Thanks, so I mean I'll start with two post-cryptome to yesterday's talk and so the first one is post-cryptome to to Sasha Kuznetsov's talk on introduction to derived categories so namely I want to say a few words on the octahedral axiom Which is sort of not so I mean most of the time when you work with derived categories is not so important But when you do deal with T structures, it's really crucial And I mean any of the acts I don't think you'll be able to do any of the exercises I'll mention today without the other octahedral axiom and so I might have this reputation as being something fairly complicated, which is partly due to Due to the name octahedral axiom, which makes it really hard to draw because really it Answers a very simple question. So if you have the composition of two morphisms in your trial Angulated category, then what can you say about the corresponding cones and The statement is just that these cones live into an exact in an exact triangle There is an exact triangle like this and and and I mean then there are many situations where you've already seen this say These are morphisms and I'm dealing category that the inclusions then you just get one of the isomorphism films and they The second post-cryptome is to to my own talk Right, so say you have this quiver with Two vertices and some arrows Going like this and maybe let me start to introduce this notation that Right as one is the simple representation concentrated at the first vertex and As two It's a simple representation corresponding at the second vertex and right so my my stability condition Dependent on the choice of two complex numbers in the upper half plane. And so what happens if I if I Degenerate this so that Z2 is now some suddenly in the positive real line, which is not allowed Right and now I mean now this object as to satisfy said no longer satisfies this property Right as Z of S2 is suddenly not in age Right so what and so to complete this deformation property. What can we do? Well, the idea is now go to the derived category. Namely if you look at S2 shifted by one Right, which is just Means you take the complex that the zero everywhere except it has S2 in degree zero Here this is degree minus one then Z of this one Is minus C2 so this is an H right and some are you want and so the answers you try to form and Right so they try to form an abelian category containing As two shifted by one, but also lots of parts still coming from a Okay, so and so this is a little bit their motivation for a Lot of the construction in my in my talk today Why so I mean even in this quiver case where we already saw that we had strong deformation properties Of the stability condition to get an even stronger better Defamation behavior we need to go to the derived category Okay, and so really before I want to go Really go to the derived category I Want to define make one more definition purely within abelian categories and Because there are many of the definition in the triangulated category will be analog to that one and this is also something we've already In a way already seen so Given this Abelian category a pair of subcategories My subcategory always mean a full subcategory But this is called a torsion pair if it satisfies the following two conditions, so I'll write I'll start using distorted notation as I write form of from T comma F equal to zero Which means take any object in T any object in F, and there are no morphisms from T to F They have from from the former object to the second object right and any E in a fits into a Short exact sequence zero goes to T of E goes to E goes to F of E Goes to zero with T of E in T and F of E in F And I mean this should this should look quite similar to you because it's really a bit like a Notion of slopes ability with just two slopes Right where T are the same as tables of big slope and F the same as tables of small slopes you never have morphisms from stem of tables of big slope to small slope and this is a more than the Analog version of the hard on a simon filtration and So what are examples I mean So where the name comes from is when you take a the category of Korean chiefs modules over a ring and T are the torsion chiefs Every section is annihilated By some element in the structure ring and effort or some free chiefs And so I mean this is this property basically holds by definition Torsion free chiefs are those that don't have torsion subsets And this one fall follows because every chief has a maximum torsion subsets And the quotient is torsion free and of course there are I mean there are many variants of this one Right, I could say say X is a surface and I could say T are all the torsion chiefs supported in dimension zero And then F are all those chiefs that don't have a sub chief supported in dimension zero Or I could look at torsion chiefs supported in a given subscheme any any any games like that So there are many variants of that. Yeah, so it's it's autumn So it follows from this property that this decomposition is automatically unique and functorial And they are there there adjoins to the inclusion function and Have you give another example take? M Q reps and then T Call M representations supported at a fixed vertex I why it's so I mean I'll Typically when the quiver has no loop. This is just the extension closure of the simple vertex that Vertex I and then what is F these are all the river representation so that if I take The intersection of all the kernels of maps from I To J and I mean I should now I should really apologize to the notation because the end is notation I'm taking the intersection over all arrows starting from I so I is fixed and This part varies right and so I'm looking at representations where in a sense everything going did the representation is injective starting from This vector space behind right so here This is these are all in VI and if I take the intersection then I'm Presumed to get the zero six right and and similarly I could take a equal Q rep It could take F equal This part and then T the corresponding T is an exercise to that but then an additional example comes from slope stability right so assume we have assume B is a central charge on a with the hardware resume and property and now I take a cutoff phase in zero and one Then I let P to be Let me write this as a Greater than five Why these are all E in a so that all hardware cement filtration factors have face bigger than five I could write it as all the I Mean See my stables of face bigger than fine then taking the extension closure. I could also say that all the In a all quotients e on to be Have face greater than five right, so basically remember my picture was this I have some of the filtration of my category Into all these pieces of same are stables and now what I'm doing is I'm intentionally making this filtration much closer, right? I'm Just putting this part over here is a bigger than five It was corresponding to my choice of five and then correspondingly F is a Lesson a equal to five so the All hn factors have face less than or equal to five and then here I also have a cross line characterization like that By a sub-optics and then the claim is that this is a torsion pair, right? And I won't I won't prove this statement here, but It's not it's not difficult to prove when the key ingredient is of course the hard on them and filtration the hard on them and filtration and a home vanishing between I'm stable say my stable sheets between same I stable objects Right, so for example, how do you get the short exact sequence? Well T of e will but it will how do you get T of e well? You just look at the hard on them and filtration It will start with objects of big slope and at some point the face will stop being from Change from being bigger than five and less than equal to five and the corresponding filtration step there will be your T of e Okay, any Any questions of yeah, and then the strict inequality of the other yeah I have to take strict on one side and non strict on the other okay, so And our T structure are basically an analog of that for trying the later categories definition a T structure on a trying the later category D is a pair and the greater equal to zero and D less than or equal to zero of subcategories such that if I said the greater equal than one to be The greater equal to zero shifted by minus one then this is contained in the Greater equal to zero I also know that there is a There's always this sign shift here Just because if you shift the complex by a positive amount then it it means shifting the objects into negative degrees then there is harm from the less than or equal to zero to the Greater equal to one is equal to zero and any e fits into an Exact triangle less than they equal to zero goes to e goes to e Greater equal to one goes to e right where this of course is in here and this is in here right and the main example of course is when D is TV of a or The unbounded derived category in a or bonded on one side or the other and You said right the greater equal to zero are all those these So that h i of e is here for i less than zero On other words the homology is only known zero when I is greater equal than zero Right and so maybe Right and and and Sasha yesterday explained how to get these truncation functors and Maybe just one more comment right so if you have an Where does this how many things come from this is actually not quite as obvious as I may it may look like at first right, so if you have here something in D Less than or equal to zero then this is a context that you can basically to be assumed to be zero in positive degrees and The greater equal to one The context that you can assume to be zero in negative and zero degrees So why is there no morphism like that? Well, I mean how do you compute morphisms for example you can take an injective resolution of this one and This will still just be computed and this will still just be a complex in positive degrees And then the homomorphisms in the derived category are just morphism of complex Right or similarly you can take a project of resolution of that one And then this will still just be a complex concentrated in non non positive degrees right, I mean It is always possible if you were to do this the other way around Then in the derived category you can have morphisms like this that induce the zero morphism in homology right, this is exactly an M and Morphism from here to here would exactly be an x2 between these two two objects and why is that I mean compute an injective resolution Applying the harm. That's exactly the same as computing okay, and the The picture I like to draw is something like this. So you have the Less than or equal to zero looks like this The greater equal to one looks like this and then if you shift it by one If you undo the shift and Here I'm in my picture the shift by one is Just shifting everything to the left and so D The greater equal to zero would look something like this And so there is an intersection between the greater equal to zero and the less than or equal to zero so this is what's called the Heart of the t structure right and there It's for definition a The intersection of the greater equal to zero with the less than or equal to zero Is the heart of the t structure and the key thing is that this is automatically in a billing category I mean what is the exact structure and a short exact sequence and a is just a sequence of trying is it's just an exact Triangle in D where all the three objects happen to be in the heart and the extreme cases are Either that a is just zero But then that's called the semi orthogonal decomposition in this case the less than or equal to zero and the greater equal to zero are both Triangulated subcaterpies because they're closed on the shift and extensions and the other extreme case is that By the union right so that the this is the case We are basically the strip here in the middle as empty in the other extreme cases They're both the top part and the bottom part here is empty right so that the union of the Quater equal to minus and intersect the less than or equal to n that this gives you everything and That's called a bound the t structure and I mean Tom some bridge some favorite picture for this is always just Now the the category is just a strip and It's filtered by the shifts of your heart and some of the key lemma Is that a boundary t structures the equivalent is always determined by its heart right so it's equivalent to giving a full subcategory a of D with the following properties so one and if you have home from a Shifted by n to a shifted by m Then this is zero for n is bigger than m Right, so there are no negative x. This is again that this this picture that I drew here if you shift the left hand more down than the right one, then there are no more fisms and Right that corresponds to To this property here and so what corresponds to this property here is that every Right so for every object in my triangle at the category This has a filtration into homology sheets into homology objects of more precisely for each E and D there is a sequence of triangles the starting with zero E1 so there's a sequence of maps like this up to em equal e and So such that the following holds right so for each of these maps I can complete this to a triangle And so maybe let's call this a one Just a two so that a I that they are just in the Shifted out for some k i's And k one is bigger than a Two is bigger than and so on up to k m right and so in this in the standard example but these these a i's are just the and homology objects and Again, I have to do the sign shift h minus k i Of e right and and otherwise we just define these to be the homology objects with respect to our t structure, and I mean this Which I said I won't prove for you the equivalence, but again, it's it's not too hard using the using the octahedral axiom right, but I Mean maybe maybe two more comments on this filtration So on the one hand right even in the standard t structure thinking a lot of this filtration is often quite useful so for example, I mean basically almost Every time you see a spectral sequence argument If it's a simple argument and it cannot basically almost always be replaced by an argument using this using this filtration and The other comment I want to make is that this should now look really similar to the existence of other now salmon filtrations right, there are no Homes from object of bigger face to smaller face and This looks a little bit like the existence of our salmon filtration Right today is a sequence of maps like this so that when you compete when you complete each morphism To a triangle, right? This is the cone of this map here Then a this has to be in the shift in the shift of a and B The shifts have to be decreasing. Yeah, so here this is a triangle. This is a triangle Yeah, so this is a distorted error is a map from a 2 to e1 shifter by one not necessary. I can Yeah, yeah, so so if it has these two properties, then it's automatically abelian and the heart of about the t-struct I didn't so let me just Yes, so so so right if you if you take the bounded derived category of a and you take the standard t structure Then the heart is deep back you get back the original category and I mean How to go you from one way to the other given your your your t-structure you get a is the intersection Wait how to go from a to And your to your t-structure so here for d less than or equal to zero you have to take the extension closer of a a shifter by one a Shifter by two and so And similar here right so so just as this picture here suggests so maybe let me draw this over here. So this would be the less than or equal to zero and This here would be D greater equal to zero Okay, I mean so far So where did the right category of a's equivalent to which one so that's in general not true and there So so so there is a function somewhere if you work with DG categories or something like that Otherwise, it's a bit of a mess to construct a function, but the I mean But there's a more essential obstruction to write for the sort of question as whether DB of a Is isomorphic to D and some of the bigger obstruction is that? in here any xn right so if you have E and F in a Then any morphism to Right so harms like this. This is xn From e to F then in a billing category xn can always be written as a composition of x1 I say an x2 corresponds to a four-term short xx sequence and the corresponding short term Short xx sequences give you two x1's and this may not be true over here Right so this this xn must be x1 generated and then if that's true then basically under reasonable assumption This is an equivalent. Okay, so that Okay, so how to how to construct t structures? Well some of the main tool for constructing t structures on Divide categories of coherent chiefs as the following proposition, right? So let MT comma F Be a torsion pair in an abelian category then the following defines a Defines a t structure. So the I'm sharp greater equal to zero These are all the ease such that H i of e is equal to zero for I less than minus one and H minus one of e is in F D sharp. I guess I shouldn't write here because Some people can't see the sharp less than or equal to zero These are all the ease such that H i of e is equal to zero for I bigger than zero and H zero of e is in T It's a for completeness the corresponding hard the intersection of these two These are all the ease such that H zero of e is in T It's minus one of e is in F and H i of e is equal to zero otherwise, right? And so You can really think of this as The category of two-term complexes But any such ease isomorphic to a two-term complex Where the kernel of these in F and the co-kernel of these in T All right, so the description of objects is really concrete Just know that the the description of morphism is a little bit more is a little bit more subtle, right? Because you're really looking at morphisms in the derived category, not just morphism between ordinary morphisms between complexes right and what is the Let me also draw a picture for that one right so we have here the picture of our Original T structure where here we have a a shifted by one a shifted by minus one and Right, so this is some of filtration of the of the derived category You know, we also have the filtration of a into just two pieces. So we're T are those we think of those as objects with bigger face and F Similarly here we have T shifted by one and F shifted by one Right, and so my new heart is I'm out here This is my a show the extension closure of T and F shifted by one. Okay, any any any questions on this right and and I mean I should say that This works similarly, right, so I stated this Inside the bounded derived category Right, so here I stated this as a T structure in Db of a but this works similarly just Assuming that that a is the heart of a bounded T structure in D And I'm sorry here. I also wanted to insist that this this gives me a bounded T structure And let me let me leave the proof as an exercise, right? And so basically here. I'm taking this heart and I'm I'm I'm tilting it although Unfortunately would be a lie to claim that the name tilting comes from this picture over here Right and so in particular this this lets you give I mean each of the example of torsion pairs now Let's you construct a new case of a bounded T structure on and trying to let a category But also you can iterate this construction right by using this remark You start with a bounded derived category of a you tilt it you get a new heart If you find a new torsion pair in this new abealing category then you can keep going Okay, and so now I mean a Stability condition basically just puts these two notions together the notion of a Heart of a bounded T structure And the notion of Lobe stability in this abealing category a Free stability condition on a Triangulated category D is a pair sigma equal Z comma a ins D is the heart of a bounded T structure and The is a morphism from the Group homomorphism from the K group of a which is the same as the K group of D to see Group homomorphism that satisfies these two properties that I discussed last time So that yesterday so that if I have a non zero object then Z of E is in this See my closed upper half plane and Secondly that Z has the hard on a simon property So every object has a hard on a simon filtration with respect to Z and the way you should Think of this is that right? So I have my filtration of my derived category given my I'm a bounded T structure and now each of these pieces is filtered even more finally using slope stability Using slope stability for for this For this abealing category right of course I can shift is to get the similar filtration of a shifted by one And I somehow all these is hold together via the central charge that somehow organizes the These phases to lie in the complex plane and some of that's what the the second definition makes explicit a Pre-stability condition is a pair sigma equal Z comma P There now P is this fine slicing that I tried to sketch away there. Yes right so there It's a P of phi D is a full subcategory for all I in our with the following properties so that I have phi plus one is just a shift of P of phi. There are no more reasons from Same way going from P of phi one to B of phi two if phi one is bigger than phi two Right, and so these will be called the same. I stable They must table objects Objects of phase five, but this is the harm-managing that we saw before then for all Again, there's a filtration. There is a sequence of maps a sequence of Triangles right so there's a sequence of maps like this so that if I complete each map to a triangle by forming the cone then these cones are semi stable of decreasing phases and right so far these are These are all just conditions on P And then again Z is a map from the K group of D to see a Group homomorphism and the only thing that holds these together is that If I have a same as table object Then the central charge of that object is in the ray Corresponding to the phase five right so basically these What I what I sketch here as vertical strips these become these rays in the complex plane in the in the C stability picture why that the proposition is that Definition one and two are Equivalent and I won't prove this but let me just say how to go from one to the other Why it's so if I'm given this this construction that we've already Mean of this construction of course we implicitly have already seen examples of by my lecture yesterday well for this you said for Phi Phi in zero one You said P of Phi to be the C same as stable objects of a and phase five and P of Phi plus n is then forced to be P of Phi Shifted by n Or n in Z right so this defines P of Phi for all real numbers and Conversely how to go from two to one Now you have this fine filtration and somehow how do you get a value make this filtration Corsa? right, so you said a to be I'm So let me use this notation P of this interval from zero to one right so what I mean by this I take all the P of Phi's so that Phi is in Zero one and then I take the extension closer, so I think if Or equivalently I take all the ease so that all the Transiment filtration factor right by which I mean these objects AI all HN factors Have phase in in zero comma one in this semi-close interval Okay, and again if you if you actually want to prove that these two did Notions are equivalent you need to you need to play with the octahedral example right you take so for example I mean let's say you want to go from one to two you have this cause filtration into Chromology Objects and for each Chromology objects you have to how do I say one filtration and then you have to piece these together to a final filtration of all of E and For that you need the the octahedral axle Any any questions? And actually let me point out one more thing that right if you now let What is the corresponding D less than or equal to zero? this is actually P of Zero to plus infinity So there's and D Greater equal to zero this becomes P from minus infinity to one And where these notations are both interpreted in in the sense over here. It's again There's this vivid and unfortunate, but really unavoidable clash of notation that here We look at the lesson equal to zero and really this looks like P of greater than zero But that's just because when people invented T structures and when people invented slope stability they used Opposite science for anonymous behavior questions Okay, and I mean why do we why do we why do I insist on giving both definitions? There's some I mean this definition is the easier one to use if you actually want to construct them right in fact That's how I actually already have constructed stability condition if you if you go from the two constructions of slope stability yesterday But somehow I mean this is better at exhibiting the symmetry right so for example if you If you rotate the center charts a little bit then this corresponds to adding something to all the phases and so there you get an action by the rotation group of See Or rather the universal cover and that's harder to see over here So it's really worth having both both definition in mind all the time. Okay, and so I mean I've advertised that by going to the the derived category I Will get strong deformation properties Before we can do that one more ingredient is missing and let me select me Let me motivate this Right so what I'll explain now is what's called the Support property first Let's always fix a finite rank lattice lambda Together with something like a churn character from the K group to lambda right so and then Then we only consider Central charges that factor why it is we as we have K of X And this goes via V to lambda And I only want to consider group or more often from K of X to see that factor via this map and by app use of notation I'll know right see for I'll often write C for this map here over on the right K of D. Sorry right and The the examples you should have in mind is that I implicitly use this already so in this example a that acts as a smooth projective curve then I said lambda equal to C2 and we If I have an object in the derived category, I just send it to rank of E and Degree of E right so of course the K group of a Often algebraic curve of positive genius is much bigger than that But somehow I'm only interested in central charges that For example, don't distinguish between different skyscrapers chief of points. And that's I mean that will also be important for I mean on the one hand this means some of that my problem becomes more finer dimensional on the other hand It's also important for modular spaces later And then in the second example when you have Q reps Then I said lambda to be Just a free a building group Generated by one element for E for each vertex and we of We is just the dimension vector right again if you if if your quiver has If your quiver has cycles then the K group is can actually be much bigger than that But it always has this map just to the dimension vector, right and now we want The goal is we want a notion of stability of stability conditions such that Sigma Equals the P or the a deforms along with with any small deformation of Z inside but now a finer dimensional vector space Arm lambda to see right so I mean we we saw this already in this quiver example Whenever if I deform my center chart a little bit by deforming my z-eyes Then I can deform the notion of stability as long as least as long as this thing the upper half plane and This is the phenomenon. We want to generalize and So let's before we try to do this. Let's let's add a bit of thoughts on that so There's actually a natural topology on the set of pre stability condition. So maybe let me write this as pre step lambda Mainly it's the Causes Apologies such that the following functions are continuous, right? So first you have this map from Please stop of lambda to home from Namta to see that just a science that forgets P And just remembers this this linear data But then also there's a very natural notion of topology on the set of On the set of possible P's called slicing namely so for each e and There are two functions That's then Sigma that's then C of P and Phi plus of e and Phi minus of e Which are the maximum or? Minimal phase is appearing in the harassing infiltration Right, so I mean it of course some of the hardest infiltration of the itself may change because objects may become unstable and so on But at least the maximum minimal phase is appearing they should depend continuously on the stability condition Right, and then from this it follows that being Semi stable is a closed property because say my stable is equivalent to Phi plus being equal to Phi minus and So being stable should be an open property and Right, so if you have something that stable it should still be stable after small deformations And let's think about what this implies for our central charge I'd note that if if e is stable Then clearly I mean v of e Cannot be contained in the kernel of the central charge Because any stable object is in one of these rays Or if you go via the definition one if E is stable then one of its shift is in a and so it the central charge can never be zero right and so Somewhere here you have the kernel of these or this is now a picture inside Lambda R Right, and so if all these properties should hold right so this goal if the goal holds and This last property here should hold And not in nothing comes right This still has to hold Hold After small deformations of z right so in other words there must be a cone Around the kernel z that does not contain v of e for all the stable objects right so here This is we have stable objects must be outside This there must be a code like this so that we have stable objects outside of this cone and the kernel is inside this cone And so that's the that's exactly the definition of support property so definition The pre stability condition Satisfies the support property Satisfies support property There exists there is a quadratic form you from lambda tensor R to R That's that if e is say my stable then q of V of e Is greater equal to zero right so I think of this cone being this cone can be defined by a quadratic form and on the outside we have the same as tables and You restricted to the kernel is Negative definitely So that's that's the support property and what I'll show I mean what I hopefully try to convey to you today that the support property is Necessary if you want to have any hope of nice deformation property for stability condition and what I'll show tomorrow is that it's also sufficient so if you take the set of stability conditions Pre stability condition satisfying support property then you get a complex manifold and this this this goal that I formulated over the there holds Okay, thank you


I'm down in Wielands on Westfield Street for the annual Kraken Up event in aid of the DCU Mental Health Society. I caught up with some of the committee members and fans to see what they had to say about the event. And this is the period at Kraken Up. Kraken Up is a concert that's put on by the Mental Health Society here in DCU. It's held in Wielands every year so we've had acts like the Kronos, David Keenan, the Young Folk, Owen Schneider and loads and loads more. It's been a really successful last couple of years. We're fundraising for Jigsaw. Jigsaw is a organisation that focuses on the youth's mental health. It's the one that's very close to many hearts on the committee and so we're really excited to be able to donate 100% of all proceeds that are raised to the charity tonight. Supporting the charity event were musicians Joel Erkins, Eve Bell, Flat Out and poet and DCU alumni James O'Connor along with Oshino Hanlon as MC. Well I was part of the Mental Health Society years ago when it first started. I was on the first committee and I became the first mentor manager for the hub and I just think it's a really great cause and I'd love to come back every chance I get to help the committee out and to help with these big events. I was involved in the first Kraken Up so I would have loved to come back and see what it has evolved into. As I failed to pull myself together and was wrapped around me and hold me to the top head. I was performing this evening and yeah now I was really happy to get involved because Jigsaw do absolutely fantastic work like they're really important like focusing on youth mental health in Ireland is like it should be a way bigger issue than it is. It should be a lot more effort going into rectifying a lot of issues that we have and Jigsaw are doing amazing work towards that and yeah so I was delighted to get involved and see what it's for I'm excited yeah no loads of people come and there's loads of brilliant acts that'll be playing and I'm just just all around excited for it. These are amazing so they're they're very good so they're the atmosphere is so good. I'm having a great night and it's going very very well feeling very mentally sound and fantastic. Mental health stock in DCU is unreal and I feel like they deserve all the support in the world so I wanted to come and support them because they're all great people working for something very good because that turned sex last week. Karen Gaffney at Kraken Up 2018 for DCU TV news


Are these comedians playing into racial stereotypes by doing these accents? Or is it just what people want to see? Welcome everybody to the Hot Pop Boys, David and Andrew here, David. We got to talk about this. Emotional damage. Hey, y'all, there've been 100 Reddit threads, 100 op ebbs, and we probably received 100 direct messages asking us to give our hot take on Nigel and Uncle Roger and Steven, her emotional damage. Are they sellouts? Are they bad for Asians? Or are they just funny and representing Asians on a global stage? Yeah. So let's run through some of their most famous clips. We're going to talk about it. We're going to analyze. We're going to give our thoughts at the end. We're going to answer a lot of these tough questions. So if you are interested by this video, please hit that like button and check out other episodes of the Hot Pop Boys. Let's get into it.  That is the main dish. I never tell my mom, oh mom, this egg fried rice is only side dish. Where the main dish? Where the main dish? I would have been beaten to death. Emotional damage. Where's the therapy button? Last time I see whole this big, I still with my ex wife. All right, David, um, these clips did kind of make me laugh. Uh, but I guess, uh, the question is, are accents funny and comedy? Are they acceptable and when are they acceptable? All right. First off, I got to just admit, I'm jealous of getting 50, 40, 30, 20 million hits. I don't think we ever were that popular even in our heyday when we used to do accents and things like that. Um, I'll say this long story short guys. I always rank things in terms of IQ, sophistication for different worlds, right? Zero, uh, one to three, three to six, six to 10. You know, it's just like basketball. If you like zero to three type basketball, you like watching professor and like all these tricksters, right? If you like watching, you know, three to six, you like watching NBA highlights and if you're six to 10, you're watching schematics, play action, all these. Offenses and defensive schemes that people are running. People like burgers. Some people like Shake Shack. Some people like French Brazzaree steakhouse burgers. So long story short guys, I don't want to be like a snob or anything like that. I would like to think that we enjoy everything across the entire spectrum, but I will say this. I think these type of characters and these type of accents primarily appeal to people from a zero to six rating people from a six to 10 rating may see this type of accent driven uncle character, a little hacky. And I think that's where the criticism comes from. I think people who watch a lot of comedy are like guys, this isn't the most advanced stuff. We've heard this particularly Cantonese accent for decades now. It's been laughed at. It's been done before. Why is this still funny? But I think it just goes to show you this is what people want to see. And I think that every generation, I think that we get farther and farther away from this accent being funny. But actually to this day, it still makes people laugh. I think there's just more market fragmentation amongst Asian comedy consumers than there ever has been. You know, previously everybody made media material to cater to the middle. Pretty much you're like three to six zone because like nobody really was outside of that nowadays. There's people who like living in the zero to three to three to six, six to 10 and everybody wants comedy at their level and everybody feels so alpha about maintaining their consumption range. So I just think that, you know, this is for the crowd that would have enjoyed Peter Chow, you know, data from Goonies, Indiana Jones, Dr. Jones, Dr. Jones from that last comic standing Russell Peters. You're going to get a hurt real bad. Oh, maybe you say 50 cents today, 50 cents tomorrow. Then you have $1. Then you take a $1. Then you invest. You know what I mean? Like it's just all one thing. And by the way, I thought all of that stuff was funny. Maybe not Mickey Rooney's Mr. Uniyoshi actually even though low key, I kind of thought that was funny too in a messed up way, but like there's just always a market for it. But let me ask you this, David. If there's always a market for it, how come the market for the Korean or Japanese Uncle Roger is not as big? I'm not saying there's not people doing it out there, but it seems to me that the Cantonese accent between Steven and and Nigel, they're getting like a hundred million views. So I'm like, is there some about the Cantonese accent? Is it that Cantonese people are very goofy? Is it that this is the funniest Chinese accent? I don't hear a Beijing accent being this funny and garnering this type of audience. Well, the truth is Cantonese people are goofy. If you look at like Tso-Sing Chi, Steven Chow and all there's like that's goofy. Steven Chow kind of led that Asian comedy where like the water flows out of their mouth and they're like, you know Kung Fu also traditionally even throughout history, Cantonese people take themselves that seriously. But also I do think they've had a lot of interfacing with the British. I think the same thing with Indians. Malaysia, Singapore, obviously a lot of Cantonese people live in Malaysia and Singapore. They were also former British colonies. So I think there's just something funny about interfacing with the British for hundreds of years and also coming from a culture that doesn't take itself too seriously that creates this environment where the Cantonese accent is so funny. It doesn't even matter. Maybe you say problematic things. You say conservative things.  It's just funny. Hey, David, maybe we just do the rest of this video in the Cantonese accent. And this video will get more views. But I do think that, you know, Koreans take themselves very seriously and they would never do that. I mean, like even when JK was popular there, none of them obviously Korean. They have the Korean characters. But it's just like there's just different cultures have a different level of self-deprecation and the self-deprecation ranking for Cantonese people. I'd say it's up there with the highest in the world. Maybe like 9 out of 10, 10 out of 10 to be honest. Egg fried rice. Don't be afraid.  Who afraid? Why are you afraid of egg fried rice? Wear your courage. Uncle Raw just scared ghost. But you scared egg fried rice failure. Give your failure simple and easy to follow directions. But here's the key. You must contradict yourself. Okay. Hold it high like here. Okay. Like this side. Okay. Hold it high up. What are you trying to do? Fail geometry, huh? Why are you holding it so high? Hold it low, low. Okay. Like this. Like not any lower or any higher. Like just here, just this high. Yeah. Okay. What are you trying to do? How are you holding it so low? Can you see that? You said hold it low. No, as low as your IQ. What? Stop moving. Why are you moving the line? Hold it still. What are you moving around trying to start a disco? All right. I think that we've have established that obviously accents can make things funnier. I think that obviously if you remove the accent away from their videos, they're still getting some views, but not nearly even maybe maybe one tenth of the views. But I think that I think there's a question like, is it considered steer typical or easy to lean on the accent? Because that's, I think a lot of people are like, Oh, I don't want to do accents because that's easy. That's just an easy way to get a laugh because you could say something very, you could say a joke that's not funny in an accent. It could still make people laugh. And then you could say a very clever joke in an accent and it makes people laugh. So, yeah, the difficult thing that a lot of people don't understand about comedy is it's very hyper contextual, even to the comedian telling it. There's a reason why hot girls like Nikki Glaser tell hot girl jokes about like hooking up with guys at the bar because you believe that they live that lifestyle. Amy Schumer makes fun of how she looks because she doesn't look like a conventional hot girl.  You know what I mean? Like Gabriel Iglesias makes fun of how he's this like fluffy fat Mexican like and so many of his jokes rotate around that. And that's just how comedy works. When you want to be a mega star, your content has to align with the character that you're playing on stairs. Larry the cable guy is actually like a rich, educated guy from private school. How come he talks like Larry the cable guy? Like I grew up on a Louisiana backwood swamp land. So in a way like for success reason, I don't really think it's bad. I mean, I think a lot of comedians have a gimmick and some comedians actually acknowledge and play with their gimmick harder than others do. But a lot of comedians actually have this underlying thing that makes everything funny. Sometimes it's the way they look. Sometimes it's the way they sound. Sometimes it's, you know, the culture that they represent. Yeah. And I think especially for Nigel's Uncle Roger character, he's actually attacking and going at sort of these like Anglo-Saxon or Western world chefs that sort of are bastardizing Asian food and they're just like going at it. So there is more content. You know how like that fan was funny too, but he was just making fun of his mom being like, Oh, don't step on the water sprinkling because I'm laying mine. You know what I mean? Like he was doing that, but he wasn't like necessarily saying anything about current events like Nigel's like talking about current events as your 90s middle class like kind of educated kind of blue collar uncle that's Cantonese. And you know what I couldn't help but think after seeing some of their videos get 30, 40, 50 million views is like the last time I saw an Asian guy garner this many views was Rich Brian with that stick. That's also from that, you know, colonial Indochina. Right, right. But he was essentially doing an accent. He was essentially trying to sound like the scariest like hood gangster that he could have in that song, which that's actually not how he talks. But it couldn't help make me think that like as an Asian dude to get this many views, you have to be a character.  But the truth is a lot of people with that organic accent cannot make those jokes. So it's like really somebody who used to have that accent and lost it due to Westernization coming back to it. That's like the funniest juxtaposition because to be honest, when you meet people that actually sat first of all, there's not a lot of people with that 10 out of 10 exaggerated action, but there are some. They're just not going to have those thoughts and they're not going to be so funny with the cadence and the timing and the punches and the tags. Get them sizzling straight away. No, you don't sizzle spring onion. Nobody sizzles spring onion. If you cook spring onion now, it will wilt. It wilt. This should be garlic. First step should be garlic. So for me, that feels like a good cheat. You can hear it sizzling. You hear sizzling. I hear my ancestors crying. I had to walk through fire. I fly to school every morning. I had to fight two lion, two lion, try fighting sharks. I fought a Tyrannosaurus with nunchucks. Your Tyrannosaurus had nunchucks. All right, I have three major takeaways, Andrew. I think that Southeast Asian Chinese or like British colonial Chinese, it's just like the perfect point to represent Asians or like Chinese people, but sort of be disconnected from these like very messy, muddy geopolitics.  I think point number two is that a lot of people really like different things. Like I said, some people like double cheeseburgers and that's their favorite type of burger for the money. Some people think Shake Shack is the best burger for their money and other people only like all Cheval, you know, French brasserie burgers and that's their best burger for their money and they're all looking down on each other, right? Andrew, the guy who likes McDonald's is like, dude, I would never pay that much for like Wagyu and the guy who's getting the French brasseries like, dude, I haven't been to McDonald's like since I was a kid, since I was like 12 years old. Well, listen guys, different people like different things. Somebody is eating the donuts at the gas station. For example, Andrew, me, I don't really like a lot of blue collar British humor or even middle class British humor, for example, I'm not a huge fan of Russell Howard. That's not my cup of tea, but I could see if I was raised differently and I was white, I would think that was really funny.  And last but not least Andrew, low key, I think a lot of Asian Americans, they just like, this is the comedy that's at their level because they might have more like uncle thoughts in their mind than like they would ever want to admit. You know, a lot of people that are raised in sheltered Asian households in the Western society, whether like in enclaves or this or that, they like carry a lot more that influence from being around their aunties and uncles than they would ever really want to like admit in like public life. Uncle Roger, when he's like, oh my gosh, what these Guelos don't know how to do this? That's actually like a side of them, not a hundred percent that they like want to itch and let out and exaggerate.  And I think that's the funniest thing is relating to someone else so that anything they say, because at the end of the day, even if the joke isn't super clever, you're just like, oh my gosh, I relate to that. That's so me. I feel seen. The voice of the people. It's that type of thing. Yeah.  I've seen a stand-up live. We met him in New York when he came and he is a funny stand-up. He also has this character that's kind of a gimmicky Uncle Roger, which is kind of like if somebody else was an actual funny comedian, but they get millions of views like kind of doing pranks on people, which I don't fully like, I don't love prank comedy, but like it's just something they know they have to do. So, but big shout out. I mean, he's rolling with what's working right now. And I think ultimately it's going to lead to people finding out how funny Nigel actually is as a comedian. Honestly, it's very much like a comedy sophistication crowd that's like one to six. And I'm not dissing that one to six sophistication level. That's where the bulk distribution majority of people are. And I think that it's people who probably haven't really studied it super deep or anything like that. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Maybe you're just living your life being happy in the micro day-to-day IRL. But I'm just saying to be honest, like it's very, very difficult to explain to people what it's like to be Chinese because there's a very strong ancient culture and there's still a very amorphous, non-defined modern culture. Whereas Japan and Korea both have a defined ancient culture but even maybe even more so a defined modern culture that they're all living in. I think for a lot of Chinese like is it viewed as bad? Is it viewed as good? Is it viewed as outdated?  Or do we like them? And to be honest, I think that Uncle Roger and Stephen He help not everybody but they help a pretty significant portion of Chinese Americans sort of deal with it. So I do get why Asians in the Western world get nervous, right?  So I would say a lot of the comments I see on the Reddit thread where they say, oh, is Uncle Roger racist or is doing an accent racist?  But if you look at the comments there, most of the comments are actually people quoting the lines of jokes I have and people are also laughing at Jamie Oliver. Right. Because there are tons of comments saying, yeah, Jamie Oliver is a prick anyway. He did this and yeah, I wish never like this stuff. So I think sometimes Asian Americans or Asians who grew up or born in the Western world, they have this insecurity but this paranoia almost. And you can argue with like whether this is the right medicine they need or is it a placebo or is it just like a sugar pill or whatever? But this is like what they want. Dude, this is the same comedy as our Asian parent videos from nine years ago. It's the same stuff which is, it's a little different. I mean, like they have different jokes. I'm not saying that they're biting the jokes but it's the same level of comedy. I was always shocked at those videos with CC who's not actually not a real mom did like six, seven million two. Yeah. But guys, it just goes to show you this is where the people are at and you know, I got to respect it but also, yeah. I mean, it is interesting how I think 10 years from now the Cantonese accent still going to be funny. I think 20 years from now the Cantonese accent still going to be funny because I think the people will still there will still be a large market of people there. To be honest, it's just driven by a cultural attitude and it's just driven by like how you see yourself and what assimilation pattern you are or are not running and to be honest, I just think that like Cantonese Southern Chinese or really just Chinese in general, they're having still a very, very, very slow assimilation plan more so than even other Asians. But it is what it is. And until then, man, shout out to Nigel, shout out to Steven. All right, guys, we're going to end it right there. You let us know in the comments down below what you think about Uncle Roger and Steven's emotional damage characters. Do you watch them? Do you think it's really funny?  Maybe if you think they're problematic and holding Asians back you let us know in the comments down below too, because anybody who's that popular is going to garner some criticism too. So, but shout out to them guys. I do think that they're funny people regardless what you think about the accents but please let us know in the comments down below. I will say this. I think as fellow Cantonese comedians and you know, some people are going to be like, Oh, I don't even consider you guys comedians which is fair or whatever. But like you really don't understand it on this level. Like I haven't seen any of the discussions on Reddit discussing Steven and Uncle Roger like really breaking it down because people are like outside the culture they're inside and they have this opinion and they're that opinion and they're so fired up about this or that side to it. But it is very nuanced because like you said, if that's where the crowd is at who are you to say that entertainers should not give the crowd what they want? I mean, they might even be aware that it's campy and cheesy to an extent but they're getting the bag. Is this what you want? All right guys. Thank you so much for watching. These are the hot pop boys and until next time we out. Peace.


In today's video, we're going to be talking about the top five highest paying business careers in 2023. We're going to be going over the business careers that can potentially get you to seven figures per year. I'm sorry, did I hear that correctly? That's right. A lot of these careers I'm going to be talking about can potentially get you to that seven figure mark where you're making over a million dollars a year. So if you appreciate videos like this, go ahead and let me know by smashing that like button harder than salt poppy smashes people with his poll counter left. And let's jump into the video right now. All right. So number five on the list is one I've talked about on this channel before I even interviewed somebody who is a financial controller. You can look that up on the channel. I interviewed Bill Hannah, who is the financial controller. And basically this is a very high level accountant. So this is basically someone who oversees the accounting activities within a large company. Now, according to Glassdoor, finance controllers make about $149,000 a year. And according to LinkedIn, there's about 31,000 results for financial controller. So it is a relatively high level position, but there's a lot of opportunities available out there. And I can tell you at some of the higher level companies, you can definitely make a lot more than, you know, 150, $200,000 a year. You can definitely get into the 300 to 500,000 or even more range. Next one on the list is going to be a sales director. And there's actually a lot of different sales related positions where you can make it to that million dollar mark. But sales director is the one I'm choosing specifically for this video. And this is basically someone who manages or oversees the sales operations within a large company. Now, according to Glassdoor, sales directors make $221,000 a year. And I just want you to notice that the base pay is 114,000 and the additional pay is 107,000. So as you can see, a significant amount of their money actually comes from commissions and bonuses. Now, according to LinkedIn, there's about 21,000 job results for sales directors. And if you want to see an example of somebody who is well on their way to hitting that million dollar a year mark, I actually interviewed somebody on this channel. His name is Antoine. He actually is another YouTuber. And last year he made over $540,000. This year he told me he's likely going to hit 600 or 700,000 a year. So I would not be surprised at all if he hits that million dollar mark within the next few years. Now he actually started off just working in technology in general, and then he shifted over to sales. And the reason he did this is because he realized that his hard work would be much better rewarded in a position like that. Sales and marketing positions tend to be more of a meritocracy, where if you work hard and you get better results, you're going to get a nice percentage of those results. Whereas in many other positions, if you work hard and get better results, you might get like a 5% raise or a 10% raise, even though you might have made the company an extra million dollars. Now if you're interested in how to get into tech sales, what Antoine recommends is this company called Course Careers. I've talked about them quite a bit on this channel. They have gotten insane results. I actually have an entire playlist of people who have gotten jobs using Course Careers. You can check them out. They actually have a free training for tech sales. I'll put that down in the description as well as the pinned comment below. They have a more advanced training that also gets you guaranteed interviews with their partner companies. And if you choose to use that, I have a coupon code Shane50, which you can check out down in the description below as well. Number three on the list is going to be an executive. So these are basically the highest ranking individuals within an organization and they oversee everything else. And not only are they responsible for the day-to-day operations, but they're actually responsible for growing the company. So they're going to be talking a lot about the direction that they take the company. Now according to Glassdoor, senior executives make about $137,000 a year. And according to LinkedIn, there's 55,000 results when you type in senior executive in jobs. Now that's just the average or the median, but there are many senior executive positions out there that can make well over a million dollars a year. So for instance, Jeremy Burton made $9.7 million. Alan Coburg earned about $9.5 million. And Stephen Chambers made about $7.6 million. An interesting thing is these are executives, but they're actually not the leader of the company. They're not the CEO. So you can actually make these insane numbers without having to be the number one person in charge. The next one on the list is going to be many different financial related career paths. Now the number one of course is going to be hedge fund manager, but there's actually a lot of other career paths out there that are phenomenal as well. For instance, private equity, venture capital, investment banking, etc. Now these types of jobs I will warn you are pretty much 100% for A type personalities, people who love working like 80 to 120 hours per week and people who like competitive environment. But with that being said, if you are one of those people, finance can be a great option for you. Now according to Glassdoor, hedge fund managers make about $135,000 a year. And there's this genius mathematician named James Simons, who made $3.4 billion last year. So yeah, you can make a lot of money as a hedge fund manager. And number one on the list will be no surprise to anybody out there. It's going to be CEO or chief executive officer. Now there's two ways to become a CEO. The first way is to start your own company and become a CEO. The second way is maybe somebody started a company and they either retire, they don't want to do it anymore or they sell the company, etc. And you take on that position of CEO. But either way you are in control of the future and success of the company. It is a high pressure position. You have to have a multitude of different skills to be a successful CEO. You can't just be good at like one thing. You have to be good at like 10 different things. So it's definitely not for everybody. But with that being said, being a business owner, especially if it's like a certain type of business, isn't that hard. But being a CEO that makes like billions of dollars a year is definitely going to be difficult. If you look up CEO and Glassdoor, they make about $401,000 a year. If you look it up on LinkedIn, you're going to see 26,000 results for jobs. And of course, Elon Musk was the highest paid CEO last year at 6.6 billion.  I believe it was 110 billion. And then in 2021, he gained another 90 billion. But then of course, recently, billionaires have been losing money. And then I believe there was one day where he actually earned $36 billion, which is just, I mean, what can you say, that's ridiculous. Now, if you're interested in becoming a CEO or just making a lot of money in general, the most common career path that millionaires and billionaires went down is actually sales, right? That is the number one most common career path in the past of billionaires and millionaires. This has been well studied, well documented. And if you're interested in getting into sales, like I said, check out that free training down below and check out that interview that I did with Antoine right here.