All right everyone morning today is Monday it's around 11 a.m. And this is gonna be a recap video So before we start I want to let everyone know that we have a holiday sale from December until December 31st You could save 200 on annual and a thousand on lifetime Those that don't know we are raising our prices after December the price of monthly is going from 179 to 199 the price of annual is going from 1790 to 1990 Reason why we're doing this is because we've been talking about it for a year We give all of the trading education all the DVDs all the mentorship for free So you don't join us for 50 bucks and then pay $3,000 to get your DVDs and education You join for $5 a day you get all the education and you get about eight new videos every single week So after December is when we're raising our prices So if you do not lock in your prices during the holiday sale chances are you're not gonna get prices like that again I have a link in the description of the video if you want to upgrade again It ends December 31st, and I think we have like 29 spaces left. We're trying to cap it up a little bit Let's talk about trading today. So I Always want to start off with mentality thought process and what's working for me What's now working for me and what you guys could do to kind of replicate it So for those that don't know I am up almost $80,000 in 30 days of trading. I'm not doing anything different I'm not doing anything crazy. All I'm doing is sticking to my daily trading process All I'm doing is focusing on the setups as you could tell Sometimes the market is hot it like in the winter after November Sometimes the market is slow like December, but as long as I stick to my process So I won't still see me Give me like a thumbs up or some shit Stopped me to there we go my back Someone tell me if I'm back we're not All right, I guess I'm back Trolls tried to put me down again, but we're back here. All right, so I haven't been doing anything differently. I haven't been changing anything Basically what I've been doing is sticking to my process every single day. I get paint, right? There's a couple things that I want to make sure that everyone understands There's a couple things that people need to know and I mean repetition is the only way to understand what I'm talking about Right, so maybe this is gonna sound repetitive to those that kind of watch the videos Maybe it's gonna sound something new for all the lazy people that don't but what I want to do is let you guys know What my process is like every single morning, right? Every single morning What am I doing up to show up to the market to give myself the best pop? probability of making money with the least amount of stress so as I always mention your Process always starts the day before right so today is Monday my process starts on Sunday and It's almost been like a recurring theme that almost every single Sunday. I've been having people over my house Sunday is kind of like my relaxing day. Sunday is my day to not really do any work. I Work six days a week for like 15 hours a day Answering questions trying to innovate trying to improve my CSO on Sunday I just like to sit down like a vegetable and do nothing So I have my friends come over my friends are basically alcoholics. They drink all the time I don't really like to do that, but there's a lot of peer pressure and a lot of temptation right so What ends up happening is every single Sunday? I make sure to go to bed early and the reason why I want to go to bed early is so that Monday I could wake up energized. I could wake up Focused because Monday is what sets the tone for your entire week if you screw up on Monday You spend the entire week with a bad mindset trying to improve your mistakes from Monday and what I've noticed about myself is that every single Monday I underperform because I am too Excited to trade. I am too over eager to trade. I sit down Saturday and Sunday And although I need those days to kind of relax and be away from the market all I could think about is the market So when the market opens up on Monday, I find myself trading with FOMO I find myself not trading as well as I should so every single Monday these days I like to kind of be a little bit more self-aware and pay attention to my own self and Try to improve my trading so today I Kept it really simple for those of you that don't know every Monday. I put out a free video watch list on the YouTube channel This is basically I want to kind of give people a sneak peek inside all the resources They get in MIC, but I like to reserve the video watch list every other day for the members in chat Monday I give it free. So if you watch my video watch list, you could see that my plan today was on CEI, right and Basically what I did is I kept it very simple for those that watch the videos you understand I'm not over-complicating it you guys understand I'm not putting any mathematical occasions you guys understand that I am looking for key technical levels and Basing my trades off those levels. So for example on CEI if you remember, I think it was last week We mentioned that the 230 level was the key area of support If the stock broke the 230 level that it would have a high probability of tanking And that was because VWAP was around that area and support was around that area so it had two indicators that if they broke chances were that the stock was going to tank and Basic technical analysis tells us this previous support becomes resistance So if 230 was support a couple days ago You better believe that 230 is going to be resistant any time that it tests it again, right? so in the morning I bit the stock was at 215 or 220 when I was making my watch list and I basically mentioned to the guys During the watch list that 230 is my ideal level to short the stock in the morning I have it on the watch list go look at the video right before this and you will see my plan My plan was an eight in the morning before the market open So as the stock is ramping up my plan tells me okay previous support is 230 It should act as resistance today at 230. Let me just have an order at 229 Before the resistance level just in case right just in case there's going to be a wall of sellers at 230 Which there probably will be because there are there are longs from the previous days that just want to exit right? so Pre-market we get a push towards 229 I short a little bit at 229 and I cover at 217 or 216 so I made 13 cents a share in two minutes, right? And that's a very small position that I had no more than 2000 shares as pre-market So here I am up 13 cents and if you guys remember what I keep mentioning in these videos a light bulb moment went off in my head And when I was talking to one of the members called flash and basically that light bulb moment was this too many people Try to go for the home run trades too many people try to make 20 30 40 cents a trade well What I've noticed That I think is really important for people to understand is that your goal as a trader is to make 10 cents a share multiple times on multiple shares Your goal is not to make 10 cents on I mean your goal is not to make 40 cents on one trade And I hit your home run your goal is to make 10 cents on two or three trades which adds up to 30 40 cents So on cei my first trade was for 13 cents cei my next trade when it went up from a It kind of bounced to 223 after that I short at 222 223 covered at 217 There was another five or six cents so here I'm up 20 cents on two scalps then in the morning it pops towards 230 I shorted some at 230 it went to 236 for the I think it was Luca that asked me the question about how much room Do I give it? I give it about 10 cents So went to 230 and then I told the members that if it breaks 220 That is going to be my level to size in because that's kind of the area where VWAP was right so Goes to 230. I have my 30% size breaks 220 I added my size and then the stock fades down all the way to two bucks I make my money and I walk away So as you can notice maybe three scalps maybe four scalps led to making 30 or 40 cents on the stock Whereas trying to make 30 or 40 cents in one shot is nearly impossible with a stock like that So I had two or three scalps that up to 40 cents And if I used 1,000 shares each of those times, which I think I did I think I use like 1200 shares Because what I'm trying to do these days is I'm trying to use less size to show you guys that doesn't take much size to make money So for me a thousand shares, I could close my eyes and I could go $15 against me and I won't care But the point about it is that I'm showing you guys that would not much size with a $2,300 equity position you could be making $2,300 a day and on CI I walked away with almost five six hundred bucks great trade But the point that I was trying to make on this trade was that the levels were so easy to recognize 230 previous support became resistance today All you have to do is wait for that 230 level short it cover for your 10 cents And then you're done for the day if you want to go back and try to make more So be it but recognize that you should be only using the outer lines that we talk about You should only be using the outer levels that we talk about right so Next time you feel like you should be trading and making more money next time you feel like a setup is there and ready for you Remember that the amateur traders try to go for 40 50 cents in one trade. They are stressed It is tough the experienced traders know that you got to go in out in out Take the money run take the money run take the money run right because if you're being patient all day For a big trade chances are that trade is going to do the opposite because you're greedy If you're taking your small 10 cents gaps every single day, you're making your money So see I trade was there relatively easy 230 level identified pre-market early pre-market and it tested again at open. That's a gift, right? That's a gift. So that's number one that I want to talk about everyone understand what I'm talking about now about see I You do leave like a thumbs up so I see because I see the counter going up. That's one number two is this Adam had a very good Adam had a very good topic that you want me to talk about It's about I want to keep it very simple for you guys to understand this so For me personally What you have to realize is this I get questions all the time like what separated you what was the difference about you? Why did you make it and why did someone else not make it right? What was what was the thing that you did differently than 90% of traders don't do right and this is a great question, right?  I literally eat sleep and drink trading. I did not hang out with women I did not go out. I did not spend money I was a recluse a hermit in my room every single day studying studying studying to improve and back then MIC didn't exist there were no actual quality videos that you had right there were no Quality videos I had to learn all the wrong ways I basically learned what to do wrong and because I learned what to do wrong. I learned what to do, right? I had no resources like MIC. I had no mentors I had no one that was actually trying to help me learn to trade rather than scam here Right every single person that you see in the trading world is selling you a thousand dollar course It's on you a three thousand dollar package. It's on you an eight thousand dollar inner circle But what we want to do is make it affordable enough that you don't have to ever pay for the education And that's where the 179 comes that's where $5 a day comes where you get all the education free And you cannot afford $5 a day you should not be trading you should not be going with the discount service You should not be doing anything like that. So What separated me is I put in the work. I put in the work every single day I watch the videos every single day the statistic is that 90% of traders fail and what I realized is 90% of traders Don't watch educational videos 90% of traders.  That's totally fine. I take advantage of the inexperienced traders I take advantage of traders that don't know what they're doing But if you join MIC and you put in the work, you will become consistently profitable. That's a different story So what Adam was talking about is this what people have to understand is this just because you watch one video Does not mean that you are going to be an expert in that topic, right? So imagine like going to the gym, right? Imagine you're going to the gym if you do one chest workout your chest is not going to get bigger But if you constantly do reps if you constantly do reps of your chest workout Eventually your muscles are going to grow you're going to become bigger and that's how you're going to learn So don't think that you just have to watch one video or you have to watch the video one time and you're going to get it The more times you watch something the more reps that you put in the better you will get right? So every single day you know what I do I am the owner and creator of MIC with Balintosh and as the owner and creator I go back to the main room every single day starting at 8 in the morning and I read my own commentary I read what I said I pull up a chart and I try to see what I'm doing right what I'm doing wrong What is my mindset during the day?   I am getting my reps in I am practicing. I am preparing I am making sure that I am putting in the work that I need because I know for a fact this All right, I know that if I am not putting in the work Some other kid over there is going to put in the work more than me and he's going to make the money that I should be making So remember that guys remember that just because you have just because there's videos and there's a lot of stuff Just because you watched it one time does not mean that you are an expert in that subject. I'll give you an example My favorite Superhero is Batman but for this example I'm going to talk about the Avengers movies because that's more popular but Every time I watch the Avengers movies every time I watch like a Thor or an Iron Man or whatever the hell it is Every single time I watch it. I notice something different every single time. I notice a little Easter egg I notice a golden nugget So think of it as a movie right the more you watch these videos The more experience you get the more you recognize these little golden nuggets in the videos And that's why I have so much respect for someone like Michael Tran So much respect to James because I know these guys are watching the videos and they're picking up on the little nuances that I don't even realize I say Right, it's become so natural for me to talk about this stuff that I don't recognize when I'm saying something that's actually valuable So whenever something comes up like the flash example of making 10 cents three times rather than 30 cents one time It's like that's the stuff that I want to keep repeating and keep talking about because that's what really resonates for you guys So recognize this recognize this if you are not putting in the work Someone else will put in the work If you realize that 90 percent of traders fail and the 10 percent that make it put in the work Bro, why would you not put in the work? I just don't understand. I just don't understand. It's like I I don't want to keep talking about am I seeing how important it is because if you don't know by now that you'll never know But we are churning out consistently profitable traders. It is something that me and bow are very proud of right? We are very proud that we've created a system that is repeatable That the students are learning to become better than mentors and I was having a conversation with one of our moderators Alan Wiggins who Was at the same Jose meet up But basically what we talked about is that the reason why am I see traders are so successful Is because they are learning the good habits from the beginning They're learning what not to do from the beginning and they don't have bad habits to unlearn the problem is if you join one of these sorry Let me just walk by these guys Give me a second The problem is if you join One of these scammers one of these furus. I get it. I get I was talking about actually and I was like look If I'm at the store if I'm at the store and I see Something for $200 and I see something for $50 chances are I'm going to go with the $50 one right because there's probably no difference There's nothing really there But the truth of matters in trading is very different right you get what you pay for you get for your quality if you want Walmart fuck quality you could go to Walmart But if you want the highest and highest grade the best of the best Well, you have to fucking pay up for it and it's not and the funny part What important is that people pay $50 a month for these scammers and then they pay two or three thousand dollars for the education Meanwhile, they complain that five dollars a day is too much for all the uh all the uh education that we give so recognize that man, I paid 20 or 30 thousand dollars a year for college right I went to college I got a finance degree.   I just don't understand why people are so So cheap to really be doing and I don't know if you guys see the testimonials I don't even know if you guys see all that we put out but members are actually making money, right? We let our members do the talking for us and that's what's important, but anyway back to trading. Do you guys have any other questions for me? I like keeping this interactive. I like keeping this Uh helpful for you guys and I get the most value when members are watching the videos Was college worth it for me? No, absolutely not I want to drop out. My dad didn't let me But here's the thing about college, right? I think the problem with college is this The curriculum is outdated and I don't want to get into school and all that shit But I think the reason why college is inefficient is the curriculum is outdated, right?  I don't know about you guys But I was never lit on fire.  How about learning how to make money? How about learning how to invest my money?  And that's totally fine. I get it.  Last week.   That's what people don't get. I think That if the education system the school system changed that everything would be a lot different in america, right? I'll give you an example. My little brother is 12 years old 13 years old and he's had an iPad in his hand forever And every single thing that he learns is from an iPad Every single thing that I've learned that I've applied to my life has been from youtube or google or anything like that, right? so for example if if If that's how we're learning these days, it's going to come to a point where college is going to be useless There's so much student debt.  Had I not found trading I would definitely not have made enough money to pay back my student loans or my college debt, right? So that's just something you have to realize if learning how to trade and making one to two hundred dollars a day Is a tenth of the size of college a tenth of the size of college and you have 10 times The earning power to be able to make I don't get why everyone is not jumping on this And I don't get why everyone's not jumping on this and the best part is you don't have to listen to me You can listen to the members are making the money Anyway questions guys come on.  I always lose it man. I'll give you another example My father did not let me drop out of college. He said I am the oldest son that I have to set a Example for my younger brothers. So I had to go to school. My younger brother Alan went to two years of school and dropped out Hey, you know, he did he learned how to open up an online casino He's making over a million dollars a year running an online casino and he would never have done that if he was still in college I don't know if it's in the milk that I drank or the parenting that my dad did But me and my brother understand that it's hard work that brings you success and although it's two Different industries at two separate things We understand that if you put in the work and learn everything, that's how you have to make it in this world So again after I finish this live after I finish this live I'm gonna go back and review myself After I finish this live, I'm going to be like a professional athlete and rewatch my footage All right So if you are not dead constantly putting in the work, we are putting out new videos every single day for you guys to Learn I don't have to do this shit, man.  I could just stop working tomorrow and I'll still be fine I have investments in real estate. I own a couple uh pieces of some businesses Well, I'm chillin, bro. I'm chill.   It was driving uber and now it's making a hundred grand a year Right.   I see the right way.  All right, so inner and outer lines So for those that don't know what an inner line or something like cei Is like the 230 line and the outer line is like the 250 line, which is the half dollar market So for example on cei when you are trading the stock the inner line Yes, it's 230 and the push is towards 250. That's an outer line And what we like to mention is during zombie times you should focus on the outer line So let me let me kind of just backtrack a little bit Um, so something that I get asked all the time is it's 10 30. It's zombie times. Can I still trade?  Let me tell you the truth of the truth of the matter is this After tracking my statistics, I found that I lose money after 10 30, right? And that's alex That's alexis statistics, right? Some other people have different statistics other people do things differently But what I realized from my statistics is that I lose money after 10 30 and after talking to dr Brett steambarger about it Those of you that don't know was my training coach for about a year After talking to him about it, he said you have two options You could either expand your playbook and try to find a way to make money during those times or Do what he thinks what he recommends which is cutting off your training for the day walk away Help the community help the members you have another full-time job helping people in myc So why don't you focus on that and be productive during those times Rather than sitting there and being stressed And that's kind of what changed my training the zombie rule changed my training forever because now what I do is I trade till the morning I trade until 10 30 11 o'clock. I cut myself off and I walk away make videos answer 70 p.m The day put up new videos on youtube try to work to innovate and give you guys new perks and new features and stuff like that I think it's a lot of my time, but Back to the point is can you trade during zombie times? Well, what are your statistics tell you? Are you making money after 10 30? Are you losing money after 10 30? Are you flat after 10 30? And the truth the matter is most people after 10 30 they will lose money Most people after 10 30 will lose money because that's when the volume shrinks. That's when the algos take control So I recommend that most people Uh either size down after 10 30 on the short side or cut it off completely right cut it off completely but Here's the flip side There are plenty of long traders in myc If you know what a short trader is doing you could do the inverse and make money I actually got a p.m Today from one of the members that went long cei today and sold it at 230 where we were all shorting Right, so there's so many ways to make money So there's plenty of members inside myc who are not only making money short But after 10 30 they are focusing on going long stocks that have rotated their flow Stocks that are holding above vweb stocks that are holding at the Support lines and people are waiting longs are not trading from 9 30 to 10 30 I mean from 9 30 to 10 They are starting their day trading at 10 30 because they've realized that these zombie moves are real They've realized that there are so many ways to make money in this market And zombie times for those of you that don't know took me and bow fucking years to learn bro years to learn And you'll see everyone's going to copy it. They're going to do the vampire times the undead times Zombie times they're going to copy it all you wait, right? So The point is is that After these times from 10 30 to 2 o'clock stocks have a knack of going a little bit higher The volume shrinks and the stocks go a little bit higher So if you recognize that this is happening over and over again, wouldn't you as a long biased trader start to go long And that's the point right that's the point and then we have reverse zombie times Which i'm not going to talk about where the stocks tend to finally start to reverse but Point is this guys the point is this there's so many ways to make money And you don't have to just be a short biased trader You don't have to cut off your trading at 10 30 the point is to back test. See what's working. See what's not working Try to improve your trading slowly get your reps in right get your reps in watch the movie over and over again Look for different clues that you see as you notice We talk about the same things over and over again and that's because that's what we believe in that's what works If something works, we're going to keep repeating it over and over again Right, so just keep in mind guys. Keep in mind. That's just practice practice makes perfect The only way to improve your free throw is not to read about it The only way to improve is to get out there and do it yourself right practice All right, i'm making my trek back home Any questions guys Again, don't take my word for m.  So, you don't really identify a stuff move from the level two Um, what ends up happening is what was that m stock that was kind of going apeshit today? mr and something you guys type it and what is it trading at? I did go over my cei trade in the beginning What was that m stock that was easy to borrow that I told everyone to avoid m i r m was a trading at m i r m so This was a good example. I think around 12 22 bucks. I think it was if I could remember correctly um so If you notice the stock topped out around 23 And the stock pushed towards 22 on elevated volume in m. I see I posted the stuff chart But what i'm looking for is not on the level two what i'm looking for is it's on the chart So I am looking and I posted this example in m. I see it every time I see a stuff example I want to post so you guys learn is the stock pushed up Towards 22 Right pushed up on elevated volume on elevated volume It pushed and tried to break high the day and am I getting pulled over Hey, I'm on instagram I'm on live You want to say hi? Not that real. All right. Sorry. I just wanted uh Will you live around here right there? You got your idea? There's someone called here. There's this little suspicious guy walking out of camera No, I you could you could come back home with me and get the idea not on me I have it at home if you want to come. All right, I'll see you guys later


When Matt Hancock appeared before the Health and Science Select Committee last week, the most helpful statement was made by Greg Clarke. He's the committee chair. Clarke informed the room that Dominic Cummings, who had spoken to the committee two weeks earlier, had provided no evidence to back up his attacks on the Health Secretary. Dominic Cummings has now responded by uploading screenshots of WhatsApp messages between himself and the Prime Minister, in which both privately express concerns about Matt Hancock's ability and honesty. Now the screenshots date from March and April last year. We're going to take a look at some of those in one moment. First of all, just to remind you, in his testimony to that select committee, Cummings accused Matt Hancock of incompetence when it came to testing and buying PPE and also accused him of lying about both. So that's what these screenshots are intended to back up. Now, the first message I want to show you is from Boris Johnson to Dominic Cummings on the 27th of April. Now a note here again, there are two conversations going on here, as is often the case on WhatsApp. So I'm going to read you the ones that are relevant to Matt Hancock. So in this exchange, Boris Johnson says, on PPE, it's a disaster. I can't think of anything except taking Hancock off or putting Gove on. Now in reply to that particular message, Dominic Cummings says, with the Cabinet Office such a total shitshow, I'm afraid this would have a severe risk of making it worse, not better. Boris Johnson replies, okay, what the F do we do? Another meeting with Matt and Stevens and Dayton and Co. Now here, Stevens is Simon Stevens, head of the NHS. Dayton is Lord Dayton. He was CEO of the Organising Committee, the London Olympics brought in as a PPE czar. Now, in reply to that Cummings, first of all, talks about problems with the civil servants in the Cabinet Office, things we've heard about in talk, a lot about. In the second, he says, with PPE, the real issues aren't about ministers. It's how many people with what expertise are led by who? How are they connected across wide-tool to other networks? What do they do when they hit barriers? How do we create visibility over problems and so on? In our system, only the Cabinet Office can dig into the truth, then move crap people and put in new people. Great people is totally critical and we have almost no power to move duffers and put in good. Only the Cabinet Secretary can do this. Hancock bullshits, but that wouldn't matter much if we actually controlled the Cabinet Office. So again, there you've got this classic Dominic Cummings line, which is essentially the bureaucracy is not letting us work as effectively as we would. The PM replies, Brill, I'm all ears. What's notable there is that within that critique of the civil service, Cummings says, Hancock bullshits. And he says that as if it's common knowledge, there's no pushback from the PM. So that to me does provide some evidence for Dominic Cummings claims in that select committee that essentially everyone had just stopped believing what Matt Hancock said in those first months of the pandemic. This conversation was on the 27th of March. So here, Dominic Cummings says, US has gone from 2,200 tests of fortnight to 27,000 a week ago to 100,000 yesterday. This is what we said we should do. Instead, we are still stuck on about 5k to 7k. And Matt Hancock saying today he's skeptical about getting to 10k by Monday, which he said would definitely happen on Tuesday. This means tens of thousands of NHS staff aren't at work over the next three critical weeks, apart from my earlier point, retesting being integral to escape plans. So he said Matt Hancock is not providing the testing we needed. And also he said last week we could get this number. Now he's saying it's going to be difficult to do classic Matt Hancock. We're lying, essentially. In response, and this is the real headline, Boris Johnson replies, totally effing hopeless. And you can also see that there's free missed calls from Boris Johnson to Dominic Cummings. Cummings explains in the blog that that was Boris Johnson trying to tell him he had tested positive for COVID-19. Dominic Cummings said he wasn't near the phone at that point in time. And we've got one more message, which is a lot like that one. But in this case, referring to ventilators, it's in fact the morning after the one we've just shown you where Boris Johnson calls Matt Hancock totally effing hopeless.  I just heard officials admit we have been turning down ventilator offers because the price has been marked up. In reply, Johnson says it's Hancock. He has been hopeless. It's very, very clear there what Boris Johnson fix of Matt Hancock. Now, you might say this isn't hard and fast evidence of Matt Hancock being incompetent. This is actually just hard and fast evidence that both Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson thought he was incompetent, right? Now, that to me does furnish his claims. It's always the case in any sort of evidential session that if you fought the thing at the time you were talking about, that's a stronger piece of evidence than if you're talking about it retrospectively. So I do think that counts for something. Dominic Cummings also, though, pointed to a part of Matt Hancock's testimony, which he thinks essentially proves the health secretary was terrible at his job at this point in time, especially when it comes to PPE procurement. Now, you might remember that Matt Hancock in his testimony suggested that one of the reasons it was difficult to procure PPE was because the Treasury had set rules where if you were charged a certain high price, you weren't supposed to buy it as a sort of method of cost control. Now, there were obviously big shortages of PPE at that period of time. So Matt Hancock needed to spend way above the odds. He was saying there were some rules that slowed that down slightly.  It doesn't stack up. I want to go to this section of his blog. So Dominic Cummings writes, to MPs last week, Hancock claimed that, A, he decided to change the procurement rules that constrained the Department of Health. I requested the cap was removed, Hancock said. B, he went to the Chancellor about it because there was still a Treasury cap on the 11th of April. Cummings says this is false. This is an accidental admission of uselessness. If you believe Hancock's own account, he did not act on this issue until the 11th of April, weeks after it should have been dealt with. No PM pointed this out. Two, in fact, I and others in number 10 had already acted on this in March because of repeated insane meetings. In April, the Cabinet Secretary checked the paperwork, see below, and confirmed that the cap on the Department of Health had been removed in March as number 10 had insisted. So last week Hancock was both accidentally admitting being so useless that he did not act until the 11th of April and misleading MPs about what actually happened and blaming the Treasury still for delays in mid-April, when the Chancellor had sorted this out weeks earlier. Hancock's story to MPs is a lie that if true would show again, he was useless. So he's there saying, his account is I asked for this cap to be removed on the 11th of April. Dominic Cummings is saying, one, I know that not to be true. And two, if that were true, what the hell was he doing for the month and a half before that, when it was clear that we would need lots and lots of PPE? We did also get some more insight into the conduct of Boris Johnson. That includes this account of a meeting chaired by Dominic Raab. He was standing in at the time for the then hospitalised Prime Minister. So here Cummings writes, on the 20th of April, Hancock faced intense pressure. Under Raab, the meetings were less pleasant for everybody, but much more productive because unlike the PM, Raab can chair meetings properly instead of telling rambling stories and jokes. And B, he let good officials actually question people so we started to get to the truth. Unlike the PM, who as soon as things get a bit embarrassing, does the whole, let's take it offline shtick before shouting forward to victory, doing a thumbs up and pegging it out of the room before anyone can disagree. That's a very plausible account of how I can imagine Boris Johnson behaving in important meetings. Again, obviously, he hasn't provided concrete evidence for that, but it rings true. One more revelation about Boris Johnson, he suggests the public inquiry into the mistakes made during the COVID pandemic will be delayed so Boris Johnson can avoid dealing with the fallout. The public inquiry cannot fix this. It will not start for years and it is designed to punt the tricky parts until after this PM has gone. Unlike other PMs, this one has a clear plan to leave at the latest a couple of years after the next election.  So we either live with chronic dysfunction for another circa five years or some force intervenes. So he's saying Boris Johnson, not a serious guy. He doesn't even want to be a prime minister for long because he wants to have some fun and make some money afterwards. Darlia, what do you think about this particular blog post? It's definitely interesting for us journalists to have someone who was at the top of government revealing all of these WhatsApp messages, making all of these claims about the actions of people at the top of the Tory party, people in positions of power. At the same time, this guy clearly has a grudge against Matt Hancock and no one really trusts him. Do you think these WhatsApp screenshots change anything? It's very mean girls, it's very tabloid friendly and it's almost being reported like it's entertainment. But when you actually get down to it, he's not telling us anything that is, you know, wasn't already quite easy to see. You know, it kind of reminds me of when that news came out about Boris saying, let the body's pile high and people were sort of got very tied up in questioning, you know, the context or whether or not that's exactly what he said. And the proof, you know, the proof was always in the pudding. I mean, he did let the body's pile high. So whether or not he said it in those exact terms, the facts doesn't really change. And similarly here, when you take away the kind of scandal of it, the sensationalized package that it comes in, it tells us something that's kind of always been obvious and should have been obvious to a journalist class whose job it is, or at least should be, to be insightful and to be analytical and critical of the government and, you know, read between the lines of government statements and of government leaks, rather than just sort of regurgitating them as fact, which is sort of the style of political journalism that, you know, particularly the BBC we are seeing. And the thing is, is that, you know, it tells us what we already sort of knew, which is that, you know, Matt Hancock, but also the government writ large was, you know, out of their depth in a moment where we couldn't afford to have a government that was out of its death than out of its depth. And we've lost, you know, thousands of precious members of our community as a result of that. You know, but if Trash Futures could, you know, before the Trash Futures podcast could, before Matt Hancock became health secretary, see that he was, you know, clownishly incompetent, you have to ask yourself why, you know, actual professional political media classes apparently couldn't see that or make that observation, or at least weren't, were deliberately not honest about it. And, you know, maybe it's because a sort of particular social contract has now developed between the political and, you know, the media class, which exchanges, you know, proximity and scoops for essentially discipline and boundaries that are very much set by the government. And what I think is sort of so depressing is that, you know, this is fatal, you know, and almost deliberate incompetence here that we're saying that we have seen and that Dominic Cummings is describing here, you know, that story about Boris Johnson, the way that Boris Johnson handles meetings is just like it's sickening. But why is this only actually, like I said, a lot of this is stuff that we could have gauged without these texts. Why are we only hearing about this? And why is this only being splashed on the front pages of newspapers when it can be done in the form of this sort of Westminster gossip, you know, in this kind of Shakespearean spectacle of, you know, the Prime Minister being betrayed by his closest confidant.   Why has that been how it has been so far? And then when it can be communicated in the through the medium of Westminster gossip that suddenly that's when we are sort of seeing it, that the public is seeing this in black and white.  It's not when the public is putting their trust in you to manage during a pandemic. And when people right now have lost loved ones prematurely because you didn't get your act together. But I think like, you know, and I'm going to end this on the obvious point that this isn't just about kind of Boris Johnson, it's not just about Matt Hancock or Cummings, but it's the ways in which our media and political system rewards this kind of politics, it rewards this superficiality, it rewards performance over substance, sound bites over sort of clear vision and, you know, strategic relationships essentially over the truth. Like why has it come to be the case is it's probably a very long and multifaceted answer that is should be answered by someone with much more tools and knowledge than me. But the fact is that that is the reality that we seem to live in now.


Russia started production of the KH-101 with two warheads, making the missile twice as dangerous. Ukrainian air defence shot down a modified Russian KH-101 cruise missile which had a tandem warhead. The modified version received an additional warhead, doubling its total equivalent from 450 kg to about 800 kg. The second warhead includes cubic-shaped steel fragments to increase combat efficiency. It is likely that the additional space for the extra warhead was created by reducing the volume of the fuel tank. This is likely to affect the range of the cruise missile, but given the territory of Ukraine, the decrease in range is not critical. According to Defence Express, the installation of an additional warhead, in addition to the usual fragmentation, High Explosive 1 occurred due to the reduction in the size of the fuel tank. What this means is a reduction in the flight range of the KH-101 from 5,500 km to a hypothetical 2,250 km, which doesn't have much significance. In case of launching such missiles from the Saratov region, even targeting objects in the Lviv region, the KH-101 will still have 500 to 700 km remaining for additional manoeuvres. As for the mechanism of releasing the warhead of the missile, which is used in the new version of the KH-101, it is currently unknown. KH-101 is a strategic cruise missile developed with radar cross-section reduction technology. A missile with a special nuclear warhead has a KH-102 index. It has been developed since 1995 and was adopted in 2013. The carrier of the missile is a TU-95MSM turboprop strategic bomber and TU-160. The missile uses a combined inertial guidance system with optical electronic adjustment, with the homing head activated at the final stages of flight. In the transport position, the engine is a turbojet, dual-circuit, the R95TM 300 models are located inside, the wings are folded under the missile and the tail is also folded. After starting, the engine extends out of the body and the tail decomposes. Poland launches Armoured Vehicle Coalition for Ukraine. In Warsaw, the opening of a coalition of Armoured Vehicles in support of Ukraine took place reports the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. As noted by the department, during the meeting representatives of the participating countries formulated a position on strengthening the Armed Forces of Ukraine with certain Armoured Vehicle models and organising their repair. In addition to Poland and Germany, the initiative also involves the United Kingdom, Sweden and Italy. The purpose of the Armoured Vehicle Coalition is to strengthen the Armoured Shield of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, jointly enhance our military capabilities, encountering the Russian aggressor, ensure the effective functioning, technical maintenance and repair of equipment and weaponry provided to us by Allies, said Deputy Minister of Defence of Ukraine Ivan Havryliuk, who led the Ukrainian delegation. Within the framework of the Coalition, four syndicates have already been created. Each has been assigned specific tasks, supply of weapons and ammunition for Western Armoured Vehicles, technical maintenance and repair, training of crews and technical personnel, development of effective tactics for the use of Armoured Vehicles on the battlefield. This is a very important initiative of our Allies considering the existing issues in the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the repair of foreign-made Armoured Vehicles. I hope that with the help of Allies, we will be able to quickly, as much as possible, establish an effective repair base for Western Armoured Vehicles in Ukraine. Havryliuk added, he clarified that within the Coalition, a roadmap will be developed in line with the strategy for the development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is expected that in the long term, Coalition members will assist Ukraine in creating a fleet of vehicles and establishing industrial partnerships with our country. On March the 18th, Polish Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kostyniak Kamiz announced that his country, together with Germany, was forming an Armoured Vehicle Coalition for Ukraine. The official emphasised that this is one of the most important coalitions. It is worth noting that there are several other coalitions aimed at assisting Ukraine. These include the Aviation Coalition, Drone Coalition, Tank Coalition and others. It is highly recommended to come here without a head. If you do not have it, it is not very good here. Our sea technique.


The Grammy goes to The new song Lady Aida for her new new new song. It was album of the year. Yes, okay Welcome desk of lady lady. What is on your desk this week? Okay, so This week, I haven't actually had a lot of time to do a lot of designing I've just been like keeping up with revisions and like, you know, you've seen a lot a bunch of stuff came in because there was a lot of shipping delays Through Asia and so like, you know, some of our components and suppliers Get parts from there and so stuff was delayed So you saw like we kind of had nothing for a couple weeks and then we had a big boost It's feast or famine as they say in the electronic biz now. It is so I thought Instead I could design something live using parts that can get yeah, because that would be fun So we had someone well first off. Do you have any user updates? No regular week No, Peter doing show and tell the show tell us on Ask an engineer and lots of surprises ahead some cool retro photos a bunch of coming soon It is a jam-packed week and as always we appreciate all of y'all at the time you spend with us You have lots of choices. We very much appreciate sporting us a 100% woman owned electronics company in New York City trying to do Good in the world. Okay, lady to back to you. Okay, so design something I'm working on it somebody emailed today and asked do we have something that converts a Raspberry Pi Pico to use Arduino shields and I was actually like well, we don't actually Have something that would do that, but it could be a handy little board and You know, you might be able to do a bunch of it with just like having it through holes So like it would be a mini kit Instead of assembly although like I'm now you know kind of thinking about it a little bit So you know only like a couple hours ago So I thought I would show what it would be like for me to design this and maybe So you can give me like 15 minutes and then we can move on to yeah great search ready. Yeah set go Okay, so you want to go to the computer? Well, I already have a our Raspberry Pi Pico package. I don't remember whether I made this or somebody else made this. It's been a while But I have a footprint ready to go So what I actually want to do is It's in my libraries So what I want to do is I'm actually going to Take an existing board and Got it. I kind of like to do that instead of starting from scratch because I you know, it keeps me from making Some mistakes, you know over and over again So I think I'll probably take the metro M zero which is sort of the closest Thing and I'm gonna copy and paste it and I'll make a new folder called metro Pico adapter And I got a lot of revisions, but I only want the last revision So let's look at this metro express and see what I can do so obviously this metro is designed for You know a rock chip so I think like I would I would like kind of take everything out of here And that would of course have to change the silk screen up but maybe I could keep a lot of this because like all the component locations are In spots that are like, you know the headers and the reset button And the micro USB port it would be cool if I could keep them kind of in the same sort of spot So I'm gonna start by Clearing out all that stuff and then in the schematic I'm gonna just delete the I'm going to Delete the samd 21 So it's gone and then I don't know maybe I'll keep the neopixel the SPI flash is already on the pico So I'll delete that. I might keep the SWD interface because there's a SWD Um RXTX LEDs, I don't know power supply. I don't need because the board has an on-board power supply Which is cool Fiber power supply. I might keep this on here for now Although it's a little funny because the micro USB port is on The pico so I don't know exactly what I'm gonna do there like I don't know if I can do a power port selection like this has to This has to go because I actually first off. There's no host enable. There's no USB host on the pico like there's no host select and The fuse I don't need because you know any fuse is already on the board and I don't need this shield So I've kind of I'm sort of deleting all the things that I Don't need and see what's what's going on now. Okay, so I kind of cleared out a lot of stuff All right, so next up I want to put that pico there. I think I'm going to Delete the ground plane So usually I have this for the streaming I have this Screen pretty low resolution. It's like 720p. Normally. I'm like 1080p so I would be able to see stuff a little clearer but Okay, so Let's now add to the schematic First up, I'll close this little inspector because I don't need it. Let's add the pico to already have the object for so Let's search for pico. See what comes up Great. Unfortunately, everybody has boards named pico now. It's kind of common thing Okay, so this is the Our pipe pico board and where is the Corner, it's not a very good spot for the pico So unfortunately doesn't look like it can make the micro us. Well, I can kind of make it in the same spot But I think it would be kind of sucky So I'm going to move it over a little bit Just so I have enough room for the silk screen so I'm going to delete the micro USB and and Delete the ground plane that we made for it and then I'm gonna delete this power ground plane and I'm going to move These LEDs out of the way and I can always find a spot for them later. All right, so now You know again, I like to have a you know, I want this to stick out like this micro USB here Um, maybe I'll move this down and I can move This down this down and You know, I have space for the silk screen, which is what I'm just kind of important Like I have I can squish this up a little bit, but I think like now I have a good amount of space so this is where the the the pico would sit and Then now I want to start assigning the pads so The good news is There's a lot of IO pins and One thing that I noticed on the At least on the Philhauer Pico core is that you can't remap pins. So pin zero is pin zero So normally I try to like map functionality, but I think it's more important to map pin Naming because the even you know, even if it's annoying to route I think people expect D zero on a Raspberry Pi to be D zero I think there's a way to quickly make all these lines, but I don't remember how to do it Okay, so like this This pin is DZ This pin is D zero and this is D one And this is D two and these are like the GPIO numbers so You know, like the thing is about the Pi three is like only the I squared C and the Sorry the analog pins are on specific pins. So these I have to kind of I'm kind of fixing on them. So This is a zero a one and a two And then I'm gonna keep you know the naming A2 I only think that's a little sad is the you know, the Raspberry Pi does not expose One of the analog pins because they have a connected to the the power monitor But that's okay, okay, so this is the ground So let's see how this looks It's let's go on to bear route so we can hide all the silk screen So the only it's a little annoying is like, you know, the pins are in the opposite order Then we would like would make for a nice route, but you know, we have a lot of space So it's it's annoying, but it's not like the end of the world. So for example You know, this is our D zero line and let me see so it's like This is my These holes these holes are gonna make it a little annoying You know, I think what I might have to do is This power supply might have to Get routed later because what I'll need to do is Route around So that this pin We'll need to go You know all the way around here to connect and then this is D1 Let's move this We do not need to yet. So then this is D1 and We'll route that, you know, right up against Here's that's not too bad. I just have to be careful I just have to make sure that I can get all of the wires I want Into this area because these mounting holes and These pads make it so I can't really route in and I guess I could try to route through but this actually makes it a little cleaner anyways because You know, I don't have to do any crossovers or vias So this is kind of elegant It's like that. All right, so that's that's kind of what I'll have to do And it's just it's just gonna be tedious. I'm just gonna have to like do all of them And then the good news is that I can still probably put the power supply over here It just has to be you know, I just have to make sure that I You know, I need a ground plane underneath this regulator to Make sure it can handle like the nine volt power supply and provide enough power So So I just have to make sure that like the ground plane I have isn't going to be cut up by that Underneath all those those wires that are underneath. So I Guess I could keep routing if people want or if they have any questions No, you're good. There is one question that I'll just ask Where can I get low-profile to punt that allows me to plug into from the backside of the PCB? That's tough, I mean we have we have slim headers that we use for some things like We have these two by twenty SMT Short headers and these are hollow so you can plug in from the bottom And they you know, they're surface mounts They pick and place on top quite easily and then you then you plug through. I don't know if that's the thing They were asking about okay What's up, you know, let's Let's go over to the great search. Okay. Well, I'll let's see 12 minutes on the dot So people people can see what I'm doing So I'm just gonna keep routing this and then when I'm done You know, I do all the pins and then I just have to pick a few pins for SPI now luckily for SPI These are named pins and so are the clock and data for I squared C and for those pins I Can I Can use any GPIO so because there's a lot of there's actually a lot of GPIO on the the pie But some of them are like, you know pretty high pins. So SPI will probably be like 18 19 20 21 I scored two all be 16 17 that'll leave GPIO 15 Unused and then you know, I can have a neopixel or something on GPIO 14 And so it'll be semi, you know, maybe it'll be surface mount and then you solder in your Raspberry Pi pico Question thoughts on the board having a quick connection Yeah, I'm gonna add one. I think I'd have space I could probably add one. Okay here Good suggestion. All right Ina 260 I on stock soon. I Don't know. I I don't know when stuff's gonna. Everybody wants to know 18 months when thing in stock when thing in stock when is Yeah, man want thing in stock. There is a lot of When will in stock be soon? Questions, okay, we don't know the answer. All right. Well, this is the start So, you know, maybe I work on this a little bit more this week All right, let's do the great search ready. Okay, the great search brought to you by the key need for it Thank you so much. Did you key? This is when lady user powers of engineering Every single week to help you find the things that you're looking for because it is a part drought and Lady Ada is an oasis of information that'll quince your search See what I did there That's your search Sounds like there's Okay, what is really going to marketing? I I might one day. Yeah, we can all dream. What is the great search this week? Okay? This week. We it's another customer request somebody asked us About it was equal to a quest that started a thought process So somebody asked us like oh, can you make a little adapter that would take? Like triple-a or double-a battery pack and convert it to USB-C and So you can like plug it in to something that wants USB-C because we have a lot of stuff that uses USB and On one hand, it's like, you know, it's kind of like the easiest problem and also the hardest problem because being a battery voltage alkaline battery voltage can range quite a bit and Especially if you have like four batteries, it can go above five volts or below and so, you know, the right thing to use is a buck boost converter and and So I was thinking about like, okay, you know, I we already stuck a buck boost and they could probably use that But it's not cheap.  You know, just like you you can break it You know, they have some limitations and not you know, they're good chips and everything like don't get me wrong But I was thinking like I would be you know, what would be an easier way of accomplishing that And maybe do it in a little more inexpensive way and then I remembered that we did an ion NPI on e-fuses and e-fuses are An interesting chip that kind of takes care of your power supply issues It's you know, people are used to PTC fuses or just water fuses where you know, if the current goes over it'll pop Same with PTC fuses. It'll it'll open the circuit so you don't get too much current but what if You know, you want Something that's a little bit more You know, you're willing to spend a little bit more but you wanted to do a little bit more than just over current like under voltage over voltage You may be like light up something or warn you or latch when there's a failure And so if you just do that, so let's go to the computer and I'll show off. We did cover e-fuses So this is you know, I reference this ion NPI You know about a half a year ago and The you know, I I wanted to if you are more interested in more Details and what's funny is this is a part. I was like as I was like doing the search for e-fuses I was like this part will sound so familiar and it's like, oh, yeah, I didn't I am a P on it But I'll show you that a different e-fuse as well So this this series is quite good There's there's like seriously nothing wrong with it, but From what I could tell I think these fuses were only now they did have a 501 then this six three five one But there were a couple things that I noticed About these so let's look at the next six three five one to maybe Make another option. Okay, so one I Think I remember now what it was so this was a three amp fuse Which is which is totally fine But I also I wanted to see if I could find one that had a higher range and I think also Let's look at the data sheet Yeah, this had you know, it's not super high, but it does have an 85 mil ohm RDS on so it's not it's not low That said this was a you know This was a very good option so I did look for this, but I was also like well I want to see what what other parts are available Although this was this is a pretty good one so Right So let's go back here. So what I did is you know, I just basically because I was like I already know a part that's similar Let's look at active E-fuses and see what else is going on. So I did want this to Range from again about like four volts to six volts in and it would kind of give me a fuse at about five volts output And five volts up. It's a really common Voltage, but let's try selecting on the input to start and You know, I think you can go up to like 4.5 volts Input, you know something like that. That would be four doubly batteries because if it's four Alkalines, you'll get like seven ish volts and if it's Four nickel metal hydrides, you'll get about 4.8. So so that's good. So let's search for that and we've got a lot of options and Another thing I wanted to do is there's there's a lot of options. There's a lot of makers of e-fuses So I would recommend Looking for all them Most of them have pretty high currents The only issue I had is a lot of them and ones that I've used before like I've used some of the TPS They're out of stock and they're like heckin out of stock like you can see when this one might come back into Stock but the lot of them like they won't even tell you or it's like five years from now so I wanted to look for only ones that are in stock right now and the ones that are in stock right now, you know, I sorted by price and The NIST one is is in there. There's also this one from ST But I honestly got a little bit freaked out by the flip chip because it's a one millimeter by one millimeter Component and I'm like, I don't really want to live. I don't want to deal with a component That's that difficult to pick in place So I looked around and actually found that the TC KE Series and actually had a couple of nice Options which made it interesting. Well, first off, there's a five amp current. There's a wide input voltage range This is the data sheet So they have an over clamp voltage So it's like, you know, you could feed it seven volts and it'll clamp it down for you obviously, you know, you can't do too much or it'll overheat but You know, it will it will It will keep the voltage Active like you'll you'll be able to get voltage out even if it's a little high because like when you first Turn on alkaline, you know, when you first plug in alkaline's four of them, you're gonna get like seven ish volts so still just kind of cut it down to six volts for you and It was quite simple and has like a rise time capacitor set has a resistor for the limit and The only thing that wasn't as nice as the NIST one is that it's You needed to add a external External FET for reverse current blocking You know, these are pretty inexpensive. So it's you know, you can get a FET for like five cents So I thought it was still well within reason But I kind of like this and yeah, there's there's a Historicis on the UV low So, you know, basically for four point one volts, it'll turn back on and it'll turn off a little bit less than that Like three point eight.  No big capacitors, you know, it's it's really just a it's a safe pass through So it's gonna be an interesting option You know, you have a battery port on one side and then USB connector on the other and then, you know, it basically just gives you like a rough voltage out And I think as long as people are aware of that, I think it could still be an interesting breakout board So this is the chip I've selected for the project the TCKE series the 805 that's a five volt output E-fuse And that's a great search All right, and then in the chat some folks were helping each other They found the parts they needed on different sites. So thank you everybody for being good to one another Thank you. That's our show for tonight. Okay 25 minutes on the dot. Thank you so much for joining us We'll see everybody during the week That was desk of Lediata my back to designing electronics for you quenched your thirst. Yes quenched your search


Look guys, if there's one thing and one thing only that I want to say after that previous video, it's big trust. But if there's a second thing I want to say, it's welcome back to another video and welcome back to a 49ers video, it's been a while. In fact, I don't think we've seen a 49ers player for at least 20 spots. I might be wrong, I might not be. I will say that I've been waiting for an opportunity to bring out my Jared Hayne, my classic Jared Hayne from 2015 49ers jersey. And the fact is that I never really knew how to wear them properly, but now I do. Now I do.    And for the very first time I'm going to actually test out what putting my hood up actually looked like.  What I will say is that this was my very first NFL jersey purchase. In fact, my only purchase because every single other NFL jersey that I've ever received I've actually got from you guys.  Big trust. Anyways guys, let's get into this. Jimmy Garoppolo, you know, from what I know, he was at the Patriots as a backup to Tom Brady. He got traded to the 49ers. He struggled with injury, I'm lead to believe. But I couldn't be sure. He's six foot four. He's 100kg. Sizable. He's got a bit of speed. He's got some good looks. And let's see just how well he did in 2019. Looking dope. You know how the ladies love it. Man, if you meet Jimmy, man, he got everything going for me. Good looking dope. I'm not surprised that Chad Johnson is talking about a guy being good looking.  And he can. And he's extremely comfortable with anything that comes out of his mouth. And that's why I like him. Isn't that funny? We've obviously on the same wavelength there thinking that Jimmy G is good looking. You know how the ladies love me, man. Well, it's handsome. A smile fit for a toothpaste ad and a jawline for Danes. Well, what's your look at that chin line? You see Jimmy G's chin line? Bro, yours isn't bad. Tom, did I just say Tom? I mean George. I'm mad here. Jimmy G Q is more than just a pretty face. In Garoppolo's first full season as a starter since coming back from a tour in ACL. The 49ers won their division with a 13 and 3 record. He's been so clutched. Oh, they got to the Super Bowl, didn't they? He's a guy that hasn't backed down from any challenge. He doesn't allow pass rushers to get to him. Bro, there's something about Bo...  But I would have laughed because his eyes do look, they do look a little bit stoned. Probably not, but in fact there are actually a couple of guys on this list that have been giving their little interviews on these players and I'm thinking, how many bongs did you smoke before sitting down, mate? What I was going to say is that if Boota Baker had not been chased down by D.K. Mekka as spectacularly as he was, I would not have a clue who he was. So really, it was probably good for him in a funny kind of way. You know, I feel like he was catching flag early in the season because not a lot was being asked about our run game. That's their fallback. That's their fallback news chick. Oh, what? Is that against Harrison Smith? No, it's not. It's against Anthony Barr. He's got one of, if not the quickest releases in the NFL. 28. It's only a baby. No wonder the ladies love him. I wonder who's married. 0. I like that run. Who is that number 30? He looks rapid. Who is that? Wilson Jr. Where is he? There he is, running back. Flag. What do you call that? A Texas route or a flag route? Look at that. Look at that catch behind his shoulder in the air. Had to turn. But I'll tell you what, the speed I saw after he caught that ball was impressive. Look at this. Go, son. Oh, that was, yeah, I've got to look that up. And whenever I see the name Jeff Wilson, I always get brought back to the good old days of Otago Rugby when Jeff Goldie Wilson played. He was my favourite player, played on the wing. In fact, in 1995, you'll find the back three of the Mighty New Zealand Allbacks were the best back three and the most influential back three of all time. That was Jonah Lamu, Christian Cullen and Jeff Goldie Wilson. Now, how fast is this guy? Because that speed was intense. He's probably not going to have his stats here. I've got no idea why. Jeffery Jeff Wilson Jr. There he is, six foot, 213 pounds from North Texas. I want a 40 yard dash, but I'm not going to get it. All right, let's continue. Whoops. Um, okay. Right, that was Jimmy G. I enjoyed wearing the 49ers colours. Any 49ers fans out there, I hope you enjoyed. But I guess I do need to find out what's happened this season. I hope he's playing. He's got two Super Bowls. What an absolute legend. What an absolute legend. So he got a left knee injury, tore his ACL in 2018, came back in 2019, made the Super Bowl against the Kansas City Chiefs, where Garoppolo threw 31 passes, completing 20 of them for 219 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions during the 31-20 loss. His team was up by 10 points with seven minutes remaining in the game, but the Chiefs scored 21 points in five minutes to win the game. Now, I watched that, but I can't exactly remember it. That's the trouble sometimes. Okay, I don't like seeing this, but in wheat number eight, Garoppolo completed 11 of 16 passes for only 84 yards in an interception before injuring his ankle and leaving in the fourth quarter being replaced by Nick Mullins. The next day it was announced that Garoppolo will be out indefinitely due to him re-aggravating his high ankle sprain. On November 5th, 2020, which was a mere six weeks ago, Garoppolo was placed on injured reserve. And it looks as if he's played six games this year, and it'll only be six, which is unfortunate. Okay, let's move on. We've got another running back. There's two running backs in three videos. That is not a bad strike rate whatsoever. It's Alvin Kamara. He's number 42 on the list. He plays running back for the New Orleans Saints, and it's all in the detail I'm lead to believe. That's right, isn't it? What is it? Big trust? Well, all in the detail, man. The detail. All right, guys. That's enough. I'll see you in the next video. I want to say cheers. I want to say Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


In this lecture, we will learn about making inferences about means of two groups, the two-sample Z-test. Welcome to the lecture. Previously, we examined what's called one-sample tests. Now we're changing things a little bit. Not much. We're going to be examining two groups. It's called two-sample tests. We're going to examine two populations and we're going to look at a parameter, say mu. And we want to determine whether there's a difference, a significant difference between the population means. And as always, we look at the sample means and sample evidence. And we're going to use that to determine whether the difference between the two means is significant or not. Now it doesn't have to be means. We're going to look at proportions, which we'll do also. But these are all called two-sample tests. And the HO, that's our straw man, is that mu1 equals mu2 if we're dealing with means, which essentially means that there's no difference between the means. Anyway, let's look at the null hypothesis. If we're comparing means, the null hypothesis that mu1 equals mu2. The population mean of group one is the same as the population mean of group two. Or in other words, mu1 minus mu2 is zero. No difference. You're really looking at an HO saying there's no difference, zero difference between the two population means. So for example, we could be comparing men and women on some measure. Like we could look at who does better in college in terms of GPA. And then we examine the GPA of men and women. And again, there are other groups too that maybe there aren't enough of them. So we're just looking at men and women. So the HO is always about the population parameters. And the random variable is x bar 1 minus x bar 2. The difference between the sample means. So we're going to look at the sample evidence to see if it supports the HO that there is zero difference. Between the two groups. If we're looking at the difference between two groups, two population means. The statistic of interest would be the difference between the two sample means x bar 1 minus x bar 2. So the question is, what's the expected value of that statistic of that random variable? And what's the correct measure of variation? Well, we don't have to derive it here because this isn't a course in mathematical statistics. But it turns out that the expected value of the difference between the two x bars is mu 1 minus mu 2. The difference between the two population means. And the standard deviation of this random variable, the difference between the two x bars. Is found to be the square root of sigma 1 squared over n 1 plus sigma 2 squared over n 2. And you'll see how that becomes important on the next slide. So if our sample sizes are large enough. And again, you have to know what large enough means for the company you work for for the instructor of the class you're taking. Or this is easy if the sigma is our known if the two population standard deviations are known. We could do a two sample z test for the for making inferences in this case. So to get the calculated value of this z statistic. We get that just like every other z statistic every time you see a formula that starts z equals. It's always the random variable minus its mean divided by its standard deviation. That's why it was so important to figure these things out on the previous slide. So the random variable is x bar 1 minus x bar 2. The mean of this random variable is mu 1 minus mu 2. And the standard deviation of the random variable is sigma 1 squared over n 1 plus sigma 2 squared over n 2 under a square root sign. Of course, we can simplify this nicely because by the null hypothesis, mu 1 is equal to mu 2. So mu 1 minus mu 2 is 0 and that term falls out and you're left with the formula on the bottom of the slide. Now what do we do if we don't know sigma? We're going to come to that in just a few seconds. We don't know sigma as long as our sample sizes are large enough. We use S1 and S2 as point estimators of sigma 1 and sigma 2. S1 is the sample standard deviation in group 1, S2, the sample standard deviation in group 2. And just like with one sample test, we're using the sample standard deviation as a point estimator for the population standard deviation. And we can only do that using a z if our sample sizes are large enough. If we're working with sample data from two groups and we are constructing a confidence interval estimator, what we're really doing is constructing a confidence interval estimator for the difference between the two population means, mu 1 minus mu 2. Normally we'd be looking at a CIE of mu, but in this case we have two groups, presumably with two means, and we're looking to estimate the difference between the means.  Again, the random variable is X bar 1 minus X bar 2. That's the sample evidence and that's in the middle, what goes in the center of the confidence interval estimator. We have z from the table, which gives us our level of confidence. And we have the measure variation, sigma 1 squared over n1 plus sigma 2 squared over n2. What happens if there's really no difference between the two groups? In other words, we have two samples, but these are just two random samples from the same population. We think it's two different populations, men and women, but if they have exactly the same parameter, it really is the same population, human beings. So what happens to the confidence interval in that case? Well, in that case, it should turn out that there's a zero in there, because if the two means are the same, the difference between the means is zero, and we're looking for that value of zero in the confidence interval to determine that the two groups really are the same and really are one group. We'll see a problem like that later on. Gold standard of medical research is comparing a drug by looking at two groups. You sign people randomly to these two groups. One group will take the new drug, and the other group, we call it the control group, they take up SIBO. And in a double-blind study, no one knows who's in which group. In this case, we're looking at number of coals. We're going to test the drug to see if it reduces the number of coals that people get. So we're going to have two groups. Again, one group taking the drug, another group taking up SIBO, and we'll see if the means are different. Look at the sample evidence. In group one, that's the drug group, we had 81, N is 81, and they were getting 4.4 coals a year with a standard deviation of 0.7 coals. The SIBO group, that's group two, there was 64 in that group, and the mean for them was 4.8 coals with a standard deviation of 0.8 coals per year. Now we can see there's a difference of negative 0.4 coals, 4.4 minus 4.8. Now the question is that difference statistically significant? Is it a significant difference? Or it could just be chance. Any time you compare two groups, the likelihood is that there'll be some difference. I don't care what. The big question in statistics is, is this chance or is it a real, real difference? If you want to understand how chance difference, take a coin, flip it 50 times, and you'll get a certain number of heads. You may get to say 23. Take the same coin, flip it again 50 times. It's almost a certainty that you're not going to get the same number of heads. It'll be slightly different, and that's just chance. It doesn't mean anything. That's why we always have to test. The government is not going to let you use a new drug unless you've tested it for significance. You want to make sure that it's different than not taking a drug at all for SIBO. As you can see, we set it up. HO is mu1 equals mu2. Another way of saying no difference. And H1 is that mu1 is not equal to mu2. And now we have the Z formula. So we take 4.4 minus 4.8 over the square root of 0.7 squared over 81 plus 0.8 squared over 64. And when you do all the arithmetic, you'll end up with minus 0.4 over 0.127, which is negative 3.15. Clearly, that's in the rejection region. Notice anything to the left of negative 1.96, that's going to be significant. That was less than 0.05% chance of this occurring. So we'd say we conclude that the two groups are indeed statistically different. The drug group has fewer calls per year. That would be presumptuous for you to say it's a 0.4 difference because there's always a margin of error. But for the moment, we know there's a statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups. If you want to construct a 95% confidence interval for the difference, remember your difference was negative 0.4 calls. The reason it's negative is because the lower number was the group 1. If you switched it around, then you have a positive. It doesn't make a difference. But we had a negative 0.4. The drug group had 0.4 calls fewer than the placebo group. So now let's construct a confidence interval. Again, you have negative 0.40 plus and minus. Now there's that 1.96, as you know. That's used if you two-sided 95% confidence interval. And that number in the denominator, that's in the square root, the standard error for the difference was 0.127. So you just multiply it and you get the margin of error is 0.25 calls. Basically that's how you would report it. You found a 0.40 difference with a margin of error of 0.25. Or if you write it out, you'd show that the 95% confidence interval is the drug definitely causes fewer calls. But it could be anywhere from 0.65 calls less all the way to negative 0.15. Notice there's no zero in the interval. So you're basically sure with 95% confidence that the drug group will have fewer calls. Again, the way you would report it, you just say 0.40 difference, fewer calls. The margin of error is 0.25. Problem two, we're comparing men and women to see if there's a difference in standardized science tests. I guess somebody, Chauvinist thinks that men are better than women. Okay, but we're going to see if it's true or not. So we took a sample, as you can see, 100 men and their average, this is sample mean, was 80 with a standard deviation of 10. The women, their average was 76.5 with a standard deviation of 16. Now it would be presumptuous of you to say, oh, men beat the women. So as you know, there's always sampling area to worry about. So we want to know, is there a significant difference between men and women on the science test at alpha equals 0.05. All right, we're going to set up HO, mu1 equals mu2, H1 is a mu1 is not equal to mu2. And again, we're using 0.05, we cut it in half, 0.25 in the right tail, 0.25 in the left tail. By now we know the critical values are 1.96 and minus 1.96. Now we turn the sample evidence into a Z score. We end up with 80 minus 76.5. That's a 3.5 point difference where the men beat the women on the science test. The standard error for the difference, that's the square root of S1 squared over N1 plus S2 squared over N2. It's 10 squared over 100, by the way, that's just 1 plus 16 squared over 64, which by the way is just 4. So we end up with a square root of 5 in the denominator. 3.5 divided by 2.24 is 1.56 and we're in the acceptance region. We have no evidence to reject. It's not enough that 3.5 point difference, it could very well be sampling error. So you'd say in simple English, no statistically significant difference between the two groups, men and women on the test scores in science. There's no significant difference. As you'll see in a moment, we're going to do the confidence interval for the difference just to show you what happens. But you really don't do a confidence interval. Once you've said there's no difference, you're basically claiming that the men and women are the same when it comes to science. So there's no reason to do a confidence interval, because you've already said no difference, zero difference. So don't contradict yourself by doing the confidence interval. We're going to show you what happens if you do it.  Anyway, you have 3.5 plus and minus 1.96 times 2.24. So the margin of error is 4.4. When the margin of error is more than the observed difference, there's got to be a zero in there. So here's our confidence interval. It goes from negative 0.9 all the way to plus 7.9. Obviously zero is in that interval. So basically that reinforces there's no difference. But again, let me repeat. If you have no evidence to reject HO, if you in quotes accepted it and you can't reject, you don't have to do this. You don't do a confidence interval, because you know zero's got to be in the interval. And this problem of looking at two colleges, you know, colleges very often say, you know, our students are smarter than your students, right? We have these arguments between Brooklyn College and Baruch College. And if you're at Queens, it'll be Queens versus Hunter. Everyone's fighting over this. So now one college is claiming that the difference in the CPA exam scores between College X and College Y. Anyway, here's a sample evidence. Notice we're looking at a sample of 260 students, right? It took 100 students from College Y and 160 from College X. And it does seem to be a slight difference. 72.5 versus 74.1, those are the means. And the standard deviations are 8 and 9.1. But as you know, if we test, let's say, the alpha of 01, we are not sure if the difference is sampling error or not. So we're going to do a statistical test. HO is mu1 equals mu2. H1 is mu1 is not equal to mu2. Since we're testing at the 01 level, we cut the 01 in half. Two-tailed tests, we have 005 on the right and 005 on the left tail. The critical values are 2.575 on the right to negative 2.575 on the left. Okay, and then we turn the sample evidence into a z-score. We do the difference between the means and the numerator, which is 72.5 minus 74.1 or negative 1.6. And the denominator, we have the standard error of the difference. And we have the square root of 8.0 squared over 160 and 9.1 squared over 100. And we finish all the arithmetic. We end up with a z-score of minus 1.44, which is definitely not in the rejection region. Again, it's got to be to the left of negative 2.575. So like negative 2.8 would have been in the rejection region. Negative 1.44 is not in the rejection region. We don't reject HO. And our conclusion is simple English. There's no significant difference between the two colleges on the CPA exam scores. In other words, it could just very well be sampling error. No college can claim a brag that it does better. And as far as the 95% confidence interval for the difference, you don't need to do that. You know zero is going to be in the interval. So you basically don't do a confidence interval. You said there's no difference, which is another way of saying that you've accepted zero as a difference. There is no difference. As far as you are concerned, the two colleges do just as well as each other on that CPA exam. And I'm back. Did you miss me? In this problem, we're studying the lifetimes of smartphones produced by company X and by company Z. We took a sample of 60 phones from company X, a sample of 64 phones from company Z. And we found an average lifetime of six and a half years in company X's phones. 5.7 years in company Z's phones with the respective standard deviations of 1.2 years and 0.8 years. We want to test to see if there is really a significant difference between these two phones, these two companies phones. And we're going to be testing at the alpha of 0.01. So here we have our two sample hypothesis test using Z for the difference between two means. The null hypothesis is that the two means are exactly the same. The alternate hypothesis is that they're different. And if you notice that we've been kind of lazily just saying mu one equals mu two. We could have said mu X is equal to mu Z, mu of company X is equal to company Z. But basically it's simpler and less confusing to stick to the notion that we have a group one and a group two. And that's why you see mu one and mu two over there. We're working at an alpha of 0.01. And with a two sample tests, we're always doing two tail tests. We split the alpha into two equal pieces, half a percent on one side, half a percent on the other side. So the critical values from the Z table are plus and minus 2.575. The calculated value of Z from the sample evidence, 6.5 minus 5.7 divided by the square root 1.2 square over 60 plus 0.8 square over 64. And you end up with 8 over 0.1844 or 4.34. That's a pretty big number for a Z. And we are definitely in the region of rejection. It's larger than 2.575. So we reject the null hypothesis at P less than 0.01. It's a very, very stringent test. There is a statistically significant difference between the two companies with regard to the lifetime of their smartphones. We're constructing a 99% confidence interval estimator for the difference between the two population means mu one minus mu two. We use the appropriate formula for this. The middle of the confidence interval is 0.8 years. That's the value that we got for the difference between the two sample means the Z value that gives you 99% confidence or the central 99% of the distribution is 2.575. We multiply it by 0.1844, which is the standard error of the of the random variable. And so 0.47 is the margin of error. And the 99% CIE of the difference between the two means it goes from a low of 0.33 years to an upper level of 1.27 years. Here's another problem slightly different. We're looking at a company and its minority employees versus its white employees. And the company would like to determine whether its minority employees actually earn less than do the white employees. These are two random samples, 60 minority employees, 100 white employees. And you can see the data there. We're using an alpha significance level of 0.05. We've got an average of $1,300 a week for the minority employees, an average X bar of $1,500 a week for the white employees. And we know that it's different. What we want to know is whether not only whether it's significantly different, but in this case we're looking at whether the difference is in a particular direction. If we can show that the minority employees really do earn less. We'll see how we do that on the next slide. Okay, notice the HO. This is going to be called a one-tail test. And notice the rejection region is on the left. If you're not sure where, look at the H1. H1 always points to the direction of where the rejection region is. So the entire O5 is put on the left. And if you put the entire O5, this is Z. You'll see the critical value is negative. Don't forget it's a negative number, negative 1.645. Now the way it's set up when you have this kind of test is HO is the straw man. You're pretending that rough at the moment that the minorities make more than the white employees. Now if you reject it, then you're going to have, you're going to shoot the straw man down. And then your conclusion is going to be, no, minorities make not more. They make less than white employees. So the rest of the stuff is just simple arithmetic. You get the Z value.  The probability is going to be a lot less than O5. It'll be less than like, it'll probably be less than one in a million. So basically your conclusion is you reject HO. Minorities don't make more than white people in this company. You reject that. So what are you saying then? That the minorities make less and now you possibly have a lawsuit. Okay. So that's your conclusion is minorities make less in this company based on the two samples that you took. Now this, you remember you could have, you know, 100,000 employees here. So we're looking at the sample evidence and was deciding that now we see that based on the sample evidence, minorities make less than white people. Do you want to know how to retain all this information and do well on your exams? Here you have it. Practice, practice, practice. Once you understand the material, find as many problems as you can and just keep on doing them and do them over. Do them over again. You have problems in the lectures. You have problems in the do it nows and test your knowledge on the lecture page. You have problems in the homeworks, problems in the handouts. You have exam prep, practice problems on the handout page. Lots and lots of problems. Thank you very much for joining us in this lecture.