would have to actually think about what this homeomorphism does to this star graph. And I don't think I'm up to that at the moment. But you agree that... I mean, I had this picture. That's how I got the star graph, as I applied that homeomorphism. Now I'm looking at some different spheres up there that still cut that thing into a ball. And I'm looking what happens under that homeomorphism to that graph. And I get a graph that cuts. So I get a new star graph. So topologically, it makes sense. Combinatorially, it gets confusing. And yeah, I don't think I can do that in front of all these people. Okay. Does everybody agree that the picture is... All I've done is exchanged one of those spheres for a different sphere. A different, non-separating sphere. And so there's still... The complement is still a ball. I still have a star graph. It's just a different star graph. And it intersects my sphere in fewer points. Because, yeah. This is still the image of that rose under the homeomorphism. It just... And it intersects the sphere in fewer points than the old guys did. Right. So the claim is the star graph intersects in fewer points. So if it's... If the new star graph doesn't have a cut vertex, then stop. Otherwise, repeat. Until you get this guy.  So the homeomorphism, of course, induces an automorphism of the free group. And so your basis will be transformed under this automorphism to a different basis. And what you're doing is transforming this basis over and over again until you get the standard basis by doing these things. So the induced automorphism that switches A and S is called a whitehead automorphism. So for obvious reasons. Stop means it's not a basis. If you ever get a set of words that doesn't form a basis. So you take a set of words, you transform it by an automorphism if it has a cut vertex. So notice that this lemma only goes one way. If it's an automorphism, if it's a basis, then there's a cut vertex. That's not an if and only if. You can have things that aren't a basis whose star graph also gives you cut vertices. So you might have one of those by accident, but then if you transform them by enough of this type of automorphism, you'll eventually get something that doesn't have a cut vertex. Right. I think I'm going to stop there. What I should do now is do some simple examples. That's what exercises are for. Sorry for that.


Alright guys, it's 3am and I've been working on my normal American Horror Story episode review and theories video, but I wanted to add a third part to that title and do a recap of all of the major events of the episode. So I wrote it all out and recorded it and realized it would take me all night and all day to edit this in a timely manner. So I've decided to split it into two videos. So this video is the recap of the major events that happened in the episode and later tonight or tomorrow I will be uploading the review and theories for episode 1 of season 9. So make sure you're subscribed for that and yeah, don't worry, the normal thing is coming but this is just a little different but anyway, here we go. The season kicks off with possibly the deadliest first 3 minutes of any American Horror Story season. The year is 1970 and 3 happy campers are about to hook up, but one of them keeps hearing a jingling noise. Next, she begins to remove her sweater but while the sweater covers her eyes, turns out her pals got a knife through their kiss. These first 2 deaths are very Friday the 13th inspired but done in a way that the 13th series did not do. It's a great shot that winks to the campy, gory and creative kills of 80 slasher while also seeming just as fresh as the very scenes that inspired it. Anyway, 9 people were killed here but more on that later. Next it's 1984 and after the synth remix of a normal American Horror Story title sequence, we meet Xavier, Montana, Ray, Chet, and Brooke who all coordinate an entire plan to all drop everything and go be counselors at a camp that they've never even heard of. Well, all except for Brooke who would rather not abandon every responsibility she has in order to go on a retreat with her aerobics classmates who barely know each other. After making a great decision, Brooke goes home and gets attacked by the Night Stalker or real life serial killer Richard Ramirez. He tells her that, although he missed many chances to kill her that night, he plans on sealing the deal on another day. By the way, Brooke did manage to do a number on the Night Stalker with a frying pan. So with a serial killer on her tail, Brooke decides to hide out with the aerobics gang alone in the woods for a few weeks. They stop for gas and the attendant, Ed, does a great impression of the crazy guy from Friday the 13th.  Then I know what you did last summer happens as they hit a hiker with their super cool van. The aerobics besties get to camp and meet Margaret, Rita, and Birdie. Rita, the camp nurse, fixes the hiker who nobody admits that they hit with their car. Also around here, there's a reference to a Hawthorne Hospital which might be a shout out to the Hawthorne School from Apocalypse, but anyway, also Margaret talks a lot about Charles Keating, which may be referring to the real life anti-porn activist, but whatever, I'm very tired and I did very small research on that man and I'm not sure if it's going to be important, so anyway. Next they all gather around the campfire and instead of singing their campfire song, Rita decides to tell them all about the murders from 1970, also known as the opening scene of this episode. She tells them about Mr. Jingles, also known as Benjamin Richter, who learned to kill in the war and loved it so much that he wanted to kill again. Margaret decides to show the rest of the gang her lack of an ear while correcting Rita about the body count of the murders. Turns out Margaret was a victim of the 1970 camp Redwood murders, however, her story about bubbles and Jesus is suspicious to say the least. It's 2am and I'm going to pick up the pace for the benefit of my sanity. Uh oh, Michael Myers, I mean Mr. Jingles escaped from the asylum. Some detectives find a newspaper that suggests that Mr. Jingles is now after Margaret. On his way to camp Redwood, Mr. Jingles stops at the gas station just like our aerobics pals, but Mr. Jingles isn't here for gas, he's here for murder. Now Mr. Jingles is at camp Redwood and he kills the hiker, and once again, Brooke evades murder. She tells the gang that the crazy ear guy is here, but after not finding the hiker's body, they all decide that Brooke is just insane. Next, the payphone rings, which is weird because we've already established that the phone lines were down. Eager to be murdered, Brooke investigates alone in the middle of the night. She discovers that nobody is on the line except maybe some jingling keys and grunting. But then, Richard Ramirez walks out of the woods, because maybe Brooke really is crazy. The episode ends with the word Satan whispered three times. Alright, so that is my recap of the events of season 9 episode 1. Let me know if you liked this, or if I should never do anything remotely similar to this ever again.  That'll be coming out sometime within the next 24 hours. Be sure to follow me on social media and subscribe, I'm very tired.


Hey, what's up YouTube? It's your boy Zeta CryptoMiner and today I'm going to be bringing you the top five high dividend stocks for 2019 so let's get to it All right, so we're back. So like I said, we're gonna go over the top five high dividend stocks for 2019 Now some of the requirements that I chose I looked over 30 different high dividend stocks And some of the requirements that I chose is that the stock has to have over a six percent dividend yield The market cap have to be over one billion dollars and Also the positive total returns of the last couple of years has to be cash cash flow positive But before I get into that Let me actually tell you about some risk factors that you guys have to look at and why I did not choose the other 30 high dividend stocks and what I and why I did choose these top five high dividend stocks I'm going to share with you. All right So some of the risk factors that you guys want to look into when you're looking at high dividend stocks It's actually the payout ratio. Okay, if the dividends are paying out too much I mean a company does not have enough money to reinvest back into the company where actually end up getting out perform by its own Competitors now if the dividend is actually paying too little then it's not a high dividend stock. All right All right, so some high dividend parent companies are usually utility companies and REITs real estate investment trust companies and Those type of companies usually pay out more than blue chip style companies like in technology companies like AMD and Nvidia now what's important to think about in REITs is that they usually pay out all of their profits back to this Investors and in fact, they actually get a tax cut on When they pay out all of their profits back to their investors, so that's why real estate investment companies Their payout ratio for dividends are usually higher than all the other stocks Another risk factor to look at is the stock price of company You actually want to look at the long trend of the company Did the company tank in the last couple years and rise its dividends just because the company tank making a payout ratio really? Not that good So you guys actually have to pay attention to the long-term trend of that stock company has it been growing over the last couple years I did a tank a couple years back and just increases dividend payout So don't just jump on any high dividend stock. Okay. All right So like I said, we're gonna get right into the top five companies once again The requirements for this company is to have over a six percent dividend yield the market cap of that company Have to be over one billion dollars and the total cash flow has to be positive over the last couple years for that One company. All right, so the first company that we're going to look at is the first company is CEQP Crestwood equity. All right, this company has a market cap of 2.62 billion dollars for the dividend yield 8.6 percent Crestwood equity is a company dealing with oil and gas to have pipelines and they rent out their pipelines to different companies to ship their oil and gas all across the country over the last year the profits is up over 14.81 percent four dollars on the year right now you could get Crestwood equity for 36 dollars and 51 cents All right. The second one is Camara investment. It is actually a REIT a real estate type of company These guys is the oldest and most dependable REIT out there Okay, this is one of the guys has been around for a very long time that actually went through the 2008 Real estate Crisis and they survived this so management at that company actually know how to survive through a a real estate crisis Right now in their market cap is at 3.5 billion The dividend yield since over 10% is at 11.22 percent yield for the year and actually CIM Camara investments is up 1.7 percent over the last year over the last five years It's actually up 23.47 percent So Camara investments you could get right now for 18 dollars and 81 cents This company has been around through the recession through the houses crisis So it know it's going to be around forever And it's one of the most dependable high dividend REITs out there once again. That's CIM Camara investment So the third one is Alliance bursting Right now on the year. They're actually up 5.21 percent Their market cap is 2.83 billion dollars and this is actually another double-digit dividend stock Okay, there's this over 10.54 percent on the year and if we scroll up and look at the five-year mark AB is actually up 18.64 percent. So AB is gonna is another great double-digit dividend stock to invest in that actually be Expectations every single year and is able to pay out its ratios to an investor's for a great dividend yield The next one is New York mortgage trust. It's a mortgage type of company They buy and they buy depths of different mortgages and they sell them over the last year NYMT is up 1.65 percent the market cap is 1.15 billion and this is one of the highest dividend yields I'm going to be showing you guys today at thirteen point five eight percent That's New York management trust and this company buys and sells different mortgages buys the depths and fluke them So this is the highest dividend yield. I'm going to be showing you guys today 13.58% New York mortgage trust Before I show you guys the last stock today I want you to go down and hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel hit the notification Bell so you can be tuned to whenever I upload a new video to YouTube and leave a comment down in sections if you And leave a comment down in this comment section If you guys plan on buying any of these stocks are already have them in your portfolio and tell me how have they been Been performing. All right, and the last one. I'm gonna bring you guys is Sonico It's actually up on the year twenty nine point four percent It has a market cap of two point six four billion dollars in a dividend year of twelve point one four percent So another double-digit dividend stock Sonico actually Owns fuel stations and they lease and rent out their fuel stations to different oil your companies and sell them that way So Sonico is another energy type of high dividend your stock that has a market cap over two point six four billion dollars in a Dividend year of twelve point one four percent Hey, YouTube. I just bought you five high dividend stocks for 2019 the top five that I'd seen out of the 30 that I had did research on so go ahead hit thumbs up for that Did a little bit of different approach for this video went outside for that. It was hot. I'm in Texas It's actually human so go ahead. I deserve a subscribe for that So go on down and scroll down just a little bit hit that subscribe button Also, the app I was using was Robin Hood. It's a free commission app All you have to do is sign up with the link down in the description If you sign up you get a free stock and I get a free stock and just go down to the comment section So let me know what free stocks that you receive Here people receiving stocks all the $200 stocks like Apple and one time I received the Groupon stocks was like $2 So go ahead and sign up for the Robin Hood app down below the link is in the description But yeah other than that You should boys eat the crypto money and I'm out


BSU Volleyball hosting Southwest Minnesota State. They just lost the first two sets looking to extend the match down 18-17. The set to Julie Touche up the middle. She gets it down from the point to tie it up.  BSU frantically diving to keep the point alive. But the free ball means easy pickings. Mustangs get the point and win the match in three sets. BSU Volleyball in PBS.