Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, accompanied by Senator and Mrs. Don Nichols. So ladies and gentlemen, it's indeed an honor and a pleasure to introduce my friend and your friend, the Honorable Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of the State of Oklahoma. Thank you. Thank you all very much and thank you Don. And I just have to say, with regard to that four more years, the Constitution has something to say about that, but I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll settle for two more years of a Republican Senate. I appreciate this opportunity to be with you and I can't think of a more inspiring place to meet. Here we are on the home turf of two real winners, Don Nichols and the University of Oklahoma football team. Now Don is no Brian Bosworth, how could there be more than one Bos? But Don is an Oklahoma that all of you should be proud of. He's been scoring points for you and for your state in the nation's capital. I'm here today to ask you to do me a personal favor. For Oklahoma's sake, for America's sake, please do everything you can to reelect Don Nichols to the United States Senate. And by the way, I want to offer a great big thanks to the University Band, to the Muscogee High School Band, the McAllister High School Band, and the Ponca City High School Band. Thank you very much. And also I appreciate very much something we didn't have when I was playing football in college. Did you believe that the cheerleaders then were always males? Your football players don't know how lucky they are. I can't help but see and recognize the young people here in this audience. And I have a special message to you from my roommate. She says when it comes to drugs, comes to drugs, please, for yourselves, for your families, for your future, and for your country, just say no. I want to tell you, Nancy's impressed me so much with that that the other day in Iceland, even though it didn't have anything to do with drugs, I found myself just saying no. But getting back to why we're here today, there's another great winner with us, and so there's one other thing I'd ask you to do. Put Henry Bellman back in the governor's chair. The people of Oklahoma should take advantage of this great resource. I'm speaking of my friend Henry Bellman. As Oklahoma passes through a critical time, it's more important than ever that the state utilize the experience, the wisdom, and the contacts that years of public service have given Governor Bellman. Henry Bellman has seen government operate from both a local and a national perspective. He's had the kind of hands-on experience that is so crucial for Oklahoma. But most important, Henry Bellman is the one man in Oklahoma today that has developed over his distinguished political career the kind of national contacts from Wall Street to the Silicon Valley that can help get Oklahoma turned around and headed into a bright and prosperous future. His experience, his courage, and savvy will do the job for Oklahoma. He'll be as good a governor as Don's been a senator, and that's saying a lot. And at the same time, when you think of him, send up there to the state Capitol to help him, Tim Leonard as Lieutenant Governor. I feel a special bond with Don. First of all, we both got to Washington at about the same time. And prior to our arrival, the liberals had totally dominated American government, controlling both houses of the Congress, the presidency, and all the departments and agencies. You might say, Don and I were part of a cleanup crew. The tax and tax and spend and spend crowd had been on a binge that left our country with murderous inflation, sky-high interest rates, ever-increasing taxes, business decline, unemployment, and unprecedented national uncertainty. Don and I, together with you, the American people, went to work cleaning up the gigantic mess that we had inherited. It was a little like the job Noah had after the animals left the ark. Well, it was a challenge, but with the commitment and hard work of a team of dedicated elected officials, Don Nichols has been a real champion on that team. We've put America's economic house in order and opened the door to growth, opportunity, and jobs. We've come a long way. And if we stick together, nobody, but nobody is going to turn us back. Now, I fully appreciate that a few areas of the country, including Oklahoma, are facing some tough economic challenges right now. That's all the more reason to send Don Nichols back to the United States Senate. There isn't a harder working member of that August body than Don. He's on the job every minute watching out for your interest. In fact, he has one of the highest attendance records in the entire Congress. He's been a leader, for example, in the efforts to keep our domestic energy industry alive and kicking. He's been a major force to repeal the Fuel Use Act. And along with Senator Graham of Texas, Don has introduced the Oil and Gas Revitalization Bill. And just recently, he was able to obtain an additional $3 million for hydrocarbon research right here at the University and the OU Energy Center. That liberal gang we replaced five and a half years ago used every problem, like the ones confronting the energy business, as an excuse to increase federal spending, raise your taxes, and expand the power of the Washington bureaucracy. Don's approach is fundamentally different. Don and our team are not trying to create more jobs for the bureaucracy in Washington. We want more jobs created by a thriving private sector right here in Oklahoma. That's what Don's working for. He's so well thought of that his Senate colleagues made him the chairman of the vitally important Energy Regulation and Conservation Subcommittee. And by the way, if the Republicans lose control of the Senate, he would then, of course, be replaced. And very likely he would be replaced as head of that powerful subcommittee by Senator Howard Metzenbaum. The last thing our economy needs is the last thing the energy, he's the last thing the energy industry needs is to have someone who's anti-oil and anti-free enterprise elevated to such power. You can stop that disaster before it happens by re-electing Don Nichols to the United States Senate. I was kind of hoping you'd say that. Don's been working overtime on behalf of Oklahoma's ranchers and farmers. These are, these are hard times for many farmers. And with Don's energetic support, we've been trying to help them get out from under. Last year, Don pushed through his farm protection and flexibility plan, allowing farmers to maximize farm program benefits without losing their average base. With his Landowner Protection Act, he's helped to change farm credit policy, thus curtailing farm foreclosures, whenever and wherever it's realistic to do so. This administration is determined to stand by our farmers in this difficult period. And that's why we've spent more, believe it or not, to help the American farmer that was spent by the last five administrations all put together, some $26 billion this year alone. This of course is short term. This is help for an emergency situation. In the long haul, we know the farmers want profits rather than subsidies. And together, together we can see to it that American agriculture makes a profit and that it's run by farmers and not federal bureaucrats. One of the gifts the liberal establishment gave farmers and the rest of the American people during the last decade was an ever-increasing tax load. Between 1976 and 1981, the federal tax take doubled. For the farmers, the owners of small businesses, it was one especially odious tax, the estate tax. By the time we took office, it was getting so high that in many cases, families with family businesses or farms were unable to pass on to their children what they'd spent, a lifetime building. Well, with Don Nichols' help, we slashed that tax and with an across-the-board reduction in the tax rates, we turned off the federal tax vacuum and we're wiping out the inheritance tax for surviving spouses. Then we indexed the tax rates so you wouldn't automatically be pushed into higher and higher tax brackets by getting a cost of living pay raise to keep pace with inflation. Most people didn't realize what was happening to them. They would get a raise that was only meant to keep them even with the cost of living, but the income tax is based on the number of dollars you earn, not their value, so you'd be pushed into higher and higher brackets and wind up poorer than you were because you were paying an increased income tax. We've wiped that out and we're going to keep it wiped out. Don was a champion in these battles and at the same time, his opponent fought us all the way. Now, two days ago, I should say, I signed into law one of the most far-reaching tax overhaul and rate reduction bills in history. Don has pledged to oppose any efforts to increase the tax rates, increases that would undermine the progress this legislation represents. Don's taken and signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The voters deserve to know where his opponent stands. What you've got here in Oklahoma is a classic race between a big taxer and spender versus a responsible leader who thinks it's better to protect the family budget than to fill the federal budget.  And there was one gentleman, a very compassionate man, who would come by every day and put a quarter down on the plate but never took a pretzel. And every day the same thing, and this went on for a long time, and then one day he came through with his quarter and put it down and the woman grabbed him with the arm. And he said, I know, you want to know why I put the quarter down and never take the pretzel. She says, no, I just want you to know the pretzels are 35 cents now. Well, the tax and tax and spend and spend crowd took the American people for granted too long. That over-the-hill gang, and Don's opponent was right there with them, came close to wrecking our economy. Well, they've been way there waiting in the wings to come back with tax bills blazing. Come election day, you can head them off at the pass and let them know that the days of high taxes, high inflation, and high interest rates are over. You can send that message special delivery as a matter of fact, Don Rickles will deliver it directly and personally to the United States Senate. The differences in economic philosophy between Republicans and Democratic leadership in this election are no less dramatic than the contrast in their approaches to the safety of our neighborhoods and the security of our country. The liberals who bottled up our tough anti-crime bills for years have now begun to climb aboard our campaign to rid America of the scourge of drugs. But there's much more to be done in this area. We need to back up our new drug legislation, which I will sign shortly, with strict enforcement, perhaps stiffer penalties, and no nonsense judges.  That's another vital reason to keep the Senate in responsible Republican hands and another reason to re-elect Don Rickles. If the Republicans lose the majority, the chairman of the all-important judiciary committee will be Teddy Kennedy. You know, on issues relating to national security, Don's opponent, like the liberal leadership of his party, is totally out of step with the people of Oklahoma. He voted to freeze the United States into a position of nuclear inferiority vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. And if he had his way, there would have been no need to negotiate in Iceland because we would have had no MX missile. Our strategic defense research would have been curtailed. Deficit spending would have been slashed, and we would have had no leverage. You know, just a few minutes ago over there and back in the corner there, there seemed to be Iceland being replayed all over again. And it indicated that there has been, and I mean this seriously, a great misunderstanding about what our strategic defense initiative, SDI, is really all about and what it means. Negotiating is important, but it must be from a position of strength. This was never more clear to me than it was in Iceland. There was immense pressure to sign an agreement, to give up hope for developing a defense against ballistic missiles simply to have a trophy to wave. But with Don and a lot of good people like him backing me up, I was able to stand firm for a safer, more secure future. Americans realize, Americans realize that no deal is better than a bad deal, and it wasn't really so hard. The answer to a lot of problems is, as I said to old you, just say no. Well, we're working for the day when we can just say yes to a good agreement. I'm confident with all the progress we've made that yes day will come sooner than anyone expects. And when it happens, and we're able for the first time to reduce the number of nuclear weapons threatening mankind, it will be a result of the realism and commitment of solid individuals like Don Nichols, individuals who understand that peace through strength is not just a slogan, it's a fact of life. Now I'd just like to interrupt my regular remarks for a second to answer one of the signs that has been held up several times over there. Because I'm sure it is the result of a legitimate misunderstanding, the sign indicates that the SDI, that defense program would be equal to a first strike of nuclear power. Now let me just tell you, you know that this nation, and for a number of years now, has participated in a treaty called the AVM Treaty, which in effect has been termed the MAD policy for mutual assured destruction. And that's what it means, that our safety is dependent on having so many nuclear missiles on each side aimed at each other that each side it will be presumed will never resort to a strike. So some people have thought that when we come along with a defense that could prevent those other missiles from hitting us, that that would in effect be saying that we're striving to prepare for a first strike to be able to defend ourselves but shoot missiles at the other fellow. Well let me tell you what our offer was and has been from the first. I know that if we started, if this system succeeds and we can put it together, and we just started with our missiles, offensive missiles to put this in effect, I could see where an enemy would be tempted to a first strike in order to prevent us from getting the capacity for a first strike. But from the very first, our proposal has been to the Soviet Union and made again in Iceland that if and when such a system is developed we will ask them to join us in watching the testing and then we will join in both sides eliminating all nuclear missiles at the same time we share the defensive system. The whole objective is peace, not armed superiority for the sake of conquering someone else. Now today the United States has again resumed its leadership role. The Western Alliance is unified and confident. The forces of freedom are on the move. And one thing I'm especially proud of in these last five and a half years, not one square inch of territory has been lost to communism. In fact, one small country, Grenada, has been returned to the family of free nations. What we're doing is laying the foundation for a new era of peace, prosperity and freedom. Now, you know, it's a unique experience for me to be here in support of Don. He's the youngest member of the United States Senate and I'm a little older. Don symbolizes the new positive forward-looking leadership this country needs to carry us into the next century. You know, it wasn't that long ago, just looking back a few years when there were those who were counting America out. Our best days were behind us, they said. Word from Washington was that we should lower our expectations because we would never be able to live as well again as we had been in the past. Well, don't ever believe that. America will be a land of enterprise, opportunity and hope, a shining light under the world as long as our people are free and her leaders have the courage to do what is right. Don Nichols is a little older than many of you here but he's like so many of the young people that I've met all over this country on campuses like this in workplaces and on military bases. This generation is the best this great country has ever produced. You aren't coming in second best to anyone.  Back when World War II started, General George Marshall was the Chief of Staff of the Army. And someone asked General Marshall, did the United States have a secret weapon and if so what was it? And General Marshall said our secret weapon is just the best blankety blank kids in the world. I think if George Marshall were here today he'd be saying that about this generation. Now, it's all important to feel as you do and let me just say one other thing. I know that here in this place I couldn't be speaking to an audience like this that did not have some participation in it by Democrats or people who had been Democrats and have changed as I did because I was a Democrat for a great part of my adult life. And then I guess I discovered what Winston Churchill had said in the British Parliament when he changed parties. He said some men change principle for party and some men change party for principle. There are millions of Democrats all across this country, good patriotic citizens who have found themselves and are finding themselves totally out of step with their leadership. That's why so often in my remarks I mentioned that I was criticizing the leadership. They're still going down that same old road. These band members were able to recognize. I remember when I was the drum major of a boys of the YMCA band, Dixon, Illinois. And we were asked to lead the parade on Decoration Day, Memorial Day in a nearby town.  So we just followed him and the band was playing and I was pumping that baton and so forth. But he, the marshal, rode back down to make sure everything was coming along in the lineup parade. And pretty soon, hey I love all of you too. And you know, now I've got to tell you one thing about, you might be interested to know that in the various age groupings in our society, those from 18 to 24 are the largest. I should say, have the largest percentage supporting us. I want to send you away with one message. I hope you'll go out of here as missionaries because that same age grouping, 18 to 24, has the lowest average percentage of going to the polls and voting on election day. So you not only go out of here determined to vote, but to everyone you can butt and hold, tell them the most important thing in this free system of ours is that right to go there to the polls and vote. And now none of us up here will be mad if when you tell them to vote, you also add to vote for Don Nichols, Henry Belman, Mickey Edwards and Jim Inhoff. Your votes will make a difference. This has been wonderful to be here with all of you and I'm just sorry, I've got to leave here for a place called Florida, but God bless all of you. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I told you that you had a lot of friends here and I think that's obvious. This is the largest political rally in the history of Oklahoma. And Mr. President, I told you when we're coming in that you're coming onto the campus of national champions and I'll just add as a little present to you, we think you're a national champion as well. Mr. President, I, Mr. President, I have, we have a little something here for Nancy because we want you to know that we love Nancy as well. I don't think I'd make a very good first lady. Well, we might try it anyway. Well, Mr. President, I will ask you if you would be so kind. We thank you for coming to the state of Oklahoma. I especially thank you for coming in on my behalf and the half of others. You're welcome here anytime and we hope and pray that you'll be able to visit our state again. Mr. President, on behalf of all of the Oklahomans, we wish you peace. We wish you health for both you and Nancy for the next two years of your service and then for a healthy and happy retirement thereafter. And I would ask that you would join ourselves and all Oklahomans and Ros Boy to singing of God bless America and then also join the pride of Oklahoma in the singing of Oklahoma.


In times of crisis, all correlations go to one. Quantative easing, I expect that to be bullish for Bitcoin. Liquidity reigns supreme. One day people will leave the dollar for other commodities or other assets and that period will come in the next years. What's up YouTube? My name is Jackson. Today I'm joined by CEO and founder of Quantum Economics, Maddy Greenspan and trader, Michael Vandepop. How's it going today guys? Yeah, having fun. It's going okay. Living at my parents, which I didn't expect to happen again, but it's okay. Yeah, it's different times for sure. So on March 23rd, Michael, you wrote an article for Cointelegraph identifying targets for bullish and bear scenarios. You said, as long as 6800 to 6900 is not broken to the upside, there's more downside to be expected. How are the most recent market movements playing into your bullish and bearish scenarios? I'm not really into news as mostly news is already priced into the markets. We have seen a huge surge on the equity markets yesterday with the bill passing through. That's probably already priced in before it actually happened. What I want to see with the price right now is just that we reclaim a previous support level with just 6869. Until we don't do that, I expect further downside to come. It's just pure technical levels. What is your take on Michael's analysis, Maddy? What key levels are you looking at for bullish and bearish scenarios? I would say 6800 is a key level that has played out before. But you always got to watch out for things like false breakouts and things which can happen. I would say overall, we're looking at very wide range for Bitcoin, something between $3,120,000 per coin. Please employ things like dollar cost averaging and buy the dip such as I'm doing in my public portfolio. Continuing to look at the more short-term scenarios, Michael, you tweeted that the US stock markets are currently in a relief or dead cat bounce during a massive, massive downtrend. Both you and Maddy have pointed out how Bitcoin has recently been correlated with equities markets. Do you also believe Bitcoin is experiencing a brief dead cat bounce as part of a larger downward trend? I guess it's a little bit difficult for Bitcoin to state that it's dead cat bounce. I still believe that Bitcoin has some sort of accumulation period to come in the next few months, especially given the uncertainties on the equity markets. You see on all the markets, you see the equity markets bounce up pretty strong. Yesterday, you see gold and silver bounce up with tens of percent. But there's no real shift in momentum at this point. The first panic just occurred about the coronavirus and there's still much more panic to come, I assume. I expect the Bitcoin markets to just accumulate while the stock markets continue to fall down in the next months given the economic impact of the coronavirus as well. Do you share that same view, Maddy? Yeah. In times of crisis, all correlations go to one, meaning at the moment, what we've seen, well, the initial impact and the shock of the coronavirus is that people are moving to cash at an unprecedented level, meaning that they're selling off every asset that has a value, and that includes gold and silver, copper, stocks, of course, and Bitcoin. Especially since Wall Street and institutional players are quite new in the market, most of them joined really during the early 2019 rally. They were the weak hands in the market, and a lot of them are the first ones to go out when things started falling. That said, the correlation between Bitcoin and the stock market right now is at a record high. It reached 0.6 out of 1, which it's never done that before. At some point, that correlation has got to come down. It can't last forever, and we will see a decoupling.  Over time, anyways, we'll definitely see people starting to hold on to any kind of assets that have, by nature, a limited supply. So continuing with this inflation, the Fed was recently given the green light to Prince as much money as needed to stabilize the economy. Matty, you took to Twitter to call this quantitative easing to infinity. Michael, you say long term, more dollars being created is bullish for Bitcoin and commodities. You are both referring to the effects of quantitative easing, how central banks are purposefully inflating their economies to offset the financial crisis. Why is this bullish for Bitcoin, Michael? Well, what Matty just said about helicopter money and inflation, in the end, people will search for assets that remain their value in markets that are pretty inflated. What you want to see at some point is that investors run out of the dollar given the inflation or deflation and start to seek for other assets, which are commodities like gold, silver and platinum and a Bitcoin. The other scenario is that the crisis just continues to fall down until 2021 and 2022 and the equity markets bottom out after which the other commodity markets and Bitcoin start to outperform the equity markets in the first case, which we have seen in 09 to 2011 with gold. So in the end, quantitative easing, I expect that to be bullish for Bitcoin. When can we expect Bitcoin to kind of fulfill its destiny as you were talking about, Matty? What are the exact circumstances that you see occurring when Bitcoin can finally come into the role that was meant for it? Unfortunately, past performance is not an indication of future results, but if we look at the 2008 financial crisis, we know that during 2008, when the stuff was hitting the fan and people were exiting stocks as fast as they could, gold was going down as well. And this is very similar to what we're seeing today. Simply, everybody's kind of moving to cash as the number one. Not necessarily just cash, it's anything that's liquid. Liquidity reigns supreme in this scenario. So everybody wants something that they can hold on to that's liquid. If you look at the aftermath to the financial crisis, which was, I believe as Michael said, 2009 to 2011, 2012, that's when gold really took the center stage. It was multi years. It went from around $800 after the crisis and it shot up to $2,000 per ounce by 2011, 2012. It was in response to quantitative easing where people were afraid that quantitative easing would bring inflation. In the end, it didn't end up happening that quantitative easing brought inflation. However, they've been printing money pretty much constantly ever since then. And the amounts that they're talking about now far surpass anything we've ever seen before, which means that basically inflation is pretty much foregone conclusion at this point, even if we haven't seen it in the past at some point. You put more and more money in people's pockets. The number of work hours are going down within the economy. The number of goods within the economy are going down. That all adds up to a very clear picture of where we're headed here. So what you're saying is you're using gold as an example for how Bitcoin could behave in the near future? I think that gold again is already showing us incredible resilience since the beginning of the year. I'm not going to say if it went up or down during the crisis because it's been fluctuating, but it certainly hasn't taken a hit like the stocks have. It's more or less held its value over that time. And I believe that Bitcoin will also be seen as this type of asset. The first thing to happen to Bitcoin was that the weak hands left, which they often do when the going gets tough in Bitcoin. But the hodlers remained and I believe that they are increasing their positions as we speak. Michael, what's your view on this comparison with gold? Do you agree with Maddie's perspective? Yeah, I mean, Bitcoin is actually called digital gold and it's acting in the same way as gold used to be in the past. However, it's easier to transfer Bitcoin than gold. So I expect Bitcoin to behave the same as gold used to be after 2000 crisis as it also dropped down during the 2000.com bubble. It dropped down in the 2008 credit crisis. So I expect the same to happen to Bitcoin and crypto as it used to happen to gold and commodities. So either way, even if there has to be a decoupling, people have to have to fly out of the dollar. That's one way. The other way is that the equity market just bottom out out of this recession or crisis or whatever it's going to be and start to outperform the years after. That's the main two scenarios that I'm watching for Bitcoin as well. A draft of the US coronavirus stimulus bill proposed the creation of digital wallets to administer a universal basic income for adults earning under $75,000 a year. Although this provision was removed in the most recent draft, members of the House and the Senate are fighting for the implementation of digital dollars. Michael, you tweeted that the US announcing a digital dollar doesn't change much. A digital US dollar is still is still a US dollar. Why is Congress suddenly considering a digital dollar? And what does this mean for crypto? And why don't you think this changes anything? What it means for crypto is it raised awareness through that it's probably a blockchain application and it's built on blockchain. So it's in the end, we will go to a digital future in which just cash just goes away and everything goes to a digital platform so that it is bullish for crypto and awareness for crypto and Bitcoin in general. However, it's still a dollar and it's still an infinite quantitative easing. So that doesn't change anything. There's actually printed more money while Bitcoin has their halving and the exact opposite of the currency, the dollars. So I think in the long term, it's bullish for Bitcoin. For short term, okay, it's still acting the same as the equity markets, I assume. So I guess they need to have one opportunity to do the helicopter money. And this is one way of doing it in the easiest way for the Congress to fulfill that prophecy. What are your thoughts on this proposal, Maddy? It was kind of off the wall wacky proposal, wasn't it? The fact that somebody in the US government is pushing for it is quite interesting and we've seen former CFTC Chairman John Carlo. He's basically quit his job and he's lobbying specifically only for this digital dollar. And I think the digital dollar would be first of all good for the United States because they'd be able to have a much greater level of control over their currency. Obviously, when you have bills that are floating around, you can't always track them. You can't always know where they are and what they're doing. So if people are holding them in safe or they're destroyed, you don't really know. Or maybe people are spending them. So when you have a digital dollar, you have a very good level of control over the velocity of money and with the creation of money and a very good oversight of what's happening within your economy, it would be good for Bitcoin, of course, because it advances the entire idea of the Internet of Value where we have dollars that are native to the Internet that are floating around. That only increases awareness and usage of digital currency, which is going to be good for Bitcoin because Bitcoin is the original digital currency and far preferred if you look at it on paper as far as supply and inflation and hard money and everything like that. That said, I believe that it's not really in Congress's authority to create a digital dollar. I believe that really goes with the Federal Reserve and they don't seem to be in any rush to do this. It was kind of a sudden thing, but do you think this is an opportune moment for the creation of a digital dollar? No. I think that they've got far bigger things on the fact that it made it into that proposal. I think that you just chuck that up to ridiculousness of Congress and everybody trying to push their agenda. I don't think that that was something that there's really bipartisan support for otherwise it would have actually made it into the bill. So I don't know. I think people just have their hands full with this coronavirus and maybe once the dust settles, that'll be put on the agenda, but for now it's nowhere near it. The Quantum Economics website advises people not to hold cash in the current economic environment. If you're not investing, you're losing money. For many, the onset of a financial crisis can seem a risky and daunting time to start investing, especially if they have a small budget. Why is it important to be investing and trading at this point in time, even though it looks like we are headed toward a recession if we're not already in one? So simply like I mentioned before, everything that we've seen so far from this crisis is the initial shock and impact. So imagine the economy as a car that was zooming along at 110 miles an hour and all of a sudden it stopped whether it was in a car crash or somebody slammed on the brakes will leave that part of the analogy. But what's happening now is that the car has come to almost a complete stop meaning that the global economy is not moving. And the idea of cash is going to be something that you just don't want to hold on to because it will lose its value. It's been happening. It's been playing out when I wrote those words before the corona crisis, but I believe that that's going to be far accelerated now. And if you're on an extremely small budget, I would say it doesn't really matter all that much. If you're going to be holding cash, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, then you don't really have much to invest with anyways. I wouldn't say to start trying. That's not necessarily always the brightest move because if you need that money for, this is an old idea in trading, if you need the money for something else, food, education, clothing, rent, you definitely don't want to be trading with it. That's just the dangerous thing to do. But for anybody with a bit of an extra or disposable income or value that they want to store or they want to see it grow in the future, cash has not been a good place for that, not since the 80s and it won't be anytime soon what with negative interest rates and everything like that. You're going to want to do everything you can to find things that are of value and going to continue to rise in value. Cash is just not a great place to store value from now on. Michael, do you agree with this idea that if you're not investing, you're actually losing money? I agree on some points right now. I mean, if the first shock on the equity markets has just occurred, if there's another second wave coming in through which the coronavirus will take the whole year, I expect the markets to just drop further down. But people have to realize that the coming years will give you opportunities you've been waiting for for the whole decade. So if you want to start investing in trading, then this is probably the period that you want to make some choices. That doesn't mean that you have to use all your money for it or that you have to invest everything at one point. Dollar cost averaging is a pretty decent way of investing in this period. As it's just giving you opportunities you've been waiting for, it's the same as people who joined crypto in 2017. They wanted to buy a 3k, but then they didn't have any money to buy Bitcoin at 3k because they bought at 18k. So if you are patient in this market and just dollar cost average, you get opportunities you've been waiting for for years. And I guess that's tremendous. And one day people will leave the dollar for other commodities or other assets and that period will come in the next year. So yeah, I agree on some point, but short term, it's a little bit too volatile and uncertain to invest, I assume. What is one suggestion you would give our viewers to protect themselves against the current downward trends in the market? At this point, I'll just stay in cash and be really patient. I mean, Trump just announced that they want to open up the country at Easter, while other countries are in lockdown for three months. So that's an interesting approach, I assume. And we have to see how that just works out. I mean, if the whole country of the States still has to get the first shockwave of coronavirus, then this whole impact will just be bigger. So remaining patient is not a bad approach at this point. After that, I'll be most bullish on crypto and commodities in general, not particularly on equities. I'm going to disagree with you on that one. The Fed just announced that they're willing to buy the entire market. There's enough cash in the financial system and there is an infinite amount of cash at the Federal Reserve. We will do whatever we need to do to make sure that there's enough cash in the banking system. Quite honestly, QE infinity is okay. If you're willing to sell it, we're willing to buy it. And this came at a time when there were literally no buyers in the market for many assets. Mortgage backed securities was just a sea of selling. I've been getting alerts flashing for several days that there just simply are no buyers out there for them. And the Fed also announced that they're going into corporate bonds, which are not exactly stocks, but basically they're going to be holding up the value of companies directly now as well. With that, basically, and along with the fiscal stimulus package of $2 trillion, I believe that they very well could have put a limit on the downside of this market. And anybody who's not investing right now and sitting on cash on the sidelines is probably going to be missing out on the massive upswinging. Great. Thank you, Matty and Michael, for joining me today. It was a pleasure having you on the show. Thanks a lot for having us. Thanks a lot. Thank you, everyone, for watching. My name is Jackson. That was Matty Greenspan and Michael Vandepop. And guys, if you liked the video, hit that like button and subscribe. And don't forget to hodl.


So I got so today my boyfriend and I will be filming some spicy content for my Okay, I'm not being rude and this is not to be disrespectful to this girl in any single way This is not coming at her at all. I'm offended because I am a 29 year professional in a respectable job I own my own place. I pay my own bills.  You're not gonna find news. You're not gonna find me fighting people online You're not gonna find me doing that and the most you'll see me doing is cracking some goddamn jokes, and I'm single Okay Okay apparently this young lady is confused or concerned or shocked as to why she's single and Apparently the sex worker the example she used in the beginning Is in a relationship and it got me thinking about in cells the whole concept of the involuntary celibate person and You know typically we talk about in cells as it refers to men But apparently there's something called fem cells which are female in cells the unique difference about it is whereas In cells might have to pay to get you know sex fem cells have access to sex But they don't have the access they would like to relationships And I think this is such an important part of the conversation because I think we often Overfixate on men's shortcomings, but we don't really address women's shortcomings And if I'm being fair women don't address their own shortcomings And they don't address their fellow women's shortcomings and I think that's why you have a lot of women who Have this expectation of certain outcomes without considering in what ways that they fall short of The outcomes expectations of them right so in this case she's saying you know She's not an online whore and she's covered up and she has no dirt and all good things All things that we talk about are important for a future Wife a future mother a future grandmother in a whole nine However, just like with men relationship is not just about box checking It's about first of all checking the right boxes because you have to be in tune with what The thing or the person you want wants from you and then number two It's about some of those intangibles right kind of we we talk about what do you bring to the table a lot of The expectations from both sides are intangibles So what's your personality like what's your disposition? Are you good to be around? You know, what's the energy that you leave people with and what I find with certain Women in particular who are single and In this situation unsure or unclear as to why they're single because they're so Great and their god's gift to everything. I find that number one There's a narcissistic element to their personality that runs people off and there's that entitlement right like even in her speech There's an entitlement in her voice I am x y and z so I deserve x y and z and it's clear when we talk about like quote-unquote nice guys or In-cell men who have the expectation that their old sex or their old Female attention because they're in good shape or because they make a certain amount of money Or because they are this or because they're that and we know that that's not the case That's not how women work. That's not how people work. It might get you on the door But it's not going to keep you there. Unfortunately, it seems like Some of our sisters miss that and again going back to that narcissistic entitlement. I am not the problem I don't have necessarily anything else to fix about myself these Quote-unquote high value men should want me. I should already be married. I should already be in a relationship often when you spend More than 10 15 minutes around these types of women. It's clear why often they have very very dry personalities often they have princess syndrome often they Talk to people as if they're beneath them simply because they might be More educated or just as educated or or they come from a certain background and again They might have never been confronted with these truths But this is what runs people off and particularly the the caliber of man in this case That these types of women feel that they are deserving of self-reflection self-awareness We talk about self-work, but often we don't talk about self-awareness And i'm encouraging our sisters or brothers too first of all learn about The the psychology of what you want if you're a woman learn about male psychology Not the men that you not men as you would wish they were but men as they are and men learn female psychology not the fairytale that you made up in your mind About who women are but the reality and then consider the ways that Your personnel your disposition lends you to companionship with what you want or Keeps you in the situation and the outcomes that you have If you want to see more of this, please click that like button it helps tremendously And share this to somebody you think would gain value from the message And hit that subscribe button as well Peace out y'all


Thanks for the introduction, where's my slide? Okay, so for this talk, I'm going to present a new definition framework called indistinguishability up to correctness, INDC for short. So just in one sentence, it is a new technique for you to write security definitions or to design security games in such a way that you don't need to attend to travel wins. Or more specifically excluding travel wins from the adversary. Hence the title, Simplifying Game-Based Definitions. So let's first start with a review about indistinguishability, INDC for short. As we are all familiar with, indistinguishability is about an adversary advantage notion that measures how good he is in distinguishing a real game G from an ideal game H. In this setting, an adversary A would ask questions to one of the two games and receive responses from the games. His job is to differentiate which games he is interacting with. So the indistinguishability advantage of an adversary A against games G and G and H are defined to be this probability difference that he outputs one in both worlds. So this concludes somehow, okay. So based on such an adversary advantage, a game G is called indistinguishable from an ideal game H. If we're all adversary with reasonable amount of resource, his distinguishing advantage is small. This is all very familiar. But I want to emphasize is that indistinguishability won't be so useful and so important in our field if this slide is all what it's about. If you go through the literature, most of the definitional work uses indistinguishability in the following way. The games G and H are really constructed in such a way that it depends on some crypto schemes pie. And then people would define all kinds of security advantage against such a scheme pie as the IND advantage of the games G and H that are instantiated with this pie. There are this talk I'm going to call this way of defining security as the conventional way. So let's first go through some examples of what conventional games look like in the literature. So here is a game that defines key indistinguishability for bi-directional radiated key exchange. The relevant talk was given right here by Poitering two days ago. Here is another one that's about that model's integrity property of a primitive called data stream channels. It is a joint work done by Fisherlin at all in crypto 15. Yet another one. That model's circuit hiding property of onion encryption, by the way, onion encryption is the encryption algorithms used in any routing network like tour and mixed nets. This is a recent work done by DecoBrilli and Stam. I believe you Eurocrypt 18. All these games are really complex. So maybe let's switch our mind and start with some games that look not that complex. Here is a game called all sub I. It models the authenticity property of stateful authenticated encryption. The same topic as mine. So if you look at their secret, it is a joint work done by Boyd-Hale-Boysnitz, the media in CTRSA 2016. If you look at their code, it doesn't look that bad. At least it's comprehensible. However, just within one year after their first publication to CTRSA, the same orders published a revision in which they revised the pseudo code of their security games to e-print in which they added this special processing to one of their sub cases. And even this revision is still not correct because there really should be a return R statement between line five and line six. I believe it's just a typo. So all these stories and complex games motivated us to think about what are the essential problems about indistinguishability paradigm? So as you can see from the previous lines, the definitions or the security games related to those are really complex and subtle in such a way to a degree that they're just hard to debug and believe. Worse, a prior work of Larry Hoffman's and Kiehl's showed that even with the most basic security definitions like IDCC security for public encryption schemes, people still would mess up and they are vague in terms that they are vague of how travel queries from adversaries are disallowed. The others showed that just by tweaking the way that travel queries are disallowed, you can define multiple unequivalent security notions for IDCC security for public encryption schemes and key wrapping algorithms as well. In summary, it's just hard to justify for a cryptographer once he writes down some pseudo code of security games for some security properties. It's just, it's hard to justify for him, does this game really capture what I want? Part of the reason for that is there's no good theory for cryptographers to use as how to create security definitions. In the literature, we have many good tools and theories to upper bound adversary advantage given existing security definitions, security notions like coefficient H methods, expectation arguments, for example. But as for how to create that security definitions, typically we're on our own. So our IDCC framework is supposed to fill in this gap. In high level, it works like a definition compiler where you feed into this compiler two security games that capture what you want, but really do not work because there will be travel winning strategy for the adversary. So the definition on the left hand side is bogus. However you live with that, you pass these security games to the compiler and it will automatically generate two edited games for you whose IND advantage results in relevant reasonable security notion in which there is no travel win. So what is this definition compiler then? It's a process we call Oracle editing. It works like this. We start with two utopian games, G and H. The games are called utopian because there are travel wins to win this, there are travel winning strategy for the adversary to win these games. We again provide, we in addition provide a Cragness class C that is mathematically just a set of cryptos games of which satisfies certain Cragness conditions. The Cragness condition is just a familiar functional property that a class of schemes need to satisfy in order to work. For example for public key encryption this would just be the decryption needs to be the reverse process of encryption. You pass these three building blocks to the process of Oracle editing and this will output the edited games G tilde and H tilde. We then define a new adversary advantage called INDC advantage in the middle at the bottom against G, H and C. Simply to be the plain indistinguishability advantage against G tilde and H tilde. The same advantage would then use to be what happens security advantage against the underlying scheme pi. Okay, so what is this Oracle editing process in particular? In order to illustrate this I would first go deep into our game playing model as shown here. Security games in our model consist of initialization procedure, Oracle procedure and finalization procedures. These are written in pseudo code and they are stateful. They have states so that the game states are maintained across invocation. An adversary A would simply ask questions to the Oracle procedure receiving responses and then he would add his will output his own output Z which usually equals to the game outcome omega. This will be what the utopian games behave like. Like I said, there needs to be added done. So what is this editing? Well, we added the utopian games by adding this yellow demultiplexer. This demultiplexer will, before each time the response is given to the adversary, computes a silencing function psi on the current game transcript. The game transcript includes all previous adversary queries and responses. And if this silencing function returns true, the response of the Oracle YI would be replaced by a special diamond symbol. We call this Oracle silencing. Okay, so now comes the real crux of our whole framework. How should we define this silencing function? Because this really captures what we mean by trivial queries. So we think that a query is trivial if the adversary based only on the current game transcript and based solely on the fact that the underlying scheme is in the Cragnitz class C knows the answer beforehand. So let me repeat this, this is very important. We think a query is trivial, so it should be silenced. When an adversary based solely on the current transcript that includes all his queries and responses at this point and based solely on the fact that the scheme is in the Cragnitz class knows the answer beforehand. Formalizing this idea, we define a silencing function in this way that given T, the answer is fixed across all schemes applying to class C if the adversary interacted with the real game. We give definition formulas for the silenced functions. I don't want to go deep into this, but I only want to point that the silencing function here is a logical or of a fixed predicate. That means whenever there were prior queries that it needs to be silenced, it remains so. So it's like a silenced shutdown approach. This concludes the description of NDC, but before I leave this topic, I need to mention one important caveat, that is the silenced function needs to be efficiently computable. Or at least on the domain that matters, transcripts that arise in G sub pi or H sub pi. If this does not hold, the intuition that because the adversary knows the response so he should not ask it, simply would not hold. Let's summarize how we use NDC to create the definitions. We first formalize syntax of schemes pi, then the correctness condition. This will give us a correctness class. The same step as the conventional way. We next design utopian games G and H. And in doing so, we don't need to attend to logic for excluding trivial winning queries, for example. Along with C, this determines the INDC security notion we want. Finally, we need to verify the silenced function, silenced sub CG is efficiently computable on the relevant sets of transcripts. Okay, so that is the conclusion of INDC framework. Let me go through two examples for that. The first example is, let's use it to define INDC as security for public encryption schemes. A very familiar notion. I'm going to perform this definitional process first in the conventional way, and then by our INDC way. As we're all familiar with, a public key encryption scheme consists of two probabilistic key algorithms, key generation and encryption, then a deterministic decryption algorithm. The correctness property is just that for all messages, if you're encrypt by a public key generated by the key generation algorithm, and you decrypt that, you would get back the original message. All these are very simple. So let's try to design security games for INDC security. This is the first attempt. Both the real size G1 and the ideal size H1 share initialized key decryption finalized procedures that have natural semantics, except for the encryption article where in the real side you encrypt the real message, but in the ideal side you encrypt all zero bit messages. If we are working in a setting of conventional way, I'm sorry, if we are going to give conventional indistinguishability based definitions, we know that this is not enough. There are ways to trivially win this game. Adversary simply asks encryption M, gets back C, then he decrypts C. So that by correctness in the real world he would see the original message M, but in the ideal side he would see the all zero bit messages M. Traditionally there are multiple ways to exclude such trivial wins. You can either exclude from consideration, exclude from consideration all adversaries that make such trivial queries, or you can first allow such trivial queries, but in the finalized procedure you penalize that behavior by returning zero. Valarie, Hoffman's and Kiehl's called the first one exclusion style, the second one penalty style. Okay, this is the conventional way. What about our INDC way? We need to have first syntax, correctness condition, which we already did. We need to have utopian games G1 and H1. This looks the same as the first attempt. And the difference with the previous slide is there is no logic for excluding. There's no code that attends to the exclusion of the trivial queries. All the security code here looks very natural. And that's it. C1, G1, H1 define an INDC security notion and we've shown that the resulting INDC security definition is equivalent to the conventional one. Okay, you might say this doesn't look very promising. You only manage to remove two lines of code. So let's go to our main example of state authenticated encryption. There have been many prior work on this. I've listed three of them. As you might imagine, they tend to have different syntax, different security goals, and they have relatively complex security games. That's most important. So let's try to use INDC on stateful authenticated encryption. First, the syntax. We simply augment the traditional authenticated encryption syntax by a state space, both in the input and in the output. And the next, we need to define correctness. Somehow, surprisingly, this question to the best of our knowledge was not answered explicitly in the literature. We choose it. If you think about the question, what is a correct stateful authenticated encryption? So if you apply that over a reliable channel, things really matter here. If you apply that over a reliable channel, then you might only require the receiver to decrypt correctly. Just for the ciphertext that's receiving order. But if you are using stateful authenticated encryption over unreliable channel, then you might need a stronger correctness requirement. You might require the receiver to decrypt correctly for any out-of-order ciphertext, except for replay, for example. Between these two, there can be many variants about this level of fidelity for the receivers. We choose to model that by a level set L. This is just a set of natural number sequences so that a number sequence is in this level set if and only if it is considered a permissible ordering of the ciphertext generated by the sender. At the bottom is our formalization for this correctness class that's parameterized by this level set L. The next step is to give real and ideal utopian games. As you can see, compared to prior work, our security games are much more simple thanks to the INDC because we never, we no longer need to write out explicit logic to exclude those trivial winning queries from the adversary. We have a safer AE construction that satisfies the resulting INDC CCA security notion as well. So finally, let me conclude with some of the possible variants for INDC framework. All the, so everything I just talked about actually is about one central question. How do we formalize the silencing function to reflect the idea of excluding trivial wins? There are many definition choices apart from our silencing function, which is a silenced shutdown style. We can instead silence ones, but allow additional queries. There can be ideal side editing. We don't silence the real rules, but instead we added the ideal world responses by the real world ones. There can be penalty style editing where you simply modify the finalization procedure to penalize whenever in the transcript there is a fixedness query. There can even be symmetric silencing. Let me skip this, but I want to mention that all of these four or three of them we show that they are expressively, they're equivalently expressive as our initial version. However, convenience does come with some price. First, definitions coming out of INDC are abstract. In terms of the edited games do not have concrete security code. However, most of the time it can be concretely recalculated so that you can do the conventional security analysis against it. It is still a speculative proposal. We've only used it on any encryption, public key encryption, and state-authenticated encryption. But we expect the idea can be broadly applicable and there definitely needs to be more work done on this topic to understand how general this idea works. And that's all for the talk. Any questions?


Mae'r next item of business today is topical questions, and we start with question number one from Sandra White. To ask the Scottish Government what response it has received from the UK Government to the concerns that has been raised regarding people from Scotland being blocked from returning from overseas visits due to the United States imposing a travel ban. I am deeply concerned at the executive order signed by President Trump on Friday that it effectively bans people from a number of Muslim-majority countries from entering the US. On Sunday, I wrote to the foreign secretary urging him to make the strongest possible representations to the US Government about the effect the order will have on people who live, study and work here. The First Minister also raised the issue with the Prime Minister when he met at the joint ministerial committee in Cardiff yesterday. I have yet to receive a ministerial reply, but there has been communication at official level. The foreign secretary made a statement in the House of Commons yesterday saying that the UK has secured an exemption to the ban for UK passport holders, including dual nationals. It does not go nearly far enough. We know from cases such as that of Dr Hamisey Teary, a vet studying at the University of Glasgow, that the ban may affect many who live, work and study in Scotland yet do not have or hold a UK passport. We are still concerned about the confusion about how the ban applies and I am seeking clarification. More broadly, the imposition of a blanket ban on people on the basis of their birthplace, nationality or religion in the name of security is counterproductive and morally wrong. It risks exacerbating tensions between communities. It will undermine much of the work that the global community has been doing to tackle extremism. The United States has long been a place that has welcomed people from other countries, especially those fleeing persecution. We will press the US Government directly and through the UK to reconsider this action and adopt an approach that reflects the values of equality, tolerance, diversity and human rights and would seek the support of this chamber in doing so. Sandra White I thank the cabinet secretary for that very full reply and look forward to any further replies from ministers such as the foreign secretary and also the minister in Westminster. The minister has mentioned her post-graduate rep from Glasgow University and we know that she was prevented from returning to Scotland via New York. We must all give sincere thanks to women for ending all the people who donated moneys to enable her to return to Scotland. Although we all recognise that this is a fantastic gesture and it is most welcome, does the minister agree with me that the Westminster Government must condemn Trump's entry ban and work with the Scottish Government to ensure that this never happens again to people living and working in Scotland? Sandra White Clearly, the confusion and chaos that is evident across the world shows some of the issues that arise from this executive order and the immediacy of it. For an individual who simply goes on holiday not to be able to return home shows the extremism of this action. I would also commend the crowd fundraising for women for independence and the wider community support that the individual has received, not least from our employer, the University of Glasgow. We should all think very hard and deep about the consequences, not just immediately, of this action but what it says about the world that we live in today. Sandra White Cabinet Secretary, we all realise that this particular issue, while being supported fantastically while bringing Hamish back from the United States, is largely a reserved matter. For the most part, Westminster's domain. Will the Scottish Government make any direct representation to the US Government over this issue and, furthermore, make clear to the world that Scotland is a welcoming country, which values people who come here to visit, live and work and study regardless of their country of origin? Sandra White Yes, our intention would be to do that. It is instructive that the number of countries and Governments across the world have set out their views. Clearly, the UK Government has lead responsibility in relation to foreign relations but they do not have lead responsibility on morality. I think that the fact that so many of us view this as morally wrong means that we have an obligation to speak out. Holly McNeill Minister, would you join me in commending Glasgow University for being so quick to come out in support of its employee? Furthermore, would you also join me in congratulating the many Scots who were in the streets of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen? It was very encouraging to see that people feel so strongly that this is a racist policy by the new president of the United States. Sadly, there will be more cases like this of the case of Dr Hamzi Tyari. I am sure that I do not need to get the assurance of the minister for an excellent statement today, but just for the record will she assure the Parliament that she will be ever vigilant in the weeks and the months to come for, sadly, many other Scots who may be in a similar position? Angela Constance Indeed, we need to be vigilant and alert to any cases. I think that the lack of clarity means that we do not know who will be affected and why. That is why we are seeking clarification on what exemptions may or may not have been secured by the UK Government and when. Does it apply to the UN last year from one of the listed countries that are also EU or Commonwealth passport holders? If you are French living in Scotland or you are in Germany or Iraq, what does that mean? I think that some of the issues, particularly around the suspension of the refugee programme and the Geneva convention, are very big issues that people want to have a greater understanding of, as well as the detail of some of the confused statements that we have. The first point about the University of Glasgow is that we live in a country in which civic Scotland, including our universities, is very, very aware of its responsibilities to individuals from elsewhere that are living in and studying in our country. They are of us and that is why I respond to them as part of that community of Scotland that responded so well. I was travelling back from Brussels yesterday and I saw the amazing pictures of people responding immediately to say loud and clear that that type of behaviour is not something that Scotland has as its value system and that we will join the rest of the world in speaking out. Ross Greer Many thousands of refugees who had expected at a sanctuary to be coming soon have had their hopes destroyed by this ban. We know that so many of them would be welcome here in Scotland. Today, the Westminster Home Affairs Select Committee published a report that was damning of UK Home Office accommodation services for asylum seekers. It described it as disgraceful. Following the vote of this Parliament a few months ago, will the cabinet secretary be able to update us on what representation the Scottish Government has made about devolution of such services to this Parliament and, short of that, what consideration of the Scottish Government has given to a public sector bid for the contract? Ross Greer Clearly, the Home Affairs Committee's report is very important and very instructive, and we have always made clear in terms of how Scotland deals in support with refugees from day one that that quality of support, whether it is in housing or otherwise, must be secured. I recall one of the first things that I ever did as a temporary convener of a committee of this Parliament was to ensure that the conditions of asylum seekers in Glasgow were subject to an initial inquiry by this Parliament back in, I think, 1999-2000. It was that time that the then boarders agency, the Predecessor, made sure that Glasgow had greater responsibility for accommodation for asylum seekers at that point. We now move on, and what have we learned in 17 years? I think that the lessons that Scotland learned many, many years ago in terms of how those coming to seek refuge in this country were treated stand as well today. I think that some of the issues and concerns that we have with the centralised control of support for refugees has meant that the responsiveness that we could and should see has not been secured. We will examine the committee report very closely. Dr Alasdair Allan, who has lead responsibility in some of those areas, particularly in relation to the Home Office, will look at that. Clearly, it is an impact that affects all cabinet secretaries with health and housing and other responsibilities as well. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update following the meeting of the joint ministerial committee on 30 January. The meeting discussed the lack of progress to agreeing a common position on the triggering of article 50, which was the purpose of setting up the GMC European Negotiations Committee. Given that the UK Government has already announced its intention to trigger article 50 before the end of March, the First Minister stressed to the Prime Minister that the UK Government needs to intensify joint work on the Scottish Government's proposals and the proposals from the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru. The UK Government must demonstrate how it will incorporate the devolved administration's interests into their negotiating position. On the issue of powers, the First Minister made clear that it will not be sufficient to guarantee the powers that are already devolved. We must see a clear indication in the UK Government that there will be a major transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament once the UK leaves the EU. The Scottish Parliament is aware that the Scottish Government believes that should the UK Government persist with its plans for the hardest of Brexit and remain unwilling to incorporate into its position the needs of the devolved administrations, then there would be no choice but to give the people of Scotland an opportunity to have their say on the matter. That is why the next few weeks will be crucial in terms of demonstrating the intentions of the UK Government. In line with the written agreement between the Scottish Government and the Parliament on intergovernmental relations, the First Minister will write to the Finance and Constitution Committee to provide a summary of the issues that are discussed at the joint ministerial committee. Emma Harper I welcome the First Minister's commitment to intensify joint work on the Scottish Government's proposals and also note to her comments from yesterday that this is a process that cannot go on indefinitely. When does the Scottish Government expect a substantive response to those proposals? Does the minister regret that this has not been forthcoming ahead of the UK Government's decision to press ahead with its bill in the UK Parliament to trigger article 50? The First Minister Yes, I do regret that, but clearly there are events within the timeline that provide crucial moments. The next of those is most probably the triggering of article 50, of course presuming that the legislation introduced today into the House of Commons passes. It is absolutely essential that we have an intensification of the process and the run-up to trigger article 50, and that is a meaningful process that produces the compromise to the UK Government that would match the compromise that the Scottish Government has already offered. Emma Harper Speaking ahead of the House of Commons debate on the UK Government's article 50 bill today, I was surprised to hear Brexit Secretary David Davis describe the fact of a hard Brexit for the UK as a foregone conclusion or, in his words, a point of no return already past. Does the minister agree that such comments fly in the face of previous assurances given by the Prime Minister to consider carefully the proposals brought forward by the devolved administrations and perhaps typify the regrettable approach by the UK Government to just do as it pleases when it comes to Scotland? The First Minister Well, it is regrettable that such language is used today, considering that David Davis was present as I was at the meeting yesterday in which there was a clear agreement to intensify the process, and that is absolutely vital. If everything is a foregone conclusion, then there would regrettably be no point in having a process, let alone an intensification of the process. I hope that that was a slip of the tongue. I hope that what he was indicating was not an intention to refuse to listen, but I hope that he will be as good as his own word yesterday, which is to take part in the intensification of the discussions so that we can come to some positive conclusions, and I repeat positive conclusions that show that the UK Government is prepared to match the compromise that the Scottish Government has put forward. Adam Tomkins Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the handbook of EEA law, edited by Carl Bowdenbacker, the President of the FFTA Court, the following conclusions are defended. First, it is a major weakness of the EEA agreement that FFTA states ability to influence EU law to which they are subjected is extremely limited. Secondly, it is the complexity and sophistication of the EEA agreement that, in practice, it would be difficult for any state other than Switzerland to qualify for membership. Can I ask the minister if conclusions such as those that come from Europe's leading scholars on the EEA have been addressed in meetings of the JMC or indeed of the JMCEN? Well, I suppose that I should say if only. If only the UK Government actually thought in some detail about these matters and entered into debate, because there are responses that are perfectly possible to both of those. The first of those is to point out that we would be considerably weaker when we are not engaged in the single market. So this is not a question of saying that there would be a weakness. If we are not in the single market, there are huge disadvantages to Scotland, as the member will know having read this very important paper that we published last December. On the second point, nobody is understating the difficulties. The paper does not understate the difficulties, but I have to say that the difficulties of the UK position are also legion. This is not a simple matter for the UK. I am happy to quote chapter and verse of authorities who indicate that many of the things that the United Kingdom is saying will present enormous difficulties in negotiation. It cannot be one law for the UK Government and another one for the Scottish Government. The reality is that the difficult situation that we are placed in is not of our making, but we are still prepared to work exceptionally hard to get the best result for Scotland as part of the best result for the UK. What we need to have is an engagement in that process in the UK Government, the commitment of which was given months ago, but the process has not yet produced any results. That is why there is an agreement to intensify that process over the next few weeks. Lewis MacDonald Thank you very much. Can the minister confirm, in the spirit of the wider perspective that he has just elucidated, can he confirm the level of engagement around the Welsh Government's proposals at the meeting yesterday and, in particular, the bilateral engagement between the Scottish and Welsh Governments on that paper? I am fortunate to have a very productive relationship with the Welsh minister-responsal for these, Mark Drakeford. We met twice yesterday, first before the plenary session and again after the plenary session, and we agreed joint action to take forward the intensification. I spoke briefly to the Welsh First Minister yesterday, and undoubtedly the view that we all have is that the Welsh paper produced jointly between Plaid Cymru and the Government, and the Government, of course, includes a representative of the Liberals, is a paper that conforms very closely with our views and that there is clearly a community of interest in taking forward these discussions. Indeed, specifically at the JMC last week—two weeks ago—I made reference in my presentation of the Scottish paper to the fact that the process of engagement on that paper must now include consideration of the Welsh paper, a matter that was welcomed by the JMC and by the Welsh Assembly Government. I should also say that we recognise, for example, the contribution to this made by Sinn Fein before Christmas in the publication of a shorter document, but a document had indicated a desire for special status for Northern Ireland. So there is a widespread view that there is a requirement for differentiation in the UK position when it triggers article 50, and that is the key to the issue, to ensure that there is differentiation in the position. That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Parliament's discussion of the article 50 process will also be so essential, because it is important that members are engaged in the discussion of why the triggering of article 50 needs to take place, recognising the need for differentiation.


Welcome to the Mustang Minute. Paul Taylor joined by women's ice hockey head coach Tracy Johnson after the Mustangs 5-1 win over Wilkes this afternoon to open up the unofficial second half of the season. Coach a lot to like tonight, a lot to work on. Exactly that's what we kind of just kind of talked about. We're really kicking off the second half of the season and there's a lot of things that we just really have to focus on and bear down with and you know I just think our energy was not there the first couple of periods unfortunately and you know we just have to work on putting together a full game. Third period though seemed to be you guys you know we're right you know right with it, energy wise, pacing and everything. What was it that was the first two periods just wasn't clicking? You know I think when we're coming back from a game like this and or coming back from from the first half and we really wanted to come in with a lot of energy and so unfortunately not bringing it from the start I think just really kind of manifested itself and and we took us a while to kind of just spark out of it and we just really can't be we can't be letting ourselves start games like that or a play like that at any point especially in the second half of the season so we're just going to really try to work at it and and make sure that we're playing our game right from the get go.  Yeah those two work very well together and they have from the beginning and Sierra is just you know I just felt like she was giving it everything every shift and you know really really provided that spark that we needed and you know that's what you need from your captain and I'm just proud of her for for having the the mental toughness to push through that and really try to you know carry the team with some energy for that third. Alright a little bit of a short week but we'll see you again on Friday. Absolutely thank you. Mustangs win five to one this has been the Mustang Minute with head coach Tracy Johnson.


Question is from Philly fan 1728. I see the west side barbell guys doing heavy box squats Is there a benefit to this compared to traditional squats? If so, what and why would you incorporate it into a program? I love box squats box squats Box squats were one of the one of the ways I got my squat up to the only time the first time I ever did and the only times I did it did over 400 pound squat It was the box squat that took me to the next level now what I would I take from the box squat So to do a proper box squat by the way is get under bar like you're gonna do squat You take a low box actually you can use different different heights But I would pick a box that would have me at the bottom of my normal score and range my end range And I would slowly lower myself down. I'd sit I'd stay tight I wouldn't bounce off the squat seen people do this on the box Use it as a it's like a tap or or they rock back or that rock back I would sit down on the box stay tight I'd wait about two seconds and then I'd stand up and what I took from that was my the strength at the bottom of my Squat got so much better Oh, yeah It made me way stronger at the weakest part of my squat And I think it's because when you're at the bottom and you sit there for a dead stop You're at a dead stop you're and you're you're you're getting rid of a little bit of that that Elastic rebound that you get from the bottom of an exercise I would have to lift from almost a dead, you know position I would make the argument that it's similar benefits as pause squats You know, it's you're taking momentum out, right? That's and I think that with with with squatting and and less so with dead lifting But with squatting, especially you get that major rebound effect of bouncing off the back of your calves and the Release and they pop back up whereas if you stop and you pause for two or three seconds and then come back up I mean, that's very similar to the the box squat feel where you're sitting You're completely stopped and they come you know, you could also you instead of using the box to you could also use like a the rack and Come to the bottom of the until the weights hit the rack and then you're the bottom and then come from a dead A dead stop like you can but the box a little different because when you sit on it Even though you're staying tight in your core your muscles do relax Far more than if you're supporting it at all, right, right And so you kind of sit down pause for a second come up and the the the carry over the reason why the guys from Westside barbell did it was because of the carry over when you when you got stuck in your regular squats You started doing some box squats all of a sudden your regular squats start to go through now You're training the recruitment process. You're enhancing that problem in the most vulnerable part of the exercise, right? The one where you're down at the bottom of your squat Typically, you're not gonna produce the most the most force in that position and so to then you know fixate on that part of The exercise where you know, you typically you don't have that much force production Now let's let's train that to really like hone in and focus on generating more force without it It's gonna benefit you tremendously now. We're making the case for how how great they can be I'm gonna make the case for the other side too that it's it's not the most valuable thing for the average person I think more people would benefit from working on their their squat depth and getting better range of motion than loading the bar heavier and Shortening the range of motion up and going heavy as far as the carry over it has for strength and building a squat up Incredible, so I think it's an incredible tool like many other tools And that's the reason why Westside barbell uses it and does it, but for the average client I had more people that Were stuck at not being able to get a squat to 90 or beyond 90 and so putting a box underneath them where they don't even hit 90 Degrees or barely do hit 90 degrees I didn't load it can normally what people do with box what's to is they load it heavy really heavy I don't see a lot of value in that for the average person I use box squats more for the average person to actually treat to teach form Yes, I was just gonna say I was gonna give you some pushback because I loved box squats for the average person for former I like to teach them how to sit like it was a great way to teach someone how to sit back Like if you get a client and trainers will understand this that are listening You know sometimes Cuing hinging at the hips is like what the fuck does that mean to Susie?  But telling them sit back on the box and because the box will catch them right not afraid to exactly So they get more comfortable with the the movement pattern of sliding the hips back and sitting down into a seat or a chair So that's how I used a box or their wet that which is not how West Side barbell West Side barbell is using it for the what we talked about the beginning which is building strength tons of value for it I think it's amazing for those reasons But when I when I think back to the average person that I train which is I think the majority of people probably listen this podcast I'm not really using box squats that often unless it's somebody who's like really new I'm teaching how to hinge back, but if it's like the Average person who's been weightlifting for a couple years It's just not a tool that I use that often it's for so the first time when I started doing box squats with other people It was this is when I started to understand priming. This is box squats Actually what led me to really start to understand the the difference between priming and warming up because I noticed When I'd have my regular clients do box squats before they squatted their squats look better And it was because exactly what you're saying it taught them It got them in the right recruitment pattern and feel in fact maps anabolic box squats are put in there before Traditional squats specifically for that reason this is before you know ever ever talked about or created a program like maps prime Well, I too I think that it teaches supportive muscular tension That is necessary, you know in that position because a lot of my clients would go through the you know the movement of it, but then they would bounce back up off the joints and so You would you would see you would see them actually relax, you know down at the bottom position Which would that was very common because you could sort of utilize that that elastic spring effect And then you know, and that's something we're trying to teach against because you know The more you load now like it's gonna compromise the joints, you know down the road So I'd looked at it as a great way to then you know teach So now I'm at this bottom position. I have no momentum to spring up off of how do I get up?


Quantum state superpositions and entanglement are two of the most fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics, and also two of its most misunderstood. And they are turning out to be the key to the next generation of quantum computing. In our first chapter, the microscopic, we covered the double-slit experiment that showed how photons and electrons display both wave and particle properties. It's called wave particle duality or complementarity. The key to the experiment was to observe what happens when we detect which of the slits a particle went through. For photons, we never explained how we could detect a photon without disturbing its path. So this final chapter brings us full circle, where we will cover in detail how this was done. In our second chapter on the atom, we covered Schrodinger's equation with its probability wave, Eisenberg's uncertainty principle, and Pauli's exclusion principle with electron spin. These constitute the base physics for understanding superpositions and entanglement. We'll cover exactly what quantum superposition and entanglement are. We'll cover Einstein's problem with quantum mechanics and its prediction that we will someday find hidden variables to explain entanglement. We'll cover a thought experiment designed to show that hidden variables cannot exist. It's called Bell's Theorem or Bell's Inequality. We'll cover a real experiment that uses entangled photons to create ghost images that produce a bell inequality. Along the way, we'll clear up a few misconceptions about Schrodinger's cat and the quantum eraser. We'll end with a look at quantum computing and how it directly manifests and leverages these quantum properties. Our first encounter with quantum superpositions will be the double slit experiment, so in preparation we'll cover some key characteristics of light polarization.


Going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards. We are ripping 20 22 top Star Wars at Masterware copy a box case number 13 Random mini box style. Let me do one thing really tag this break off before we do anything So what I'm gonna do is open the case first. What's up, Rob? How you doing buddy?  We've got Boxes 1 through 4 and then boxes 5 through 8 again They have to be facing me if they are not facing me when I open the case I'm gonna flip them around and put them toward me But if they are facing me, I'll just take my box as they are It's one half of them are fate they're flipped around and we'll Yes, I have to flip around again. So this is box 1 through 4 So now you can see they're facing me and same these at the case do the random now Get out of here legal Jokester All right got 32 participants 32 numbers 1 through 32 representing your mini box number Well, that's we're gonna go just three times one Two and three Francis D down to Andrew R and three times on your numbers one Two and three that is six down to one Francis D with six Louis R 11 Paul B 30 Chris V 17 JTH 26 Jared M 27 Jeremy S 16 Paul B 21 Andrew P 3 Chris V 14 Francis D 20 and 7 Andrew P 18 Terry R 32 Ryan G 31 Jennifer Y 12 K Ray with 10 Chris V 9 Jared M 22 Brett C 28 Eddie G 4 Taylor M 23 Chris V 2 and 5 Jared M 15 Chris V 25 Jam and L 19 Terry R 29 Matthew B 24 Sloan H 13 John L 8 and Andrew R 1. I got these copied over Jennifer with another hoop spot. Thank you Jennifer It sounded seven ago. I think now Seven ago on hoops, which is very nice Appreciate that everybody you know, let's get this master work break sold out It was in the first one believe so So box one Andrew R Chris V Andrew P and Eddie G it's for us the only breakers name who can't be shortened Oh, wait Jake's name isn't all right. Good luck here, Andrew See see John it's shortened Yes, come on Cob or Cad Bane and a fifth brother Got Mando captain racks and Amanda Lauren on the Shite-up pirate detonator Very nice. We've got two is Chris V. We went out of legal Rob's a bot base and a green Boba Fett Can't be a job. Sorry cars a flip and Wow Whoa, whoa Shilah Lee Dude, that's crazy Wow, man. Congrats Chris. That's kind of insane dude It's like hollow paint on that man. That's disgusting. That is absolutely insane Good stuff on that Chris. There you go, buddy. Get that into a mag. That's insane, man Andrew P Base and a blue Sarajunda BB8 on the canvas auto 225 BB8 and A Eddie G at number four now saying man That's a crazy. We've hit some really good sketches so far today, man. These sketches have been kind of nuts All right, Derek with a hoop spot We got Joseph with the Giants and flawless Michael with a spot in penini one and Joseph with a Sunday fun day spot So spot and everything pretty much coming in again 24 to go on the next one next master work makes Mayfield foil to 299 of one of the quilt cards and And Nambi Gima, that's Kieran No, that's a key. Yeah, Kieran shot as Nambi Gima one second But up up up up Sorry guys got to check one thing before we move on. No, I did not I just want to see if the security guy was there But it's not I was gonna say I would have just done it. I would just let him know But I don't think he might not be here by the time she gets here Good one. We're losing it. Yeah, dude. We're losing it. That's what we're doing Yeah Like all with a spot between one Andrew with another spot in 14 Zika with four spots in 14 We're down to 19 to go all the sudden 19 to go all the sudden everybody on 2 box number two. We've got Chris V. France's D twice and then Jonathan L remote the end-season tournament Script confirmed V. Good luck here, buddy is twilight major domo a pike traveler 299 congrats on that one There you go, Chris Okay, Francis now at seven and eight. No, this is fun They're good. Yeah, you're doing the right thing. I'm saying Oh, so I meant six six and seven my bad All right, 19 to go on the next masterwork everybody 19 to go Okay, again Francis D at six and sevens continue on here Waste any more time to go on the one mixer for to go on flawless what eat on hoops Six on very nice Boba and Mon Mothma Tamri Vora Koska Reeves and Mon Mothma to 50 on the purple There you go, Francis on the on-screen prop relic and then Francis again at seven no sketch base and Owen Larson foil quote card so in civilized to 299 another nice one man CJ Jones on the sketch Grats Francis at the seventh spot. Good stuff, buddy It's like a rebel.  It's like a piece of plexiglass And number eight is Jonathan L. Jonathan L. Purple Koska Reeves to 50. It's all Guerrera on the auto Congrats, Jonathan. So we've now got Chris V K Ray Louis R and Jennifer Waugh. Yeah, Red Archery. Thank you Thank you Precisely Precisely 9 10 11 12. Good luck. You're Chris again, Chris V base in a blue Poe Dameron between Sandabe Racker and Darth Vader Nice one there. Can remember a Star Wars stamp card K Ray at 10 K Ray, but that is grief cargo orange to 10 2 of 10 nice one K Ray Congrats, buddy Sir, Nate D with a random spot Matu and Jawa's to 299 and or a sing Jimmy King right Jimmy King is or a sing. All right, we've got 11 Louis R And Jennifer round next up Green Vale, Organa nice canvas of a stormtrooper to 25 and a Hondo Onaka on the auto and number 12 Jennifer Waugh Okay, Jennifer sketch. Oh, that's gonna be nasty base in a blue Lando Calrissian Base. Yeah, Cad Bane. Whoa, that's sick. Whoa, that is so sick. Congrats Jennifer on the sketch.  I think breaks tomorrow and Arturo with a spot in the next one down to 18 18 to go in the last masterwork everybody 18 to go in the last masterwork Number 14 18 to go in the last master very nice now. We've got 13 14 15 and 16 So Sloan Chris Jerry Jeremy 13 14 15 and Cadbury egg sketch get this guy out of here man. I sold out on the P1 mixer. I sold out. Thank you Harper selling us out Another sketch sketch number four on the case, right? 17 to go on the next one now. Thank you to Matt P. Matt P. Pick it up a spot another sketch here, Jake Panic Shand wow, that's sick. That is sick Benjamin Lombard. Congrats on that one. There we go Go in it to Sloan so awesome, dude All right, Chris V at 14 now I g88 and Bayes Malvis 299 Bob and Frick Major Von reg and a red medallion to at 25 of the shot-up pirate detonator the Mandalorian nice one Chris Congrats, buddy 17 to go on the last one here everybody 15 Jared M Jared body Rook on the green to 99 look it on foil of Crescenton to 299 and auto foil auto captain rec Steve Bradley Baker 2150 16 is Jeremy Do it Jeremy base and a blue commander pike or pire Brogue series unda and fn 12 or 2199.  Oh God That was funny. Oh, that was good. That was great, man All right, Chris. It's 17. Good luck here, Chris Siri no No, Siri alright base and a red Garcif whip to 25 is Ranzar milk on the auto and a Darth Maul to at 90 at 9 on the stamp relic Very nice All right, Andrew P at 18 Andrew P at 18 Yeah, your phone going on another sketch sketch number five right I believe Sketch number five Ray that's nasty Adam Everett back Count Dooku. Yeah, that's sick, dude Congrats on that one Andrew Andrew P at 80 18 spot. That's nasty Count Dooku even like titled it too, which is awesome Adam Everett back Like Trout's brother is an artist in this Jamon L. Yeah, Josh Trout Thank your brothers. Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're related. I don't know if they're brothers if they're related, but yeah Base and a blue leet This is 19 by the way Jamon Foil C3PO and R2-D2 and Imperial comms officer grow up illegal grow up and 20 is Francis D. He's such a baby base that's a green Quinlan Voss to 99 base and Aura sing Jamie King is or a sing alright 17 to go on masterwork everybody.  We're almost there 17 to go So I think it's 21 22 23 24. So Paul Jared Taylor Matthew break our sketch or after rep file Paul About here Paul Tamra IVora Dameron Jango and Jar Jar Binks. I'm in best is Jar Jar. There you go Paul. Nice one there, buddy 22 is Jared M Really gone flawless everybody Yep, that is what we need to fill up for anything else Sarajunda Foil of use the forest loop to 299 and frog lady misty roses Barry taking the bills and three and hoops. Thank you, Barry. Appreciate you buddy. So we should be down to two to go now, right? Jared M at 22 now. Good luck. You're Jared. Oh, is this 23? Oh, yeah, yeah, you're right. Sorry about that Good luck Taylor Taylor Taylor at 23 another sketch. We broke the record six sketches on the case That is a green boba to 99. I think this one's gonna be dope to what I saw was correct Yes, sir, tie fighters. That's so cool man. That's my favorite hell. Yeah, Wayne Tully with the tie fighters in the sunset That's fire. Congrats Taylor Taylor M on the sketch That's so clean man. That's so clean That's maybe if I turn the mic on Probably Matthew B at 24. Look here Matthew. It's a thickie Matthew Yeah, thank you Thank you. It's like a pro on-screen prop relic base and a blue count dooku down or so mall and k2so To 99 of the rebel base radar screen on the prop relic again That is a piece of the maps Hope I had to take an early trip to GameStop tomorrow controller and set our destroyed. Oh Boy, oh no Andrew P two spots in the next one down to 15. Let's go over halfway full 15 to go. All right 25 26 27 28 now Chris V JT H Jared M Brett C 15 to go in the last master look sold out on PD 1 2 to go on flawless boycotting siege until it's fair crispy at 25 Six sketches in this case so far It's fair. It is a known razor razor. Oh, yeah green k2so 299 Zori bliss Rogu and Ray on the source fabric relic Nice one there. Congrats on that good stuff 26 JT J at C H on this one. Good luck buddy. So adventurous the Mandalorian blue Oh, is it? Oh, let me show that again. Thank you. Good call on that. This one is number to five as well everybody five of five The ray is number to five. There you go, Chris. Nice one there, buddy keep going here JT base foil to 299 use the force Luke and the Mandalorian Nice one there the Jake's microphone destroyer headset join the class action lawsuit led by Vaughan Spencer in a week To 27 or number 27 Jared, huh? Oh, great Probably turn you in Chewbacca nice, that's a wood to 10 Be mindful of your thoughts and it can't maybe tray you 10 of 10 nice one there on the iconic quote card. Congrats Jared That's sick on the wood generally about one wood per case Uh, Sabine Ren on the auto as well. Well, let's steamers. All right, and Brett see it 28 last mini box of This box seven here nice orange Zori bliss two of ten Congrats on that one. I love the color this year I'm just man so clean sir Junda bokeh ton and Lux Bon Terry auto Lux Bon Terry See me get one more sketch everybody One more sketch Congrats, Brad. We got Terry Terry Paul Ryan and Terry again. Good luck guys. Here we go. All right. Good luck here Terry at 29 Santin and C3PO on the blue Tierney foil toro calcane to 299 and a Kira to 50 39 50 that one I think has a little lifting. Yeah a little bit of lifting on that foil Send an empty box and wrapper with you Terry at box 29. Sorry about that, buddy Paul I'm here at 30 See it Paul. All right, Billy with the Seahawks And a couple spots Kosuki with a spot in 15 JT with a spot in 14 We are down to 14 14 on 14 everybody 14 on 14 Yes, sir. Yes, sir, and a blue kazoo BB8 Crosshair and BB8 auto puppeteer. Nice one there Paul Ryan G at 31 Wish that was a little better for you Paul. I thought I G 11 and a red Barrow Lars to 25 Zory Bliss Skad and Bayes Malvis that is on the on-screen prop relic And grads on that one there. Missed there at Ryan And then 32 is Terry are good luck Terry green o n large to 99 It's nice. Got a wood tech to Ten D Bradley Baker three of ten on the tech. That's on that one tech auto. Hey a phoenix shamp. That is gloves Phoenix shamp nice one there. That is gonna do it for the break everybody. Thanks again for the fill I do appreciate it coming up next is number 14. Let's fill it up