It's like you have to take this seriously regardless of whether or not it's fake because if that's true Like he that's those are unacceptable things to say about people But that's just the world that we live in now. It's like we can have such uncertainty and that Things that are completely fake and completely contrived can be weaponized against people brave new world Michael Ryan it is the internet may not care but Administrators better care teachers better care and the legal system better care Yes, the presumption of innocence has never been more important I don't know if this was real or not, but if it's fake you cannot punish somebody for something that was done to them You know in AI has become in audio and video what Photoshop has been which means it's a trick to your senses Do you know if this is real or not?


What's the difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas? Think of these balls as atoms or molecules. And here we have a nice orderly structure as in a solid. If we add energy, the molecules vibrate, but they stay in relative position. So there's kinetic energy, their motion. If we increase that kinetic energy and give them more motion, and now we have a liquid, we have even more energy. Let's suppose we have a liquid that is a mixture of two compounds.  And we want to separate them. At this point, you see there are 18 white ethanol molecules and only four water molecules. So we're going to heat this up, add energy to it. So as we add energy, some of it is going to evaporate and leave our container. All right, after adding a little energy, now we have 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 white balls and four blue balls. So let's try again. Add more energy. All right, now you see there are 2, 4, 6 ethanol and three water molecules. You should note that even though what we're trying to do is remove all the ethanol, we also remove some of the water. So when you're trying to distill something, you're not going to get a 100% pure substance.


Hi, I'm Luke, the security engineering lead in Red Hat's office at the CTO.  It's been a challenging time for us all, but no more so than for the events industry. Many thanks and kudos to them for allowing me to perform a last minute switch to a pre-recorded keynote. In a parallel universe I would be in sunny LA, alas instead I'm in the rather rainy UK having just got back from the school run. Security at the supply chain has become one of the leading conversations at the heart of information technology. We've seen a flurry of media coverage and as you all know we have the attention of everybody from tech leaders to the US president himself. But before we get into this let's do a recap to look at how we arrived at our present juncture. The past decade has seen a tidal wave of innovation and disruption to information technology. Software as we know it is eating the world and a majority of it is open source. In parallel to the incredible adoption rate of open source software we've also seen automation accelerate and disrupt the core paradigms of how we develop, build and ship software. There is an old saying no individual is an island the same now holds true for software no open source software is an island. Your average code base both open source and proprietary now depends on a wide-reaching ecosystem of open source projects in the form of what we term dependencies. Let's take Kubernetes as an example where the dependency matrix is currently at a count of 513. In fact it's likely even more since I recorded this talk. React Native's yarn dependency file currently contains 7109 lines. Now let's get this straight there are no fingers being pointed here. I develop in precisely the same way and so we should. It's what makes open source software development tick and has enabled the incredible volume of innovation we have seen within software engineering. Dependencies as we all know well are managed on behalf of the application by often bespoke packaging systems. However there is a common paradigm where different levels of attention are granted to security. I think it's fair to say that when we look into the average open source packaging system security is all too often being shoehorned into the project as a later feature when maintainers and users have already settled on a familiar workflow lacking a basic security protection system such as software signing. A good number of packaging systems have no security at all. Let's take Rust for example a language I admire greatly that introduces security as a first class element with strict enforcement of memory safety yet with all of those great guarantees we get the packaging system cargo pulls in untrusted code as they do not have a basic cryptographic signing system. We also continue to struggle with the application of identity even more so in a world of abstraction from hardware where most workloads have an ephemeral state. Now I realize I'm sounding harsh and appear to be pointing fingers here but it's a serious topic folks. It is now common that critical infrastructure systems use open source software we are talking telecommunications health banking military or vital services that we rely on to be present when we awake each morning systems that we rely on to communicate and care for ourselves and our loved ones it really is that serious this goes above mere buzzwords it penetrates deep into the heart of our society. We have a duty which is arguably a moral one to do the right thing here. I would like to take the liberty to outline a vision for a destination which I believe is very much within our grasp. The building blocks are there and some smart people have rallied around various open source projects that are grappling with the problem and writing code to try and solve these issues. I believe with these component parts and further innovations we can begin a journey towards an end-to-end secure supply chain with total provenance integrity assurance transparency non-repudiation from commit to production. It's no surprise that I would start with six door just over a year ago I wrote a simple prototype for a software supply chain transparency log named RECOR. The idea was to essentially capture build system metadata within an immutable transparency log. I could see this could alleviate some of the key concerns around supply chain attacks by providing an open audible and a means to quickly establish the blast radius of an attack such as a key compromise. Six door is now a vibrant growing community with over 90 contributors producing on average 500 pull requests in a month. In under two years we've seen the project covered in mainstream media and large tech companies come forward to tell us how they plan to use six door and contribute. Six door's call to action is software signing for the masses so that anybody can sign a container image a software bill of materials or any other artifact whether that be a blob or a tarball. We are also in the final plans of launching a free to use non-profit public good service. Six door is a great example of individuals rising above competition to solve a problem for the common good of all. In six door we plan to beat a software sign-in what let's encrypt was to HTTPS. My next project is tecton cd chains. Tecton cd chains realize his supply chain security and tecton pipelines. Chains to use this moniker allows Kubernetes users to perform the cryptographic signing of tecton build pipelines. Over the past few years chains have seen many new features such as creation of attestations and integration with project six doors recall. I believe chains will be a central part of providing machined based non-repudiation integrity verification and s-bomb generation within a cloud native environment. The update framework needs no introduction to most security folks. At its core it addresses one of the most scary horror stories that can play out in the security world key compromise. There is of course a lot more to tough most of all its ability to play out role delegation. The update framework underpins the truss route at six door and it was very exciting to bootstrap the whole process alongside the tough community. I believe in Toto will be to s-bombs what wills were to cars. By leveraging in Toto we can record provenance as artifacts and machine operations interact with the various actors that constitute a supply chain. I see spiffy inspires an integral part of machine identity and hybrid cloud federation within a supply chain. It is of course much more than that as well with its position within the realm of zero truss computing. I think the only thing they may have got wrong was coming up with a name I could say more easily. Finally we have key lime. Some of you may not be aware of project key lime. With the previous technologies we can measure artifacts as they move through a supply chain and verify the provenance but what about when it's deployed into production do we consider it out of our hands? No of course not. Key lime is able to remotely measure the digest of an artifact at execution time within the kernel. This allows us to measure provenance at runtime. This means we can capture and measure and verify the entire software development life cycle. I'm very excited to see more innovation and more projects enter this space. We also have some great minds in some amazing communities looking to solve these challenges. We have the open ssf and the cncf security and the existing work they are carrying out with the supply chain security tag. We also have the efforts of spdx to drive adoption of the s-bombs standard. I believe all of these projects get us a good way towards an end-to-end secure supply chain where we have non-repudiation, integrity verification and provenance from commit to production. So I would like to end with the following message. I implore you to come and get involved in all of this exciting work. Let's do the right thing. Let's work together and collaborate to solve what is a critical issue of our time.


Hello everyone. Welcome to another case of the month. Let's take a look at the images of this case. Axial flare images, coronal T2, Axial SWI images, time of flight and geography. Axial flare images show gliotic area in right frontal lobe, multiple hyper-intensities in bilateral deep and subcortical white matter representing chronic ischemic areas, subtle linear hyper-intensities are seen along the sulci bilaterally. Axial T1 images show multiple tiny hyper-intense foci in bilateral ganglothalamic regions. Axial SWI images show multiple horizontal hyper-intensities representing prominent deep medullary veins, MIP and geography images show gross narrowing of supra-cleanoid segments of both internal carotid arteries and M1 segments of both middle cerebral arteries. Multiple prominent collatils are seen. These images show narrowing of A1 segments of both anterior cerebral arteries with A1 segment of left anterior cerebral artery being barely visualized. Mild to moderate narrowing of P1 and P2 segments of right posterior cerebral artery is seen. Time of flight and geography images show prominent dural and leptomeningal collatils as well as prominent collatils in bilateral ganglothalamic regions. These images show prominent bilateral basal collatils. So, to summarize, we have gliotic area in right frontal lobe, multiple hyper-intensities in bilateral deep and sub-cortical white matter representing chronic ischemic areas, subtle linear hyper-intensities along the sulci bilaterally, the so-called IV sign representing prominent pile collatils, multiple punctate hyper-intensities in bilateral ganglothalamic regions and basal cisterns representing collatils. Superclinoid segments of both internal carotid arteries and M1 segments of both middle cerebral arteries are grossly narrowed. A1 segments of both anterior cerebral arteries appear attenuated with left A1 segment being barely visualized. Reformation of distal anterior and middle cerebral arteries is seen with multiple prominent lenticulostride and thalamostride collatils. Mild to moderate stenosis of P1 and P2 segments of right posterior cerebral artery is seen with luminal irregularity. Distal reformation is seen. Angiography images show multiple prominent collateral vessels forming the so-called puff of smoke or Moyamoya appearance. Moyamoya disease is an idiopathic, non-inflammatory, non-arthriosteolarotic, progressive vascular occlusive disease involving the terminal superclinoid internal carotid arteries and circle of villus. Patients present with ischemic strokes, hemorrhage from abnormal vessels or watershed infarcts. Fibrocellular proliferation and thickening of the intima is the main process responsible for vascular stenosis and occlusion. The associated neovascularization may be a compensatory mechanism or part of the disease process itself with the Moyamoya vessels demonstrating various histopathological abnormalities including fibrin deposition, microinherism formation, among other abnormalities. Moyamoya disease affects the bilateral distalicea and circle of villus. Up to 18% of patients with Moyamoya may present with unilateral angiography documented disease. Small abnormal net-like vessels proliferate giving the characteristic puff of smoke or parents on angiography. Although classically described affecting the ICA, over 50% of the patients also have involvement of the posterior cerebral arteries. Imaging features include hemispheric and watershed infarcts, generalized cerebral atrophy, collateral circulation via the abnormal Moyamoya vessels, which are the lentogillostrite, thalamoperforating, leptomeninjil and ural arteries appearing as multiple tortuous flow voids on T1 and T2-wheated sequences. Pial collaterals from the less affected vessels, especially the posterior cerebral artery, forming the so-called IV sign, which is high serpentine, circle flare hyperintensity due to slow flow. Prominent deep medullary veins forming the so-called BRUSS sign on SWI sequences, transdueral branches of the middle meningeal and other ural branches. Other conditions which can give a similar appearance on imaging should be kept in mind. Moyamoya syndrome, also termed as the Moyamoya pattern on phenomenon, is due to numerous conditions that can cause arterial occlusion of the circular villus with resultant collaterals and appearances reminiscent of Moyamoya disease. These conditions include vessel wall abnormalities like atherosclerosis, fibromuscular dysplasia, etc. Fecomatosis including NF1 and tuberous sclerosis, connective tissue disorders like SLE and antifosphorylipid syndrome, blood dyscrasias such as sickle cell anemia, infections including meningitis.


Hello and welcome to the session, let us understand the following question which says, let L be the set of all lines in x, y plane and R be the relation in L, defined as R is equal to L1 and L2 such that L1 is parallel to L2, show that R is an equivalent relation. Find the set of all lines related to the line y is equal to 2x plus 4. Now let's write the solution, let L be the set of all lines in x, y plane. Given to us R is equal to ordered pair of L1 and L2 such that L1 is parallel to L2. Let us check for reflexivity belongs to L because an L2 L2 by definition of R conductivity L2 L3 belongs to L2 L3. Now the second part of the question says,


There's less than three weeks until the general election. We now have two radically different visions of Britain in play to discuss the Labour and Tory party manifestos. I'm delighted to be joined by Aaron Bustani, co-founder of Navarro Media. Hello, Michael. Zoe Williams, journalist at The Guardian. Hello. We're going to begin by discussing the blueprint for socialism in our time. Labour's new manifesto. Aaron, I want to know the key points in this beautiful document. I think the nationalisation is really important because it's now going to catalyse the conversation around the whole thing. And the default response from journalists, understandably in a way, has been how much is this going to cost? And actually, it should be how much is it going to save? So if we look at, for instance, was at the East Coast mainland, was making a profit before it was re-privatised a couple of years ago. If we look at what privatised water has done to people's water bills, since it's been privatised, water bills have increased by 40% above regular inflation, consumer inflation, we own it, have said that if we re-nationalise rail operators, which shouldn't cost anything, because we can just obviously bring them back into public ownership as the franchises expire, they've claimed that ticket prices, just by not having a for-profit model, changing nothing else would go down by 18%. So it's a great opportunity, if nothing else, over the next three weeks to talk about the merits, the advantages of public ownership. Yeah, I think that's true. I mean, I think what it does as well is it does throw into relief what a massive job there is to do reframing the way the conversation is held, because nobody ever talks about how expensive outsourcing is or how expensive privatisation is. The only time they talk about it is a kind of financial disaster, it's Labour's PFI disaster. And they're just the kind of day-to-day rip-off of things being privatised. And the cost of profit, you know, the cost of profit to the NHS and the cost of profit to rail is never discussed. And that casts people into thinking that everything Labour ever suggests is a kind of state spending. I don't think, I don't think so far, there's been a brilliant recasting of that debate, but I don't know, I don't know, you know, I certainly wouldn't blame Corbyn for that. I think there's a massive hill to climb on that. I mean, so the biggest elements of the manifesto are basically a return to universalism when it comes to welfare. So there's no means testing in here, which was something common to both Labour and Tory manifestos for many years. Big, unashamed taxes on the rich. And then as you say, a massive intervention in the economy, the IFS says the most we've seen since the 1940s. Although that, can I just correct that? That is premised on none of this creating any new growth. That's all based on current growth projections. That's a different point, Aaron, because this is a question about the biggest state intervention in the economy since the 40s. You're talking about the numbers add up. They're talking about the percentage of state spend as a percentage of GDP, but it obviously presumes that GDP won't go up. Okay, right, I see.  You can make all other points, you can maybe justify about the deficit or about, you know, public debt. But clearly, all of this would expand the economy, so actually that may be incorrect what they're saying. The thing is, I don't know if it's true that it's as radical as you say. I mean, a lot of this is just reversing the things that have happened since 2010. So all the stuff about prison officers, firefighters, border guards, nurses, ESA. And literally, I would say probably 40% of it is just reversing things which have happened in the last eight years. But 60% of stuff that's more bold than 13 years of labor government is still pretty radical. It's not that much more bold. I mean, if you think about, you know, most of the stuff is we wouldn't have been surprised by in 1997. What would we have been surprised by on this? Like a national investment bank was in Gordon Brown's manifesto. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Right, which actually was quite a bold manifesto. Well, I suppose the difference is the boldness of saying you'll increase corporation tax because even though the levels are still incredibly low, just sort of being able to say, openly, we are going to tax the rich. Anyone over 80K and openly say, we are gonna abolish tuition fees, you know. Just these big, bold policies that are unapologetic. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but, you know, corporation tax has been eroded and then what all we're gonna do is put it back to the way it was not very long ago.  Right, you know China's calling from the left though, is it?  This is the things which I think are most important rather than things that I think are the most radical or far left. I think the tuition fees is massive because it does have a transformative effect on society if you have a kind of a generation in debt and we kind of don't talk enough about it, I don't think. I think the renewables thing is important. I don't actually agree with banning fracking unless you're gonna ban the use of fracked gas because you can't. Oh, because it just means we fracked. It just means you fracked somewhat, yeah, exactly. It's like, I don't want to frack Lancashire. I'd rather frack Siberia. I just think it's really, I don't actually think it's very kind of left internationalist, which- Environmental chauvinism. Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's kind of environmental kind of, but yeah, xenophobia. But anyway, leaving that aside, I do think- You should do it to camera video for us though. Wow, well, you know. And also, the weird thing about it anyway, I'm not gonna go on about fracking because it's a very niche view, mine. So I think probably constitutionally, the House of Lords thing is important in terms of kind of reframing the nationalization is really important in terms of boldness. I think you're right saying a rise on any kind of tax is a big thing to do.  I don't see enough here really to reverse what's happened to disabled people. Or just welfare stuff in general, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it's like, it's, what's really galling is that an incredibly successful job has been done over the past seven years on costing welfare as like a bizarre thing that you shouldn't need unless you're weak or wrong or, you know. I think that is one of the more radical things about this manifesto, which also you can see in terms of what the reaction of centrist labor party people has been, which is that abolishing tuition fees is in a climate of scarce resources, you should be directing that money at people more needier than students. And in a climate of scarce resources, you shouldn't be subsidizing car parking in the words of Richard Angel. So it is moving us away from a context where scarcity is a given. And so governments are just there to, or a left-wing government is there to just point the money towards the slightly more vulnerable and saying actually we can expand this pie basically by unashamedly raising tax. So Britain's media definitely didn't think the manifesto was too moderate. The telegraph went for tax borrow spend. Corbyn is Hugo Chavez on steroids. The Times went for Labour's tax raid pledge in Tatters. That was based on the IFS assertion that the tax raises their proposing wouldn't raise quite as much as their spending commitments. The Daily Mail similarly went for Corbyn plan to bankrupt UK. And the Guardian, flying the flag for socialism, said Labour won't win says top union backer. A very brave headline there. Is that my newspaper you're slapping on? You could just have better headlines, you know. Your comment pieces are fine. Oh, cheers. Aaron, are these legitimate concerns? Do the sums add up? Yeah, they do. Labour's plans are to spend 48.6 billion pound more a year. They're claiming they'll raise 48.6 billion pound a year in tax. There's a nice symmetry there. But moreover, there's a cushion of four billion pounds. So it's not as if, or if we don't quite raise this much tax and we can't meet this spending pledge. Four billions of lots, almost 10%. Over 50% of that 48 billion pounds, 48.5 billion pounds is going to come from increasing income tax and corporation tax. The top rate of income tax will be the same really as California or Japan, Germany. So it's not incredible, it shouldn't lead to massive capital flight. There probably will be some, but that four billion is for precisely that. And then corporation tax goes to 26%, which is still the lowest I believe in the G7. So again, we may see some capital flight, but probably not that much. And of course, factor in the fact that the economy will grow because of increased demand, because people have more money to spend, because businesses will expand, employ more people, pay more money. I think if anything, it's conservative. I think it more than adds up personally. I mean, I genuinely don't know and I don't think it's possible to know. I don't think it's possible to know to put such precise figures on the amount of tax that will be raised. And I think once you accept that it's not possible to put such precise figures on it, you sort of accept a little bit more ambiguity, strategic ambiguity around it. But they have to, right? Yeah, exactly. Three things I'd say. One is the capital flight point, where all our tax arguments are kind of based on an 80s understanding of the way rich people behave, which is if you tax them fairly, they'll do this. And if they get to the point where they think it's unfair, like by the time the Beatles is singing songs about it, then they'll fly. The truth of it is, capital flight is going on all the time, however much you tax them. So there's just a subtle point worrying about them. There is subtle point trying to find the sweet spot at which a rich person will accept their duty of tax. That conversation has changed. And in a way, I would advocate to kind of be more assertive about it rather than more emollient. Secondly, as you say, there's a kind of Keynesianism play which they completely ignore. And there will be growth from people just having more money. And students coming out of university not in 50 grams worth of debt are going to be more productive people. Whether or not that's kind of productive consumers or productive, straightforward productive people, it's just going to be better. And thirdly, we sort of accept and we never put the toys under this kind of scrutiny because we kind of accept that they're always trying to save money and they're always working hard to save your money and they're never spending. But the truth is there's a huge amount of profligacy in privatization. There's a huge amount of profligacy in outsourcing. There's a huge amount of waste.  You know, all of their projections for when they'd clear the deficit were wrong. All of their projections for how much they'd spend on what were wrong. All of their measures like the bedroom tax cost more than they saved. All of this stuff is really, really expensive. It turns out that screwing your citizens is really, really expensive. And even if you might kick those costs into another department but you're still generating a huge amount of cost for yourself. And you know, benefit sanctions, they cost a fortune, cost a fortune. So they spent more trying to bring in universal credit which was supposed to reduce the benefit bill but ended up just paying people to bully disabled people. Exactly.  You're not actually saving any money. So I kind of feel that we should be much more trenchant about saying, A, this stuff is really hard to project. B, the Tories are rubbish at it. Absolutely shocking at it. And all their pass money doesn't generate money. And C, you know, we are anticipating just a much more generative productive economy. Workfare is a great example as well, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They'd be like 20 grand a place. Just give the money to the citizen. Give them some made-up job by the state. Well, exactly, exactly. And the same one would be privatising council houses. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You get rid of the housing stock and then you have to pay, what was it? You said £95 billion. £95 billion on housing benefit compared to £5 billion on creating new homes. And that was during the Labour government. That was the final Labour spending period. So it was a five-year period. And by the way, 40% of homes bought under right to buy are now rented out. Many of those will be receiving housing benefit. So the person who owns that home has got a government subsidy and a cheap house. They're getting a continued subsidy through somebody else's rent being paid to them. Incredible. It's absolutely unbelievable, isn't it? Which links into the nationalisation argument as well because they've been saying, is it fully costed that you're going to nationalise these things when in fact, social housing is a great example? That was an income source. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.  Yeah, yeah, exactly. But also, actually, it feeds into the social care argument because they have all these conversations about how social care is unaffordable because everybody's living too long. It's unaffordable because they outsourced all the social care. It all got bought up by private equity. They turned it into a not-co-proc-co deal. Most of the properties have now been flogged off and the operating company's having to pay rent to the property company and that's why they can't afford to pay their staff. It's ridiculous. It's completely ridiculous. This stuff is really expensive. Over the last 10 years, things have really changed. But for all the darkness, every cause has an effect. 40 shoes on the roof of Milbag. For all the talk of change, the present moment is really one of crisis. A crisis of democratic representation. Of identity.  Of a failing economic model, which isn't working for most people. We can't have a media that's beholden to advertisers or the political ambitions of oligarchs. Which is why, in 2013, we founded Novara Media. Unlike corporate media, we are funded by our subscribers. There's no tax avoiders, there's no oil money and there's no lords. What we're creating is media for you, which quite simply, you make possible. So over the next month, we're looking to raise £40,000. That will allow us to not only keep on paying our contributors, but give them a little bit more as well as keep our studio and take our fantastic Novara events nationwide. To help us get there, go to support.novaramedia.com and give a one-off donation or even better, sign up for a subscription. We've already achieved so much, but the truth is, we've barely started. We've done policies, we've done the wonky bit, we're gonna do what we really care about. Personalities. Most importantly, Jeremy Corbyn. He is on fire at the moment, you will notice. Zoe Williams has been replaced by Ash. Just briefly, partly because Corbyn's most important endorsements this week were from the growing scene, we did a straw poll of the office. Me, Zoe Naren, didn't know enough. Thank you for filling us in, Ash. So this has probably been the most exciting week in Jeremy Corbyn's life because he has gotten endorsements from AJ Tracy, from Stormzy, from JME. And this is wonderful, because people such as Akalov said that they wouldn't have come out to vocalise support for any other Labour MP, right? And, you know, for some people like JME, they've not made active political endorsements before. Novelist is a bit different, because he has, of course, joined the Labour Party, but certainly figures like JME and figures like Stormzy are very much motivated by Jeremy Corbyn as an individual and what he represents to them. I mean, where do you think this can go? Is this a superficial phenomenon, like about eight people coming out within two weeks, sort of potentially coordinated endorsements, or does this show a deeper trend that Jeremy Corbyn really is actually speaking to broader swaves of young people? I mean, I don't think it's a superficial thing at all. I think for the first time in, certainly, my living memory, you've got a Labour politician who is in a position of prominence and power making policy proposals which are actually speaking to young people and also young people of colour, right? And rather than being kind of disavowed and rejected as being, you know, pathologically criminal or too dangerous to know, these endorsements, these political voices, are being celebrated. I think one of the things we need to talk about is the fact that people like JME are filling a need which isn't being met elsewhere, right? One of political education of the youth, and they're doing it in a way that's really genuine and that's not at all patronising or didactic. Before I come to you, Aaron, we're just going to check out that video of JME and Corbyn. You think of all the great changes that have happened in life in the world, everywhere. They've very seldom come from people in power. They've come from pressure on people in power. JME, obviously, JME Adonuga, I'm here today to speak to Jeremy Corbyn. First of all, what I would like to get from this is to get people to register to vote. That's my main goal. Before you vote, I want you to find out who you should be voting for and why you're voting for them. Have your reasons for why you're voting for someone, no matter who it is. What I've seen of him seems so genuine. It feels like I'm going to meet one of my mum's friends. I don't know what it's going to be like, but hopefully it's just genuine. I can have a normal conversation with him. What's going on, man? I love to see you. Thank you for coming along. No, thank you for having me, bro. Seriously. I think symbolically it makes a real difference, because here's the thing that all these grime stars have in common, right? They were beneficiaries of a well-funded youth club culture and some of the more successful labour policies of the kind of 90s, early 2000s.  They saw the kinds of policing and really aggressive breaking up of working-class communities of colour that followed the 2011 riots. And that's a wonderful body of political knowledge, right? It's sitting right there. And I think they're quite able to communicate to a younger still generation who might not be able to vote right now even and saying, well, look, it's time to get engaged. It's time to care about this stuff and it's time to get pissed off, because we know what it's like to have something that's better than what we've got and then to lose it. I mean, it's obviously having some traction with broad swathes of young people, because a million of them have registered in this campaign, under 34s, half of them being under 24. And white working-class people, do you think they're listening to like, oh no, Oasis? No, everyone listens to grime, right? So, politically, this might not change an election, but pop-culturally, grime is punching well above its weight. Also, I think it was in 2015 or 2010, the final day of registration saw an extra half a million people registered to vote. So, there could be what we call exit velocity here. More and more people register and on the final day itself, the most people. So, this is the one, as one American once, I think as Donald Rumsfeld, there are known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and then there are known unknowns. This is a known unknown. We know this is happening. We're unsure of the extent to which it could impact the final situation. We're saying it couldn't change the results of the general election. It could have a major impact. It could have a major impact both within the Labour Party and the extent of a Tory majority. I think a Tory majority is inevitable, simply because the Liberal Democrats haven't turned up. And that was the base of the Tory majority in 2015. It's Liberal Democrat seats in the south-west of England, which have been Liberal Democrat for a very long time, will stay Tory on June 8. And that is why they will win a majority, regardless of what young people do. But this is still a hugely important thing. But when it comes to turnout for the barricades, if not the ballot box, better position? Absolutely. OK, thank you so much for coming on for this section, Ash. We've learnt the kids are woke, Corbyn's woke, Grime is woke. One other person was woke this week. It was Kathy Mohamed from Abingdon.  And I've been crippled by them because they chuck me out of the mind, because I've got a borderline and I've been serious. I want you to do something for us. We've got a lot of plans for people with mental health, particularly... And learning disability. I've got my learning disability. And I haven't got a carer at the moment. And I'm angry, I've got an old talk about a letter to Paul Nicola. And I would like somebody to help me, because I can't do everything that I want to do. That was Kathy Mohamed from Abingdon, confronting Theresa May on disability cuts on one of her rare outings to see real members of the public. I thought that was fantastic for two reasons. One, because the woman, Kathy, is sort of advocating a really universal system of welfare, basically. She's saying, I want you to help everyone. I'm not saying I'm more deserving than the person in the wheelchair, because I've got learning disabilities. She's saying, I want you to help everyone. Theresa May in response is saying, we're focusing on people most in need. You know, she's trying to say, she's trying to get that woman in competition with other people, and she's refusing. So I think that was a real nice confrontation of two visions of what state support and what welfare should look like. What do you think, Zoe? I thought, because a lot of people are really disappointed, right, that wasn't the Gillian Duffy moment. It wasn't really covered in the same way.  And I think we're kind of expecting the wrong thing from the way this election will be covered, which a conservative government is never going to be treated the same way as a Labour government, or a conservative politician is never going to be described in the same way. Then nobody's waiting for that gotcha moment. It's just not going to happen. So I was really heartened by it just on the basis that, you know, she is very insulated to Theresa May, and it is important that sometimes she sees a normal person who tells her what they really think. But in terms of whether it's going to give Labour a bounce, whether it's going to give the, whether it's going to track the conservatives down, I don't think it is. I think it's important that she use the word fat cats because that was something that was repeatedly deployed during the major years. And we forget about that now. We talked about the 1% of rigged economy, the elite. But actually, that was a meme. That was a big trope defining British politics from 92 to 97, and which obviously knew Labour Fed massively into that. And that's still there. And there is actually an intuitive resonance with many working class people in this country against a rigged system, against the elite, against the fat cats. So this is not, you know, often when you're on the left, you think, well, it's just us saying these things. But many, many, many people are saying these things. It's very widely felt. The question is for both Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party on the left is whether we can not exploit that but offer those people an answer and say it doesn't have to be this way. There is an alternative. I mean, I suppose my feeling about that is whenever the left tries to do the right, tries to mirror the right, he tries to be the same kind of thing, the same kind of united message, except we're for the workers and they're for the bosses, we're for the people and they're for the fat cats, we're for the... It's sort of... It almost feels like we're kind of trying on their shoes and it just doesn't... But it's not messaging as policies, we're taxing the top 5%. Oh, yeah, yeah, for sure, for sure. But I just feel like the message doesn't feel... It doesn't feel like the kind of hopeful, generative left that wins things. What about the angry left that wins things? Well, the angry left never wins anything, though, Michael. I mean, that is just the truth. The angry left is really fun, but it never wins. The hopeful left wins and the angry left loses. But why is the angry? You're saying, well, pay for these incredible things and we're taxing the top 5% and that she's saying fat cats, so she should be supportive of that. We're not saying they're nasty people, we're just saying that's a racist action. Oh, no, no, no, you're completely right. It's really good if people outside your own meetings are using the same language. It's really good. The policies and the kind of framing are two different things. The communication and the analysis are two different things. But we have a lot of conversations about how we get what Podemos got when they united everybody against Lacasta or how we got what, I don't know, Sarisa got when they united everybody against corruption. And it's like, how do we get that enemy? How do we get that final enemy that really galvanizes everybody? And I just think, I don't think we ever managed to completely pull it off. Back to, again, new labor. There was a time in 96, 97 when they were being asked how you pay for X, Y, Z and they said the energy windfall tax. It was covering everything. And that was a tax on the profits of energy companies which had recently been privatized. And there was a perception then that the bosses or the shareholders of these companies were sucking, suckling off the fat of what should have been a publicly owned good. So even new labor did this. You don't need to do it with anger, I agree with you. But people have justified animosity grievous with these things. No, I don't think there's a lack of justification, not at all. I'm just thinking about what gets people who aren't already with you, with you. I want to move on to the Tory party manifesto. I mean, we've discussed what the policies of the left were going to be. We know what the weaknesses of the Tories are that they're the party for the fat cats. They don't care about people.  Everybody will have heard of it, I'm sure. Basically, if you have to pay for your care at the end of your life, which will mainly be if you've got dementia, then every single asset of yours, including your house is up for grabs until you're down to your last 100 grand. And I was thinking what a strange policy that was because it doesn't, it's all kind of random. It's totally, it's a limitless, a potentially limitless cost meted out upon random members of society, right? There's absolutely no telling whether you'll get dementia or not. And these, and it's astronomical. It's like, if you said to people, we're going to choose 20% of you and you're going to have to give your entire estate an inheritance tax. Everybody would go, well, that's just not fair. But that's effectively what they're doing. And I was thinking it was such a badly thought out policy that it must only have like five possible routes. The first is they're just trying to repudiate the idea of socialized risk. So they're just like, you know that thing we used to do? We just don't do it anymore. It doesn't matter how bad the policy is as long as the idea of being repudiated. The second is, I wonder whether there's a finance thing going on here where they're working back from the idea, how do we start making money out of care?  I wonder if there's some kind of financial driver where they're saying we, you know, it could be like CDOs all over again. You could invent incredibly technical and complex financial instruments to get money, to kind of liquidize people's money. And it would, somebody would make a fortune out of that. The third thing is, I wonder whether they're just, you know, stabbing themselves in the hand to prove how hard they are. They're just like, look, we're so, you know, we're winning so big. It doesn't matter what we say. We can, the fourth is, they're so convinced of their support among the over 70s that they don't have to do anything. They can attack them as much as they like because they're not going anywhere. And the fifth is that they just genuinely don't know what they're doing. I mean, the defense of it is that the previous Tory policy, I think, which was to cap how much you have to spend on social care at 73K meant that if you had a million pound house, you'd be subsidized from that point. And if you had 100K house, you'd be subsidized from that point. So it would be inequitable. But literally the only way to do this is the same way that you do it with health, right?  So that would just be a national care service. It's just a national care service, yeah. It's not a new thing. It's not a new thing. It's 400 years old.  Flex insurance, that's what you need. Do you think this could bite the Tories in the eyes? I think Zoe's right. I mean, they've probably focused, grouped it to death and older people probably think it's legit. I mean, I don't understand. With Cameron, 2010, 2015, you understood he was building a coalition which would win an election. This doesn't do that. They were basing their last, they didn't win in 2010, obviously, but they were basing their electoral chances on a coalition of homeowners and the over 65s, essentially. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Small businesses. Small businesses have been let down massively by them. I think Labour actually offer a far better set of policies to small businesses. And then to over 65s, the triple look we found that today will be staying and then there'll be a double look after 2020. So a lot of it will be wages or inflation. But this is their base and they are upsetting them. And okay, it might not hurt them in this election, but if all the people start to move away from the Conservative Party, they'll have big problems because amongst under 40s, even with Jeremy Corbyn, who has the most left-wing agenda in modern British history, since Michael Foote, at least, Jeremy Corbyn amongst under 40s and women is polling 15 points ahead. So they need, they need these people big time and I'm sure they'll have them come June the 8th, but they can't take that for granted. And that's what this looks like. Have you seen the Daily Mail comments under it? It's really funny. It's really, really funny. It's all these people going, so you mean I've worked all my life and then some scrounger is going to get free care and I'm not. I mean, it's really, it's really like absolute Middle England fury.  It's what for the week. The game no one wants to play is back. The race to number 10, snap election edition. It's fun for all the family. But not if you're under 18. That's all right. I didn't want to say my future anyway. Oh! You get your maths completely wrong and risk-costs in the public millions. Ching-ching. Advance 11 team spaces. Ha-ha-ha! Seriously? If you feel cheated by the current system, it's time to change the game. So that was Whopper of the Week, not necessarily the Green Party, but at least the Green Party's PR team chosen for its bland assumption that all the parties are the same. And in my opinion, what is the most radically different we've ever seen them? I've just shown it to Zoe and Aaron and we have a controversy because... I don't... Oh, you quite liked it. I quite liked it. I mean, the weird thing is, I think they think they're going for young people. And I think all the styling and all the kind of nostalgia it's meant to trigger is going to appeal to... They've kind of made an ad for 40-year-olds thinking they've made an ad for 23-year-olds. But as a 43-year-old, I quite like it. Maybe that's because they lost the youth to the growing scene. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, that's a bummer for them. Aaron.  What? I don't agree with you about that. Have you seen that all this... If you're drawing in an equivalence between all of them, they're all the same. I've seen that fees into such a silly attitude. But they're not talking about... They're sort of talking about something which I think a lot of people do recognise, which is that kind of critical failure to be truthful about your agenda in politics. But, you know, and Jeremy Corbyn does, and still he's got his kind of authentic shtick and everybody knows where they are with him. But most politicians, when you listen to them, are still doing that kind of hymn sheet stuff. But that's because he's stuck in a party that is on those hymn sheets, but they specifically attack Corbyn and Albert. Labour is now Europe's largest social democratic party of 600,000 members. He is where he is and he's survived on the back of massive, popular support. So to draw an equivalence between him and a party that is absolutely, I mean, you know, defiantly and apologetically the party of big business, the establishment of the elites, I just find that equivalence really distasteful and also to directly identify Diane Abbott. Tory politicians haven't costed any of their policies for the last week, by the way. The manifesto has not even costed for the total race. But are you sure? I mean, aren't you just saying you think it's Diane Abbott? No, she's got to be on her team.  That just means dance, doesn't it? Well... No, no, listen, that is a dance's cap! No one thinks that stands for Diane Abbott. Fire your whole cabinet. They tried to get rid of a democratic-related leader. I just think... Fire your whole cabinet until they agree with you.   He had a cabinet which had the entirety of what, Labour Party, but listen, a lot of us think that there has not been enough pluralism in Jeremy Corbyn's cabinet and that is completely fair enough, right? That is just fair enough. How is it fair enough? Angela Regal was... The first cabinet had Angela Regal, Hillary, Ben, had everybody in it. Yeah, I know, but... And then they tried to get rid of him. What's he meant to do? This is a different conversation. Yeah, this is a different conversation. This is a different conversation. You choose to get rid of them. Yeah, I know, but... I want to go back to the Green Party quickly. You met Caroline Lucas this week. Yeah. Do you think she would have endorsed that advert? Is she saying everyone's the same? She's the best thing about the Green Party. Of course she would have endorsed that advert. What, do you think they fought out an election advert? She would never say that. She won't even attack the Liberal Democrats. No, no, because she's working full pelt for a progressive alliance, so she won't... She wouldn't do that, exactly. But the Greens campaigning message hasn't been for a progressive alliance. I'm saying she wouldn't do that. How can you say I want a progressive alliance and then you say that the Labour and the Tory parties... You guys, the Greens have worked so much harder for a progressive alliance than the Labour Party has and made so many more sacrifices... Labour doesn't want a progressive alliance. Well, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying... Make sacrifices in Labour's favour. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Caroline Lucas... It's just unbelievable. I can't believe we're having this conversation. Caroline Lucas would never say that. It's like the generosity of the Green Party in Labour's favour is absolutely astronomical. You're ascribing something to me which I've not said. I've never said that. I agree with you. Jeremy Corbyn, one of the last people in the country that probably wants PR. I agree with you. But Caroline Lucas won't attack Tim Farron, let alone attack the Labour Left. So I just think... They haven't put out an ad that they haven't shown her. Come on. Probably not. But she would never say that. I mean, I'm open to progressive alliance, PR pluralism. Totally are.  No, but listen. When did that ad come out? Did it come out after the deadline for nominations? Six days ago. Okay. So it came out after Thursday, right? So it was like punishment for the fact that Labour's stand down in enough seats. For God's sake, we stood down in 46. You didn't stand down... We're then making an advert about... I'm all for this, politics. I agree. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want it. Yeah. But that's... They're making an advert about that. Not an advert about... But they've made all their overtures. All their overtures... The overture window is gone. All right, guys. We're running out of time. Good. There will probably be one more show before the general election. Thanks for joining us for the fix. See you next time.


What's going on, everyone? Sam here with late sports cards. You're up in 22, Canadian National Treasures, football hobby, four box, full case break, number 16, no, 17. Just kidding. 17, pick your team's that. Change that, break title. I'll read off a list of our names on our teams here. You got Andrew A. with the Texans, Austin B. Bears, Barton L. Seahawks, Blake S. Vikings, Brian L. Giants, Charles K., football team, our commanders, Cooper J. with the Jets, Derek M. Lyons, Greg B. Bengels, Greg M., Jags Dolphins, Harper with the Niners, Jason A. Patriots, Jeffrey M. Bills, Jeffrey H. Steelers, Jesus M. with the Chargers, Joel B. Browns, John K. with the Rams, Jonathan C. Saints, Josh H. Eagles, Kyle S. Falcons, Mark O. Cardinals, Miles H. Chiefs, Nelson V. with the Bucks, Nick C. Ravens, Reed M. Cowboys, Sean M. Colts, Simon S. Titans, Spencer D. Panthers, Steve C. Packers, Timothy F. Broncos, and Todd C. with the Raiders. Good luck, everybody. Let's do it. I think my birthday gift I got from Heather is going to make you call me a baby. Would she give you a bottle? No. I don't have a water bottle. No, but that would be pretty funny. Remote-controlled car. Awesome, look at him. Like a decent one, yeah. I know, I'm down with that. It's pretty cool. It's like an off-road one, too. But I didn't get to play with it. It's too hot out to bring it outside today. So I didn't want to go outside with it. So I was driving around in my house, trying not to have crash walls and stuff, but didn't do a great job. But, dude, it is quick. It is fast. It is awesome, yeah. Is it like out the big knobby wheels? Yeah, oh yeah. Like off-road. Oh, yeah. I'm bringing it into my backyard tomorrow. Is it the one like this? Yeah. Yeah, it's like one like that. You can go backward and stuff, too. Awesome. Empty really quick. That is going to be CMC to 99, 13 of 99. Dude, the professional racers are crazy with that. That is a Joe Montana, to 15, six of 15. No, I like it, Kevin. I like the Little League World Series. It's impressive. Chuba Hubbard to 49. Oh, I love it. Panthers. That is going to be DK Metcalf to 99. Going to the Seahawks. Oh, the pit stops are crazy. I agree, Marshall. The pit stops are absolutely insane. We've got going to the Jets. That is going to be a Zach Wilson, 23 of 25. Really cool one here. It's going to be one-of-one printing plate. Tyler Lockett on the patch. Congrats on that one there, Seahawks. Greg goes, what are you, three? Yeah, exactly. I can see Greg knows. I might have to give Greg a yellow. I think Greg's getting a yellow for that one. We're throwing yellows to pretty much everybody today.  That is A, Debo Samuel, nice one there. 15 of 49. Needs nothing. Jersey Otter for the Niners. How are we in the near? Good game. Nice one here is going to be a Chris Spielman, one-of-one patch auto printing plate. Congrats on that one there, Lyons. Very cool. There should be, there should be fine.  Going to the Vikings. How about an Adrian Peterson, 14 of 49. Claire Warren as well. There is a little speck on the back. I'll send an empty box and wrap her with the Vikings, but that's really cool. Nice AP all day. Purple Jesus, whatever you want to call him. I'll get you a box and wrap her Vikings really quick. I can make this next one as well. This one will be fine. No, that one's fine. This next one coming up. I'll just send it as well. Sorry, come on. It's treasured impressions, 28 of 49. Sauce Gardener. Congrats on that one there, Jets. Very nice recolored RPA. Sauce and empty. Patrick with a random team spot. And then I, the other one's got the lead. That's Matt with the Dolphins. Thank you, Matt. Do you watch any of the hard knocks? I have not actually, they sure are yet. HBO. Jack Jones, treasured rookies to 99. Two, Jack Jones, treasured rookies, one to 25 and one to 99 for the Patriots. Surely he did not bring a firearm to an airport. Did he? Yes.  Oh, that's game worn, dude. Oh, that's so cool. I'm sorry. I'm just in shock from that card. DJ Morse, two color patch to 25. That's on that Panthers. Go into the Chiefs, 26 of 35, Skymore. Congrats on that Chiefs. This is a cool one right here. That is gonna be a Barry Sanders. Six of 10, Treasures of the Hall. His player warrant for the Lions. Got a Terrell Bernard. That is gonna be 19 of 99. This next one's really sweet, actually. If it is who I think it is, which I believe it is. Nice one there, Bills. That is gonna be printing plates of, yes, sir, the human joystick, Dante Hall. For the Chiefs, dude, I love that. That's awesome. Dante Hall, the human joystick. Congrats on that Kansas City. That's so sick. It's fine, but still sick. That is gonna be a, oh, Tyrion Davis Price, 21 of 25. Who has this team, Aroni? Let us see here.  It's gonna Derek M. How about a one of one, Nike Swoosh. Treasured Impressions, RPA, Jameson Williams. Congrats on that one, they're Lions. That's awesome. Derek, picking that one up. J-Mo, Daily Fantasy Sports Legend. Empty, empty. See like a Kurt Warner patch auto. That'd be sick, John. A gamble for the Lions. That is a, Cortland Sutton, 299 from Broncos. Nice one here for Seattle. 20 of 25 is Cam Chancellor, Bam Bam Cam, Super Bowl Immortality. Giant's about meeting my expectations. All right, we need a big Wondale then. We need a big Wondale, Brian. Cooper Cup, going to the Rams, the 49. Nice one there, John. Not associated. Is that the security? Did you see something? There's a car out there. I don't know if there's security or not though. That is a, John Dotson, 249 for the commanders. Jersey card. Got a duel for the Buccaneers. That is going to be Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, 9 of 99. That is player worn for Godwin. That'd be pretty sweet, Hobbs. That is a Nick Chubb, 33 of 49. This next one's nasty. John just destroyed a back at Topler. Two Toplers, absolutely demolished him over there. What's that, dude? How about a field pass? Kenny Pickett, 34 of 49. Going to the Steelers. Congrats on that, Pittsburgh. It's freaking awesome. These field passes are so nasty. There is a little edgeware on the top left. I'll send an empty box and wrapper with Pittsburgh. I believe that's Jeffery with that one. Dude, I really should have operated. This one from last year right here. Rookie Prime Jumbo Signatures. That is going to be Rashad Bateman on the RPA. Nice one there, Ravens on the booklet. Missed the Bateman. Five of 15, Danny Gray, rookie Jersey Otto. This is my like eighth or ninth case of the night, Wallace, and we've hit two. It's just, it's a holdover from last year. They just put some of them in this year. Come back to this one. 10 of 49, Jahan Dotson, RPA going to the Commanders. Nice one there. Congrats, Commanders. SMU legend, Danny Gray. That's on that. Washington, 380 people. What up, everybody? Hope you're enjoying NT Release Day. Still have another PYT case coming up after this. And then we've got some select mixers. One box select, one box NT. There's a lizard in our house. I'll have to go take care of it when I get home now. She did it. Now she's the baby. All right, if I think this card is what I think it is, this card is massive. That is A, Baker Mayfield to 99 for the Rams. Nice one there, John. It's gonna be A, Daniel Jones to 25. That is A, Chris Long for the Patriots to 49. Chris Long. We're over with the RC car. Fred Taylor, 30 to 49 for the Jags. heirlooms, Jersey. Got a Wondale Robinson, three of 35. Two colored patch for the Giants. Got A, Nick Chubb, 12 to 25 for the Browns on the Jersey. Yeah, there we go, Brian. That's what we like to see. Let's go, Brian. Got Auto, Josh Pascal, 135 for rookie autograph for the Lions. Really cool one here. Geez, Lord, dude. 20 of this, this is the best box I've opened today by a mile.   Because look what's gonna be right behind it too. Just wait till you see what's behind it. We've got how about one of one? Shield, RPA, Damian Pierce, going to the Texans. Dude, this is the best box of NT we've opened. One of one, Damian Pierce, RPA, NFL Shield. Yeah, it's actually pretty sick. Isn't that a crazy box right there, dude? Holy cow, dude. And then how about right behind it? Midnight, RPA, Desmond Ritter, 17 of 20. For the Falcons, holy cow, dude. That's pretty solid. That's crazy, that is a crazy box right there. And empty, all right. We've got a sweet recap to do. Okay, Nick Chubb, Wondale Robinson, Fred Taylor, Chris Long, Nick Chubb, Duel for the Bucks, Johan Dotson, that is Cooper Cup, Barry Sanders, Skymore, DJ Moore, Anquan Bolden, GameUse, DK Metcalf, that is Tyler Lockett, Zack Wilson, and Chuba Hover. Autos, we had a DeMarcus Ware, Josh Pascal, Danny Gray, Tyrion Davis Price, Dante Hall, Terrell Bernard, Adrian Peterson, that is Chris Spielman, Debo, and Rashad Bateman. What a case, because we had the J-mo in this, too, and the picket was in this, too. This is, I'd say, the best case so far. That is a Johan Dotson to 49 RPA, Commanders. Sauce Gardner to 49 RPA for the Jets. Field pass, Kenny Pickett, 34 of 49. One of one, Nike Swoosh RPA, Jameson Williams. Midnight RPA, Desmond Ritter, 17 of 20. And one of one, NFL Shield, RPA Damian Pierce. Unbelievable, dude. That is gonna do it for the break. Thank you all again for the fill. Up next is number 18.


Never forget this one thing about the narcissist. Never fail to remember this one thing about them. Always bring your mind to an awareness of this. From the moment you first met the narcissist, they played their part. Like an actor in a movie.  They murdered your ideals. They murdered what you were about. And then they reflected it back to you. But they were never about any of that. It was all fake. A lie. It was fabricated. It was never real. But they had to make it look real. Or you wouldn't want anything to do with them. And they needed you to want something to do with them. Because they wanted something to do with you. They wanted something to do with you. Because you have what they want. Your qualities and abilities. That was what attracted them to you. That's what made you stand out. And they had to make you believe that they were about that. In an attempt to attract you to them. You were tricked. You were deceived. And that is why you should never forget this one thing about the narcissist. They're fake. They're not real. They never even existed. They lived their lives mirroring what you're about. As a way of getting supply. But they were never about any of that. It was just something they used to lure you in. If they didn't mirror you on what you're really about. You wouldn't have given them the time of day. And they know this. Which is why they have to play their part. Which is why they have to put in an act. Everything they mirrored. Everything they reflected back to you. Is what you're really about. That is why you felt such an intense attraction towards them. And while it may have been an act for them. It felt real to you. Because a part of that already exists inside of you. So leave the narcissist in the dust. Take off on them. And continue to exist in the qualities and abilities that you value and appreciate. Continue to heal and practice self love. Just don't forget this one thing about the narcissist. Everything they do is an act. None of it was ever real. It was only designed to lure you in and secure you. So that they could get supply. But you can leave them behind. And progress on your own. And be about that for real. It felt real for you. Because it was what you're really about. It resonated with you. The narcissist wanted to partake. And have a share in everything that you possess. But they are not deserving of it. It would go against the law of exchange. And then you would get the short end of the stick. They like your qualities and abilities. They like what you're about. It attracts them. It draws them in. But it was never meant for them. It was meant for someone who holds an equal value to what you possess. So that there would be an equal exchange. Do not let someone partake in something that is not meant for them. They will play their part. Because they want to be a part of it. But you have to remember that it is only an act. It is a simulation of value. It isn't real. So move on and find someone who shares the qualities and abilities that you possess. Someone who has an equal value to share with you. Someone who deserves to partake in everything that you have built. Someone who recognises and appreciates everything that you have to offer. So that you can grow and develop together instead of being weighed down. And you can continue on your journey towards becoming your best self and living your best life. Thank you for watching. I hope this video raised it with you. Please like, comment, share and subscribe. Click the bell icon to receive notifications for my future videos. If you would like to donate, my paypal link is in the video description. Coach the inquiries, you can email me and I'll have a coach in at gmail.com. Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon.


What's going on everybody Ryan Williams here a fan bill you can follow me on Twitter at Ryan Alexander underscore W and I'm here on this edition of the fan bill hurry up talking about my three biggest draft day winners here from from the 2022 NFL draft. Let's started off with the Baltimore Ravens the Baltimore Ravens always have an incredible draft Eric DeCosta they're going out and making splash plays with splash picks with the first four that the Baltimore Ravens had in the 2022 draft they bring into safety Kyle Hamilton there who is thought to be the best safety prospect since Derwin James and we know that safeties you know are definitely strong when you're talking about the likes of Ed Reid and an Eric Weddle probe probe all safeties I mean perennial just all star safeties there. Kyle Hamilton fits that mold with what the Baltimore Ravens want to do. And then when you're looking at the next three picks the center Tyler Lindenbaum taking a chance on guys like David a job oh and Travis Jones. To help out Mike McDonald and that defense I think that this this team is just going to be in such a good prime position here to make a run in 2022 granted that they're getting back healthy pieces on the offensive side of the ball of Mark Jackson. Being healthy and then hopefully JK Dobbins and Gus Edwards coming back healthy as well too I think they definitely made strong place to set them up for a good year here in 2022. Let's move on to another team in the AFC and that's going to be the Kansas City Chiefs and they could be flying a little bit under the radar but absolutely love their early picks and Trent McDuffie and George Carl Loftus there who come in on the defense very strong plays there who are going to make immediate impacts and then when you're talking about the offensive side of the ball yes they did lose Tyreek Hill he's no longer there. I don't think Skymore is going to be able to come in and replace him immediately but when you're looking at the vacated targets that Tyreek Hill left behind and also they they lost to Marcus Robinson who wasn't a strong fantasy play but from an NFL standpoint you know he was getting. He was getting some meaningful snaps and definitely a guy that Patrick Mahomes relied on in some time so Skymore definitely going to have a chance to make an impact early. Definitely will be targeting him for fantasy purposes but love with the Chiefs did in their draft for 2022. And lastly we can't talk about the 2002 NFL draft without talking about what the New York Jets did what Joe Douglas did to go out and get weapons for Zach Wilson. You're talking about them drafting Garrett Wilson drafting Breece Hall drafting Jeremy Ruckert. Zach Wilson is not going to have many many chances here. He's going to have all these weapons so he needs to come out and ball. I think he's a great late round pick when you're talking about maybe best ball formats when you're talking about redraft taking him late and even as a QB to I'd be willing to go out and put in some offers for him as this young core there. Granted that they just drafted Elijah Moore and Michael Carter last year as well. This is going to be a strong core team so Zach Wilson is going to have to get it together. And let's not forget about the defensive players that they brought in in sauce Gardner and Germain Johnson just absolutely crushing it early on with their picks there for 2022. Guys that's going to do it for this edition of the FanDuel Hurry Up. Thanks so much for tuning in and we'll catch you guys next time on the FanDuel Hurry Up. Peace.