Hello, welcome to module 52 of NPTEL NOC, an introductory course on point set of all V power 2. So we shall continue our study of function spaces, today the topic is exponential correspondence. So let me start with theorem because I have already introduced all the relevant notation, I hope you have done your homework for getting familiar with this notation. Start with a locally compact half star space, y and z are any two topological spaces. The evaluation map e from x cross c x y to y given by e of except the code f x is continuous, this is the first statement. A function g from any topological space that is some orbital x to z, z to c x y is continuous if and only if the composite e composite identity of x cross g from x cross z to y is continuous. So this is your criterion for determining functions into c x y when they are continuous. If z is also locally compact and half star, okay, locally compact half star is always a standing assumption on x. Now if z is also locally compact and half star, then the function c of z to c of x y to c of x cross that y, the exponential correspondence, the function that we defined last time, the exponential correspondence map psi, I am repeating it namely psi of j is defined as e composite identity of x cross j. This is a homeomorphism. Notice that by this statement b given any g here, psi g defined by this one is continuous, okay, if and only if you do not need, right. So the psi though it takes values actually in y power x cross z, it is actually inside this smaller sub pairs. So that is why I can write like this. The statement c is much more stronger, it just says that this is actually homeomorphism. So let us go through the proofs of these things carefully one by one. One point which you can remember is the following and how to remember. Whenever you take continuous functions from the domain must be locally compact half star or locally compact regular some locally compactness has to be there. In the right in the beginning we took functions from x to y, right. Therefore, x was locally compact all the there was no need to assume anything on the domain on the core domain. Similarly, here there is no assumption on that the function is taking values inside c x y both c before take c x y I would like to ensure that x is locally compact half star, okay. So that is the case when you come here because now you have to take c x y and then z to c x y. So I am assuming z is also locally compact half star. Now x and z are locally compact the product will be locally compact half star. So there is no extra assumption on this. So still y is a free topological space no condition on y, okay. So it is easy to remember where to put the hypothesis, okay. So first a I want to prove that exponential map is the evaluation map is continuous. Given an open set u in y you must show that e inverse u is open in x cross c x y. So take a point here x naught f naught belonging to inverse u. What the meaning of it belongs to inverse u? This implies that f naught from x to y continue the function and f naught of x naught is inside u, right. e of x naught f naught belongs to u the f naught x naught is inside u. Now use local compactness of x you can find a neighborhood compact neighborhood of k just means that an open subset that is closure is k and that k is compact such that this f naught of k is contained inside u, okay. Continuity will give you some neighborhood but inside that neighborhood we can take a compact neighborhood because locally compactness. So both of them are combined here. This means that once you have this condition this condition means that f naught is in this bracket k u.  So this product is a neighborhood of x naught f naught. Now clearly if you take e of this e of this by the very definition of k u, right take any x comma some f here f of x will be inside u. So e of that is inside you that is the mean, okay. So we have found out a neighborhood of the point which is completely taken inside you by that is the meaning of that e is continuous. Now let us prove b. So now we start with an arbitrary space z and a continuous function identity cross g is continuous e is continuous because we have proved it in a so composite is continuous, okay. So one way is obvious. Now what we want to do is assume that this composite is continuous then you have to prove that this g is continuous. See composite of two functions can be continuous without either of them being continuous you must know such examples. If both f and g are continuous then the composite is continuous that is the standard result that we have proved but it is possible to have neither of them are continuous but the composite is continuous, okay. So here we have to prove this non-trivial result. Assuming this composite is continuous you have to prove that g is continuous, okay. For this it is enough to show that g inverse of these basic open sets are open. So this is standard method we have been following. Instead of proving that every inverse image of every open set is open you can just take basic or sub basic open sets which are sub basic open sets here show that g inverse of that is continuous. So that will show that g is continuous. What are sub basic open sets here? k compact u open then you take bracket k u, okay. So start with a point z0 belonging to that such that g of z0 is in k u. So g of z0 is a function remember that okay because g is a function from z to continuous function from x to y. Then for every point k in k we have look at this composition e composite identity of cross g operating upon k, z0 is nothing but by definition gz0 the first coordinate remains k and then evaluation. Evaluation of gz0 on k will be this far, okay. So gz0 belongs to k u, k is inside k so that is inside u here. So by continuity of e composite identity of x cross g this is continuous is the hypothesis. There exist neighbourhoods wk cross vk inside x cross z of this pair a k, z0 such that identity composite e composite identity of x cross g operating on this product neighbourhood is goes inside u that is what we want that is inside u. Since k is compact we can pass on to a finite cover k contained inside i into 1 to n wk i I will call it as w what we have done for each k we have got such a thing right there is a neighbourhood wk. So these wk's cover the whole k and k is compact therefore I have got a finite cover here which I am denoting by wk1, wk2, wkn. On the other hand I take v to be intersection of this vk1 vk2 vkn. Then all that I need is w cross v for this union and here intersection that will be contained inside wk i cross vk i taken union i in 1 to 1 to n. Any point here will be in one of them k is the same indexing on the other side. So second coordinate is in all of them so it is inside that one so this is contained in this union. Therefore if you apply e composite identity of x cross g on this one that will be inside u now because g identity of each of these is contained inside u. So the union will be also contained which implies that g of v belongs to w, u this bracket here that is the meaning of this one.  Anything which brings the whole entire of every inside u must be also bringing k inside u. Since v is a neighborhood of z0 we are done okay we have found out a neighborhood v of z0 so the g of v is inside this basic sub basic open set that is what we have started with okay. So we have to go through these steps to prove the converse part here namely just assuming that this composite is identity so sorry this composite is continuous we proved that g is continuous so that is part b. Now we will do the last part see namely exponential psi is a homeomorphism as pointed out before first of all because of b psi is well defined I repeat this is what I told you right in the statement here because of b this makes sense that this is a function from here to here otherwise I have no I am not have liberty at defining psi, psi has to be defined like this because g is continuous this right hand side is continuous we are here so that is the first remark again this is repeated here that is all okay. So psi is well defined let now I will have two more exponential maps here so for evaluation maps here remember this capital E of from x cross c x y to y similarly I have this z cross c z c x y to c x y and e 2 is from x cross z cross c of x cross z y to y so domains are repeated here okay this is domain that is the core domain the last thing will be core domain that is the pattern for evaluation maps everywhere so there are two such evaluation maps okay because we are assuming that z is also compact locally compact and half dot okay the statement a is valid for both of them that means that these evaluation maps are continuous okay both of them are continuous. Now again from b so that is from a b with c of z c x y in place of z the b gives you criterion for continuity into a function space so now you apply to instead of z you take this one okay in place of z and x cross z in place of x you look at continuity of psi okay what is the domain of psi it is c of z comma c of x y what is the core domain it is c of x cross z comma y right so that is why I am taking this in x cross z in place of z continuity of psi is the same thing as continuity of this e 2 composite identity curve psi identity where identity of f cross z now if I prove this composite is continuous psi will be continuous so I find is directly proving psi is also possible okay that will also have cumbersome notation so I find this way it is easier to state it once you have done the groundwork here namely b you can keep using b again and again so I will show e 2 composite this identity of x cross z psi this is continuous the domain is x cross z cross c of z comma x cross z to y okay from x cross z identity map x cross z psi is from c of z to c of sorry psi is a map from where psi is a map from c of c of c of z to c x y to c of x cross z to y so that is how I have taken this okay this is c of z cross x cross z to y so given by here is x here is z here is lambda okay so that will give you lambda z of x so this later map is the composite of the two maps identity cross even from x cross z cross c of z comma c x y to c of x cross y for c this x remains as it is this this is one evaluation here z part disappear okay x part has remained so c x y we have come then you apply again evaluation map here this ordinary evaluation map namely e x cross c x y to y that is what we have started okay so that is the same thing as this evaluation map this composite of these two each of them is composite is what we have just seen this is even and that is e so these two are continuous therefore this is continuous so that establishes that psi is continuous exactly similarly you can show that its inverse namely phi is continuous in fact we want to show that p is a homomorphism same thing as psi is a homomorphism note that as a set function we have seen that this psi is a bijection and its inverse is phi therefore we have no other choice but to show that once a function is bijection it has a unique inverse no matter which smaller subset you take on each smaller subset the inverse will be corresponding restrictions that is all so I have to take the same phi show that this is continuous now then it will prove automatically that both p and psi are homomorphism okay so let us prove that p is also continuous so proof is even simpler here but anyway you have to go through these steps namely given any continuous function f from x cross z to y we know that for each z in z the partial function f z namely you are fixing one coordinate z and taking x go into f of x z those things are continuous that you know already joint continuity implies partial continuity therefore we get a function this function f hat for each z you get f z so I am denoting by f hat so given by that going to f z this function itself is continuous y by b now we apply b okay so you have to see z to c x y continuous you have to take x cross z to you know that evaluation map you composite with identity cross this one and we see okay so if you apply that it will follow that f f hat is continuous because finally what you get in f of x z okay when you evaluate f f hat okay this means that first of all that under this phi c of x cross z y goes inside c of z comma c x y because it goes to f hat and f hat is a continuous function from z to c x y okay so this is just the justification that phi has a correct domain and codomain now we have to show that phi is continuous that part is still there okay from b the continuity of e the same thing as continuity of even composite i z cross phi okay so what is that function that is z comma f going to f z again by b this latter function is continuous because when you evaluate it x further x f comma z comma f which is just f of x z and this is continuous okay because f of x z is continuous this is an evaluation map from x cross z to whatever c of x cross z y okay so this is continuous so this continuity implies this is continuous this continuity implies phi is continuous alright so we have established the card you know cardinality in a very strong sense homeomorphism homeomorphism types of you can just write instead of continuous function y power x power z is the same thing as y power x cross z okay you can easy to remember this one but everything continues and the whatever goes in the exponents those spaces must be locally compact so remember this much okay here is a remark note that in b we do not need the local compactness of x to prove the continuity of g to g from z to c x y okay this is needed okay in the in the proof of a okay the local compactness of x is needed in the other way around implication only because it is needed in a if you want to apply other way around then you have to use a also the proof of a is the same if we assume x is locally compact and regular which is slightly more general than assuming locally compact host or because we have seen that locally compact and host of implies regularity but the other way may not be so we can also do with locally compact regularity all that I have used here is that points of x have arbitrary small neighborhoods which are what compact neighborhoods this the set of compact neighborhoods of a point forming a fundamental system at each point so now we shall do one more one more justification for introducing this compact open topology all right let yd be a metric space we say a sequence fn from x to y is compactly convergent or uniformly convergent on each compact subsets of x so this is a longer wording so people call compact convergent that is no other no other justification that is all okay this is a neat wording this is very long so compactly convergent to a function f what happens I mean when you said happens namely if for every epsilon positive and a compact subset k there exist n0 such that distance between fnk and fk is less than epsilon for every k inside k and n bigger than n0 if this happens for each k and then this n depends upon k that will be just point wise convergence so the same n works for all the points of a k that is uniformly on k a k is compact that is why it is compactly convergent is the name okay so this is not my definition this is a standard definition I am just recalling it now we come to something let y be a metric space x be locally compact or regular locally compact hostile or regular whatever one compact hostile or regular one of them a sequence fn from x to y of continuous function is compactly convergent to a continuous function f from x to y if and only if as a sequence in c x y c o that with the compact of puttapology it converges to f here the hypothesis is sequence is continuous sequence of continuous function and the limit is also continuous okay then compactly convergence implies the usual convergence in this topology that is what final conclusion here we are not proving starting with a sequence of function we are not proving that f is continuous if indeed that is true we know already in the case of metric spaces okay if it is compactly convergent sequence of continuous function then f is continuous but we are not proving that statement for compact open deposit there we are assuming this one the statement is that namely fn converges to f fn is continuous f is continuous the convergence can be in the general sense of in metric space here you can term it in terms of compact open topology that is the whole idea okay statement is clear I hope now let us work it out it takes a little bit of time but this is routine there is absolutely no new ideas here all these things are standard methods in analysis suppose fn is compactly convergent to f let f belong to w where w is an open subset in the compact open topology we have to show that there is some n0 such that fn belongs to w for all n bigger than n0 so this will prove that fn converges to f in the compact open topology okay so one way implication will be done so let us do this one let ki ui i rank 1 to k be such that ki's are compact and ui's are open and fp is in the intersection of ki ui contained inside w this is because these things make a sub base so whenever you have an open subset and a point you have a neighborhood coming from a you know base this is intersection of finitely many elements of sub base okay so there is such a set ki ui this is bracket ki ui intersection now for any a any subset of this metric space y and r positive we have the standard notation long back we have used this one b r of a is set of all y inside y such that the distance between y and a is less than r it is like if this a is singleton then this is open ball otherwise this is in a r neighborhood of this a distance between y and r a is r it is less than r now if fp is continuous function and ki's are compact f of ki's are compact fp is here so f of ki's are inside ui right where each ui is open therefore you can find an epsilon i positive such that this open neighborhood of epsilon neighborhood of f ki itself is contained inside all that you have to do is take the distance from distance between f ki which is compact and complement of ui which is close that's a positive number to take any epsilon i smaller than that this will do so if you have done it for all the i i read 1 to k you can take this epsilon to the minimum of them once you have an epsilon you get an integer n i such that for all n bigger than n i we have distance between fn x and fx is less than epsilon for every x inside ki this is the compact convergence of f the sequence fn to f okay for each ki which is compact I will get an n i here but what is the meaning of this one this means that you see fx x is inside ki so fx will be inside f of ki and epsilon is same epsilon so if you take the epsilon neighborhood of this f of ki this fn of the entire ki all the points must be inside here okay fn of x must be inside here that is true for all ki so fn of ki must be here okay this happens for all the i i equal to 1 2 3 up to k now if you take n0 maxima so I have I have this this n is bigger than n i corresponding here but now if I take n0 to a maximum of n1 into nk and n is bigger than n0 then all of them will be simultaneously true right therefore fn of ki will be contained inside ui for all of them which just means that fn is intersection fn is in the intersection of this bracket ki ui but that is inside w okay so one way we have proved we started with f such a name all the fn's n greater than some n0 they are also inside that is what we have proved okay the converse converse is more or similar but slightly different now you will see suppose fn converges to f in cxy given k contained inside x compact and epsilon positive by continuity of f and local compactness of x I have to use this one somehow for each x belonging to k choose neighborhood vx of x the state vx bar is compact and f of vx bar is contained inside some neighborhood of fx I will use epsilon by 3 so that is epsilon by 3 is just a afterthought you know this kind of thing I could have chosen some epsilon finally I will get 3 epsilon otherwise I that is why I just start in the beginning epsilon by 3 that is all okay so again local compactness and continuity of f is used so far fn's sequence hasn't entered here choose finitely many points x1, x2, xr belong to k such that k is contained is a i range 1 to r this vx size for each x inside k I have got vx and vx bar has this property they cover the compact set k so I get a finite cover okay this is again routine thing now fn converges to f in cxy implies that for each of these i there will be ni such that fn will be inside this open subsets this brackets vxi, b epsilon f of xi okay vxi bar comma b epsilon 3 fxi bracket this is an open subset so fn should be inside n bigger than n9 okay because f is there so after certain stage fn must be there so this happens for n bigger than n9 again take n0 to be maximum of n1, nr then if n is bigger than n0 and x is inside k I am going to verify this uniform convergence part dfn of x and fff of x is less than or equal to fn of x and go to fn of xi keep n the same change x to xi plus now fn of xi to fxi plus fxi to fxi so there are three quantities here if we choose i such that see x is somewhere okay x is inside k so it is inside one of these vxi choose particular vxi say x belong to vxi then each of these quantities on the right hand side will be less than fxi by 3 because I have chosen i here okay if they happens to be j you have to put everywhere j that's all so they are epsilon by 3 so hence we are through some totally in this distance is less than epsilon so I made a remark saying that if you have a sequence which is convergent you know in cx a sequence of this one which is suppose compactly convergent okay so that will be function some function would that be already continuous see I said I am not proving or I am not addressing this problem in this theorem but that problem binds me but we can you know it can bother me right as a function it is some function from x to y so that is the same thing as saying that under the standard topology is this one a closed subset of y power x okay this is the question so y power x also I am giving you compact open topology only not the product topology would it be closed that is a question compact open topology on this one compact open topology but is it a closed subset this is a question okay a completely satisfactory answer will take us to yet another concept which we have not introduced here that concept has a name uniformity okay so which we have not introduced so far so we shall skip it there is no time for doing uniformity if you are interested then you can look into many books special book for me and mine book is Kelly's book okay thank you so next time we shall use this compact open topology to do some interesting application okay thank you


Hello and welcome to the session in which we would look at long-term contract or long-term construction contract where the company actually incur losses. The prerequisite for this session is understanding the percentage of completion method and the completed contract method. So it's critical. If you don't understand how the percentage of completion method work, if you don't understand how the completed method work, please stop. Although I'm going to be showing you the percentage of completion briefly in an example, but you really want to have a good understanding of those two methods before we discuss losses when it comes to long-term contract. There are two types of losses that we have to learn about and deal with. One loss is loss in the current period on a profitable contract and we deal with the situation when we are dealing with a percentage of completion method. What does that mean? It means we have a long-term construction project and let's assume it's a four-year project, year one, year two, year three, and year four. In year one, we had a profit. In year two, we had a profit. In year three, we had a loss. In year four, we had a profit. All in all, we have a profit. So in one year, which is year three, we have a loss in that current year, but the whole project is profitable. So overall, the construction project is profitable. The long-term project is profitable. Then sometimes we have to deal with the loss on unprofitable contract. And whatever we learn here, we have to do the same entries, whether we are using the percentage of completion or the completed contract method. Let's assume this project again, year one, year two, year three. But let's assume in year three, we had a large loss. Large loss that it doesn't matter what happened in year four, whether we have a plus or a minus in year four, the whole project is unprofitable, incurring a loss. So this is a loss on unprofitable contract and the entries would apply on both, percentage of completion and the completed contract method. Now the way I'm going to be introducing those losses, first I'm going to work with a regular contract, basically, there is no regular, a profitable contract. Just a quick review of what we did in the prior session in case you are not familiar with this. Then we move on and we'll start to work with losses. So let's take a look at this contract. Year one, the contract price is $700,000. So we signed a project for $700,000. Year one, we incurred $150,000 in cost and the estimated cost to complete is $450,000. We built the customer $140,000 and we received from the customer $120,000. And we have the data for year X2 and X3. Now the first thing you want to compute is your degree of percentage completion because we're using the percentage of completion method. Here's what we do. Cost incurred to date is $150,000. Estimated cost to complete is $450,000. So the total cost for the project is $600,000. Well, we're going to take cost to date, which is $150,000 divided by $600,000. And we're going to find that the degree of percentage for year one is 25%. Okay, that's fine. We're going to take 25%, multiply it by $700,000, the contract price. And for year one, we have revenue to date, $175,000 minus prior revenue recognized, which is at year one. We have no prior revenue recognized. Therefore, we're going to come up with revenue this year, $175,000. Revenue this year, $175,000 minus cost of this year, $150,000. That's going to be our gross profit for year one. Let's compute year two and year three. Year two, cost incurred to date is $450,000. Estimated cost to complete the project, $181,000. What happened is this? Our cost went up from $600,000 for the total project to $631,000. What does that mean? It means in year one, when we signed the project, when we signed the contract, we had revenue of $700,000. Total cost expected to be $100,000. So we expected, this is the $600,000. We expected to make $100,000 in gross profit. When we got to year two, the profit does not change. Total cost changed to $631,000. Well, that's bad news, but nevertheless, we are still profitable. The contract is still profitable. Then what we do is we take cost incurred to date divided by the total estimated cost. In year two, we are 70% completed. We're going to take 71% times $700,000. It's going to give us $499,208 revenue recognizable to date. We're going to subtract from that revenue recognized in prior year, which is $175,000. Revenue recognized this year, $324,208. Cost incurred this year, $300,000. Gross profit for year two is $24,208. Well, that's fine. Although we incur more cost than we needed, but at least we are still profitable for this year, as well as for the whole project. Year three, cost incurred to date, $631,000. Estimated cost to complete the project is done zero. $631,000 divided by $631,000 is 100%. The contract price is $700,000. $700,000 times 100%. This revenue recognized to date minus revenue recognized in prior year, which is $499,208, which is $175,000 in year one, $324,208 in year two. Then revenue recognized this year, $200,792,000 minus cost of $181,000 gives us a gross profit of $19,792. So if we add up all our gross profit, it should add up to $69,000. If we add up all our cost, it should add up to $631,000 and our revenue is obviously $700,000. Now let's take a look at the balance sheet entries and get that out of the way. Now I'm going to go over the balance sheet entries very briefly because I consider this a review and we can't spend too much time, we have to move on. So starting in the future scenarios, what I'm going to be doing, I'm going to be, I'm not going to go over the balance sheet entries anymore because once you understand them, that's it. We can't keep wasting time for every scenario. I'm going to focus on the income statement entries. Nevertheless, let's start with the balance sheet entries. Again, the reason I go through review because you can go to the prior session where I discuss it in details. For the $150,000 that we incur in year one, we debit construction and process CIP, which is an inventory account. Then we credit material, cash, payable, whatever we spent. We billed the customer $140,000. We debit account receivable and we credit billing on construction, which is a contra CIP. It reduces CIP and I explain why this is we credit billing. Then we receive $120,000 cash, we debit cash, credit receivable. And the entries for year two and year three are the same. So this is the balance sheet entries. The income statement entries are different. So let's take a look at the income statement entries. For the income statement entries for year one, and here you have to pay a little bit more of attention because we're going to be changing those figures in future scenarios. For year one, this is year one, we have revenues of $175,000, credit revenue, cost of $150,000, debit construction cost. Then gross profit is the difference. You book the gross profit in CIP. And we'll do the same thing for year two and year three, the revenue, the cost, and the gross profit and the same thing for year three. And at the end, we close CIP and construction and process. They should equal to $700,000. Now we're going to start to look at scenarios where we're going to start to incur the losses that we wanted to discuss for this session. But before we do so, I would like to remind you whether you are an accounting student or a CPA candidate to take a look at my website, farhatlectures.com, I don't replace your CPA review course. I'm a supplemental material. I can help you understand your material better by providing you with resources, multiple choice, lectures, true, false. And this is a partial list of all my accounting courses. And my CPA review material are aligned with your Becker, Roger, Gleam, Wiley, Miles, or your CPA review course. I give you access to 1500. Previously released AI CPA questions with detailed solution. If you have not connected with me on LinkedIn, please do so. Take a look at my LinkedIn recommendation, like this recording, share it with other connect with me on Instagram, Twitter, and Reddit. So we're going to be working with the same data, except we're going to making some changes in year two. So for year one, as we just nothing happened for you, nothing changed in year one. In year one, we have 25% completed. I show you how to compute this and we have 25,000 in profit. In year two, our cost incurred now is 340,000 and cost to complete the project 182. So in year two, what we find out is this, 790,000 is the cost incurred to date, which is 150 plus 340. So what change is the cost that we incur in year two? So our cost for the project is 671. Well, that's bad, but we are still at a profit, because 700,000 is how much we expect to receive for this project. The cost is 671. Now we completed of the project, 73%, which is 490 divided by 671. We're going to recognize 71% of the revenue to date. So revenue to date is 511,177 minus the previous year revenue of 175. Revenue in the current year is 336,177, and our cost incurred this year is 340. Notice our cost this year is 340. Well, we have more cost than revenues. So for year two, we have a loss, 3,823. So in year one, we had a gain. In year two, we have a loss, but so far, overall, the project is still profitable, because our total cost is expected to be 671, and our contract is 700,000. Let's look at year three. Year three, 671,000, nothing left to complete the project. 100% of the project is completed. 700,000 minus 511,177 previously recognized will give us current year of revenue 1888,823 minus 181 in current cost will give us a profit of 7,831. So simply put, this is our net profit for the whole project. Let's take a look at the journal entries. I'm only going to cover the income statement entries for year one, same as the prior scenario, credit revenue, debit construction cost, and debit the profit 25,000. In year two, credit revenue, debit cost, and now what we have to do, we have to debit credit, reduce CIP by 3,823. So the loss reduces your CIP. Then in year three, you credit the revenue, debit the construction expense, and debit the gross profit. So all in all, all in all, we are still at a profit. Why? Because the project, it will bring us 700,000 minus 671, so the whole project still profitable. I'm assuming this is around 29,000. Yes, it should be 29,000. And if you net these out, they should net out all gross profit of 29,000. So we had a plus year, minus year, plus year over all the project is profitable. Let's up in the scenario. Here in year one is the same. In year two, the cost that we incur is 420,000. So let's take a look at how we do this for year two. So year one, we should know how to do year one. In year two, cost incurred to date is 570, 150 plus 420. Estimated cost to complete the project is 181. Estimated total cost for this project is 751. Here we have a project that we can get only $700,000 for it. Our cost is 751. So we have a loss of, let me put the loss in red of 51,000. Now we know that starting in year one, this project is cost went out of control, labor, material. For some reason, we had to pay more. Well, let's see what would happen under those circumstances. So the degree of completion is of year two, 570 divided by 751 is 76%. 76%. And the contract price is 700,000. Revenue recognizable is 700,000 times 76%. It's 531,292 is revenue to date minus revenue of the prior year of 175. So this year, we are going to be recognizing revenue of 356,292. Now, please listen to me carefully. Listen to me carefully. Once we know the project is profitable. What does that mean? I'm sorry. Once we know the opposite. Once we know the project is unprofitable, guess what? We have to record all the losses in that year to be conservative. We have to record all the losses. How much are the losses in total? 51,000. So what we have to do in year two, we have to book an entry where it give us the losses, all the losses, book all the losses in year two and get done with it. Once we know that's the case. So to book 51,000 and losses, we have to have a large enough cost to give us a total loss for the project of 51,000. Well, what does that mean? It means we have to have enough losses to wipe out the 25,000 of year one to wipe it out, wipe out the profit and give us a total loss of 51,000. What does that mean? It means you have to book a loss of 76,000. So this is your loss. Why 76,000? I need a number large enough to eliminate the 25,000 and keep me with a loss of 51. Well, 51 plus what I need to eliminate 25 will give me a total loss of 76. Therefore, I would say I need a gross loss, not gross profit, a gross profit, a negative gross profit of 76, which is a loss. What does that mean? It means my expenses, this becomes a plug. So I have to have enough cost to give me, because the profit is 356,292, that's giving based on the 76%, my cost becomes a plug. So if I have a revenue of 356, so if I have a revenue of 356,292, and I need a loss of 76,000, why 76,000? Because I need to remove the 25,000 from the prior year and I need to have a 51,000 total project loss. Therefore, I need 76,000 in losses. Well, if that's the case, I have to work backward. So my expenses or my cost for this project for year two has to be 292. Once again, it's a plug. So now I know it's a plug 432,292. Many students ask me, where did you come up with this figure? It's a plug. You have to work backward. Year three, 751,000 cost incurred to date 100% of the project is done.  Here's what's going to happen. That's it. The project is no longer profitable. The project is no longer incurring a loss. What does that mean? It means in year three, your revenue equal to your loss. Therefore, you have no profit, no loss. In year three, you have zero profit, zero loss. Whatever your revenue is, your cost will equal to that revenue. So you wipe out any revenue and any loss and notice what happened over a three-year period. We have a loss of 51,000, and this is exactly what we need to record. Now let's take a look at the journal entries that's going to show us these entries. Year one should be pretty straightforward. We did it three times credit revenue, debit cost, and debit CIP. In year two, credit revenue, debit the cost, the number that we plug, and credit CIP. So this credit CIP, so if we have a CIP, remember we booked the profit in CIP. If we started with 25, then we credited 76, we end up with a net loss of 51, which is this is what we need to do. In year three easy, your revenue equal to your expenses. It means you have no profit and no loss. And obviously in year three, you close the project itself. What should you do now? What should you do now is go to my website, farhatlectures.com and work MCQs and look at additional resources that's going to help you reinforce the concepts that we learned. Invest in yourself, invest in your courses. This topic is important. Your CPA exam is worth it. Your accounting courses are worth it. It's going to pay you dividend down the road. Study hard and stay safe.


If you had a walkout song, what would it be? A walkout song. Ooh! J-Hus, Fire in the East. Thank you. Can't tell me nothing, huh? Yeah. Swag and servant. Any Kanye song. And I am Shakespeare in the flesh. Street Runner by Rod Wave. Dropping jewels. Walking on a dream. 100 Shots by this young dog. What's your one job, you done? Uh-oh. Yeah, the young boy.


We've been here but we're setting up. We must have a good setup. When you see more, you know you'll dance. We have to dance. And when you see me, you know we'll laugh. So, kuna package ingine? Akuna. Bring the kids by the. Kuna wazazi wami kwa kisei maho. Nani muvua tutafanya aje. Kisha omba. Muvua kuna kisha. First of all. But it has not rained today. Weather focus in Asama Pia Keshu. Weather it was sour. So, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Tomorrow, 19th of November, Keshu. It's a mega fun day at Garden City Mall. Yes. What wangogo na jogo? Garden City na jilika na fit sada. Because I've noticed kwa karibuiaizi mi tazote. Kitengela kujeni mone ni asi. I know wazzi. Ani kutoka sa agafi bro. From 10, the gates are open. Watu wa kujo aji bambu aji bambu. Ya, the play is here. Big massive. Kuna tent. Yes. Dress warm because of nini. But there are lots of tents for everyone. Kuna mahali. DJ Mo is there. Ya. Size 8. Moji Shot Baba kupale. Moji Shot Baba from Zora. We have Angel and also we have the one and only Simba. Simba ya. Lainapia watoi ni crazy. That's it. Kuna bian a crazy show. For the first time, we are actually doing activities for parents. Ya. Keshwa kuna games. So, Keshwa watoi kuji na wuzima. Ita wuzima. Tomorrow you are coming to the kingdom of God. Which you need to come as a child. As a child. Everyone should come as a child. So guys, tomorrow is going to be massive. Manzeita kuwanoma sana. It's the mega fun day. Ya. And of course bringing back all the kids with talent. They will be on stage. Bring the kids. It's a family affair. Yes. And don't forget by the online tickets ni kama zima isha. Na kutaka pala kuwa gate. Ziko mingi kuwa gate. Una fika pala kuwa lipa raka raka. Ukuje tuji bande. So tomorrow. Guy, wama wakilimane. Don't come with high heels. Ya. Don't. It's a fun day. Mubai zetwa kaji zima ni ni. Boflat shoes. Zinitwa kaji zi. Ringoma. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Zinitwa kaji zi. Munaari budwabi zinitwa. Zinitwa je badez. Zinitwa kwa hibu? Zinitwa hibu? Zila yung goma zila ni zinitwa kwa. Ya skamu. Atazila zinitwa kwa ni ni ni. Atazila zi kwa zi. Kwa zi plastik kiziki ya. Batu kesha tako ni noma. Zi plastik kwa zi badez kwa zi kudans. Diofluxi ni yamuguna ni nani ni. Ya, so tako biya fit. Takwa noma sana tomorrow, see you right here at Garden City. It's the mega fun day from 10 to 5. 5 tumimaliza. But when was the last time we were out since Covid. Ile fun day proper. Ya, the kids have missed it bana. Bring them out. This is that Zawadik. Wengine kwa zan ajiwa na panga. Shule kifungu wa peliki wusha go. So tunanzan ahi. And then now you can take them. We are ready for you guys. So see you tomorrow. Size it will be performing. DJ Mok on the ones that will be hosting. We have Simba will be hosting. Moji Shotbaba. What do you want to perform? Activity for everyone. Apart from you.


Global clean energy transition is moving fast and faster than many people realize. For five decades, the IEA has been setting the global agenda for energy policy and technology. The agency is a trusted resource for credible analysis. The NetZero by 2050 report continues to be an important roadmap towards achieving this critical goal. I'm excited about the mitigation and adaptation technologies that are emerging, but we're still in the early stages. We need to drive innovation and ensure that breakthrough technologies are not only discovered but also developed and deployed. Your efforts make a huge difference to those of us who are trying to drive climate progress, whether it means making investment decisions, drafting policy, or reporting on the changes taking place. Our NetZero roadmap shows 35% of all emission reductions needed to reach NetZero by 2050 must come from technologies that are still in development today. Green energy has the power to enhance and enrich lives. We are delighted with the innovations that have gone forth in the PV solar industry and it is poised to be our next clean energy development frontier. We need equally drastic innovations, development, and rebumping of the transmission grid infrastructure to enable safe integration and deployment. Collaborative efforts between IEA and governments in development of policies and strategies in energy access, green manufacturing and chest transition all work together towards greener economies sooner than later and a sustainable future for generations to come. We need to pay attention to adapting technology portfolios to local conditions around the world and ensure that we invest in the energy infrastructure that will enable rapid adoption. International collaboration to support technology development and transfer and dialogue on just how to do that are essential for a successful roll out of clean energy technology at a global scale. There are a lot of bright spots of hope for technology innovation all over the world. In India as well we are seeing a strong innovation culture brewing with many new startups emerging in all sectors including some really high response. We need to catalyze more innovations to scale and create impact globally. Technology collaboration has been part of the IEA's DNA ever since the organization was founded five decades ago. Soon after its launch the IEA created an unprecedented legal structure for international collaboration to accelerate more efficient energy technologies. The technology collaboration programs are an important part of the IEA community. Today they involve more than 6,000 experts from 55 countries representing 300 institutions worldwide from both public and private organizations. They work together to advance the research, development and commercialization of almost the full breadth of cleaner energy technologies. Technology collaboration programs have resulted in raising knowledge and understanding of clean energy technologies for decades. Directed it to new inventions and demonstration projects to new databases and standards. The technology collaboration programs have also contributed to the IEA's work on tracking new and emerging clean energy technologies. But more can be done on international cooperation on technology innovation. There are many stakeholders involved from academia to research labs, from corporates to startups, from investors to philanthropy. New ways of international cooperation require all these stakeholders to communicate with each other effectively and with governments. We as the IEA stand ready to work with all stakeholders to accelerate clean energy technology innovation, which is vital to the rapid global energy transition needed to keep climate course within reach.


Good morning, I'm Mary Ellen from the channel Mary Ellen after 60 and today I'm here to share with you the products I've used up what what I will purchase what I won't repurchase and There's just a couple that I gave up on so I'm gonna start with something I'm gonna go a little bit in depth on and it is a color wow dreamcoat and no I've never done a sponsored video, but I have used this now for over a year and It has been a real game changer for me Above I'm gonna put a time that I quit talking about this So if you're not interested you can go to the next what I'm talking about I Started using this last February and I have just finished it. It's the color wow dreamcoat And what this does it smooths your hair and I want to share with you how I use it I probably should have checked my hair Before I'm gonna talk about this What my routine is when I wash my hair the first time of the month, I just use this once a month now But when my hair is just about I'd say 25% dry I will go into the bathroom and I will what I do because I always Dermaroll my scalp after every shampoo So I will go in the bathroom. I will use one of these clips in the area that I Dermarolled I'll put this clip in like this and get all that hair and Then what I do is I start with each section and I put it and I go down So if this lasts a year, you know how Much I use and then I would just go section by section and go all the way down and then I comb it through And then I go to the next section. So then I'll just take this Hold it up and do the ends and I don't get it on my scalp that way So the things I've learned that are really important is do not overuse it Mine is to smooth my hair if you watch any of my older videos. I have a problem with frizz So when I use this product, I do not use anything else other than what I do for my dermarolling It was a few weeks ago when I did this I don't have any hair products on at all today just because I didn't but I washed my hair yesterday After you have it on your hair you want to blow dry your hair And that's the only time I use The hotter setting on the blow dryer because you want to kind of seal that in since I started using the Color extend shampoos. That's why I think I only need to use this once a month But last year I was using it every third or fourth shampoo and what I normally do I wash my hair Don't wash it for two days and wash it the next day and after my hair is dry I just use a I usually use one of the Callista tools I just go through my hair and that's all I do But I'm really a pretty fuss-free hair person the first bottle was sent to me from color Wow, so after I use this a couple of times I knew I loved it So I purchased one I'm getting ready to open that up and I will use that the very first time I shampoo my hair next month. I used up the color. Wow Color security shampoo. This was given to me by color. Wow, I will repurchase it I'm waiting on a coupon But I have found quite a few other ones that I like to and I also used up the conditioner But I guess I threw that one away This is the Kenra platinum blow-dry spray one of these last about a year and I Use this anytime I blow my hair dry except for when I use the dream coat Then I don't use it and I've already opened up another one started it on March 6 So I'm gonna make sure this last a year, but I have it dated piece of scotch tape over it I like to kind of see for sure how long it lasts. I use a lot less than my hair stylist She uses that all the time, but I just like the way my hair behaves after I've used it So that's a winner. I love it when I use up a scent and I used up to and this is falling in love This is a one what I used to work at the hospital any time I wore it some some man would always say what are you wearing? And the other is amazing grace and I won't repurchase it But it wouldn't surprise me at all to receive it as a gift from one of my family members those two scents and just the regular YSL opium Are the scents that my children relate to me? This is the it secret sauce that I probably use five nights a week This one lasted nine months, and I've already repurchased it I didn't keep the bottle, but this is the timeless vitamin C plus E plus Rulic acid I kept this box. I opened it on 5 12 2019 and it lasted till 10 21 2019 and I always keep my timeless in the refrigerator. So I do have the box this I finished I think sometime last winter I Opened it on 2 18 18 and I bought the reset belt size. It's a matrixle 3000 serum and and I've already repurchased another one Every time the seasons change I throw away my it's superhero because this is my favorite mascara And I open a new one and I put the little tie on the new one and this I finished up I kind of gave up on it to tell you the truth, but this is by it cosmetics and it's a lash blowout I was really disappointed. It was good, but I don't know why they put out another mascara when what they already have Was so good, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, this is Gone, but I do like the brush and I'm gonna wash it and keep it to separate my lashes. I like to use that a dry Clean mascara one to separate my lashes because I've hit my eye with those metal Combs before and I don't like to use those I Gave up on two products. This is from Ulta. This is the mattifying balm I love the Malley Porta Fender and I wanted this to be as good, but it just wasn't I did hit pan It broke and life's too short to be using things. I don't like it's kind of what I think anyway Here's the Malley Porta Fender I use this is when I use a beauty sponge and after I have on my foundation I bounce it on my face in areas That looked a little bit too glowy, but I like this in one of these last year So I don't think I'm going to be trying anything new to take its place I've never tried it on bare skin, but I use it on top of my foundation This is an older it by by porous primer I just didn't like it and I've had it for quite some time. I've probably had this one A couple of years, so I'm just going to throw it away This is a this used to house some tommy. I think it's tommy moly lip products Well, what I did was I by the used to buy the large tube of the lanthanol nipple cream for my lips And I put some in here and well, it's kind of gone bad So what I do now is I just buy the three little tubes I use this every night on my lips and and I've been really happy. I haven't had chap lips in years And I finished a tube of the grand grand lash or grande lash md I'm going to throw this part away and I'm going to wash this because this I've used this to use for eyeliners And I like to have two eyeliners of the same size If I use like gel eyeliner because I don't like double dip in them So I'm going to wash this and throw this away And there's an it no tug navy eyeliner that I use for my upper waterline that I finished And because of susan w and I wish susan w made videos again I finished my smoothie peeling gel And the date it was I started using it 12 2017 I used it for my face for probably about a year and a half And the last time I threw some away and she goes she left in the comments Well, you should have used that on your body and and I did and it worked really well But I like I haven't tried one of the Fruit enzymatic pills from amazon that I haven't just really liked very gentle It does exfoliate your skin very well And I don't need to repurchase right now because I have Two that I use interchangeably. I think one of them is a lemon and one of them is just a fruit, but That's that And another thing I use when I'm not using the color well I finished up that it's a 10 miracle leave in I think it's excellent I have a couple others that are a lot more expensive than this that I'm using now After I've washed my hair when I take it down from the towel I will just squirt a little bit on the ends just so my comb glides through easily And the last thing I used up for the it by by wipes I said I wasn't going to repurchase them that I got them for less than half price And I haven't opened them yet, but I have them if I need them and I'm I'm glad I do I filmed this video on March 13th It was the last time that jim left the house. He went over to the next town over To do a grocery pickup. So I just took the opportunity to film a video And I don't have any other videos filmed. I'm not really sure what I want to film So we'll just see we'll take it week by week I'm here to announce the winners of last week's giveaway and it was for the buxom Lip gloss trio the magnetic lashes the wonder beauty I have IA masks and the bk beauty sponge and the first winner is Melanie Rose Congratulations Melanie The second winner is Karen Presley Congratulations Karen Make sure you leave a comment below so I can let you know to how to get in touch with me And I also want to thank you for The compliments that I got on my curly hair and in the information below I will put a link to how I got those curls if you're interested in seeing it If you have any product recommendations, be sure and list them below because I I enjoy reading what other people are liking It is all good. Thank you so much for watching. You guys have a great day and I'll see you in my next video. Take care I use it the But why am I? This is a one I say is a men magnet, but I when I after I Wash my hair when I take it down from from it. This is an old toe leap toning First Sunday of the month Revlon


Welcome back to Building Tomorrow, a show dedicated to the ways technology and innovation are making us healthier, wealthier, and wiser. Okay, maybe not wiser. Okay, okay, definitely not wiser. But on the theme of wisdom, today we're going to explore some of the hopeful future scenarios that are currently popular among technologists, including self-driving cars, designer babies, and meat that's not meat. With me is my regular co-host, Will Duffield, who runs the prototype column for Libertarianism.org, and we are talking today with special guest, Peter Van Doren, who is the editor of Regulation Magazine and Kato's in-house expert on the regulation of transportation, labor, housing, you know, the three sectors where you spend almost all of your time every single day of your life. Welcome to the show, Peter. Thanks for having me. Here's how we're going to structure today's show. So Will and I will take turns setting up the most bullish possible interpretation of how a currently emerging tech might transform society for the better. Then Peter is going to help us assess just how realistic these outcomes are from an economic and regulatory perspective. So Will, how about you start us off with designer babies. What do you want your franken baby to be like? I mean, hopefully like me. Tall, looking, brilliant. All of those traits that I have. Of course. We're seeing a couple means of altering who our offspring are likely to be by either selecting from a host of potential embryos that could become that child or even tinkering with their genetic code in order to potentially select for specific traits. Now a lot of that sounds like science fiction, but the cost of IVF has fallen dramatically and is putting embryonic selection into the hands of a wider variety of would-be parents. As well, we've seen when it comes to animal populations, a great deal of exciting research with regard to the ability of CRISPR to select for specific traits. So people are now expecting that in a couple decades, they'll be able to design the child of their choosing. How realistic is a scenario like this? My sense is, well, first of all, just the disciplinary silos we bring to this discussion in terms of the traditional economics of regulation perspective that I would bring to bear. Nothing in my training actually helps me deal with this question. So I'm winging it a lot. My understanding of the genetics comes from reading the New York Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And lately what I've been reading is that the supposed ability through CRISPR of and then the mapping of the human genome to in effect design babies with various traits and then without various negative traits may be vanishing as fast as we can approach it kind of like in Star Trek or something. So I wouldn't be surprised 20 years from now if we look back at this discussion and think that we were kind of ahead of the possibility. Certainly for selecting for things that are complicated traits. Some of the articles I've read lately suggest it's not one gene that turns on or off. It's like a mess of genes that turn on or off and then make proteins and then interact with the environment in very complicated ways so that that sort of possibility may be difficult. On the other hand, eliminating some single gene horrible diseases seems to be a more promising possibility. But even then again just from what I read, notice that there so this falls into religion and culture and norms and values. Everything other than economics and so I'm winging it here. But I'll say the following. I have seen certainly there are some parents. Well we now have the possibility the technological possibility called abortion and we have early in fetal genetic testing for some rare very negative chromosomal diseases and parents are informed of Down syndrome and other such genetic anomalies. And there are many more people than I certainly would have thought that think it immoral to have an abortion to eliminate that person from existence because of the likely very medically intensive very limited existence that they will have while they live. And so I can see this ending up being not a scientific debate at all but rather a very given America and given religion and given how many different religions we have and given abortion and how volatile and difficult a topic that is has been and is. I can see this just adding to the more gasoline to that fire and kind of the science ends up being probably not what people will be discussing but rather whether why and whether one should have children and what should they be like and that many people more than you would think even well educated people may be very opposed to this kind of scientific possibility. Well there was an article not that long ago about Iceland which was trumpeting its success in essentially eliminating Down syndrome that the abortion rates for doing fetal testing and essentially they had approached something like 99% of all suspected cases of Down syndrome were being aborted and this played very well in Iceland obviously because the government was trumpeting the results but in the United States there was a wave of negative coverage often from the new religious right from evangelicals, Catholics, other religious groups who were angry about the idea of what amounts to destroying an entire population of people because of the chromosome defect. So that's sort of what I was expecting that across cultures and I hadn't thought of Northern Europe but you're quite right that the Northern Europe is less officially religious and yet has state sponsored religion and many have argued there may be a relationship between that. America was founded by isms that fled various places for various reasons and those isms are strong and so I did you do you know about the case let's see it was in the New Yorker I think right the. So goodness this is a child that was declared legally something or other and then the parents disagreed and it was transferred to a hospital in another state and kept alive through life support for 1012 years something like that and so. Or the UK example I'm trying to name it was Tommy or there was a the and they are they going to be allowed to air flight them to the Vatican the Pope is going to go to the Pope's hospital and all the again.  It's not often the tech itself that's the point of disagreement whether or not the tech works but whether or not you should use it the ethics of the use. Again I think that's a Cato kind of argument which is could we get to the point where we these issues everyone could decide for themselves and their own children rather than the state deciding you have to live this way and you have to live this other way and so because once you interject a kind of zero some abortion like thing into politics which is this is bad and I define it bad not only for me and I don't do it but I don't want you and your family to do this as well. Then it's just zero some either you win or I win and we fight to the death until there's more of us or more of you and. That's I mean abortion discussion has been for me an unpleasant political reality my entire life and and I wish we could find some way out of it but I don't but but if people think this way not only about their behavior but about other people's behavior then if if this designer baby thing is along those lines that's a it's a hellish future when you already see expressions of a sort of zero some concern with regard to more of the far fetched genetic editing ideas. Noah Smith had a column about a year ago now concerned with the potential distributional effects of the wealthy being able to select for the most intelligent of their potential offspring and what intergenerationally particularly if there are attempts to restrict access to this technology but the wealthy can still jet around the world to jurisdictions where it's legal. You can find yourself in a scenario in which any state attempt to prevent this technology from being used and thereby generating inequality ends up generating yet more inequality as those with the money to use it go where they can. You can imagine a you know a literal class of Uber mention who have been selected for you know desirable traits that we that gets rid of neurodiversity that has the plus the advantages of of socio economic class of going to elite schools of you know and since that tech will be available to those who are wealthy first. There will be a lag before mass adoption you can imagine all the political economic and social implications of that kind of structure social structure that could emerge from that. So let's move on to our next topic depressing opening with the Zyder babies but I think this next one is something that that's going to be even more in in Peters wheelhouse dealing with transportation policy. And that is the idea that in the next say 20 to 30 years we will see the end of the personal automobile as we know it. Now even the most bearish car experts at TechCrunch Disrupt predicted that a majority of personal vehicles will be fully level five automated that means without the steering wheel within 20 to 30 years. Though some suggested China would get there first in this age of driverless cars it's been suggested you know it won't make much sense to own your own vehicle. After all why pay for a car that spends like 20 hours a day sitting in parking lots sitting in driveways baking in the sun and silently depreciating in value. So it's a terrible financial proposition why not instead pool together with a few dozen hundred thousand other people to own a share in a self driving car fleet. So while you are at work that car is zipping around taking other people to work right it's a more efficient use of cars you just tap the car share button app on your phone. A few minutes later a fleet car pulls up to your house to take you to work to shopping to the newsstand to buy the latest issue of regulation magazine wherever you want to go. Now again in theory this means more efficient use of vehicles which means fewer cars per person right now I think the rates like 1.8 cars per American household. That also means the capital costs of car upgrades of car maintenance that would be pooled would be amortized across the across the fleet. All of this would mean that it should become cheaper to have access to a car's stream of service to site Mike Munger in his book tomorrow 3.0. This expands access to cars to people currently unable to afford one and given that cars are the second largest expense in most people's budgets that could demonstrably improve consumer finances. And since self driving cars are safer than human drivers that means fewer fatal accidents. You know kids might one day regard stories of you know great great uncle Brett who died in an automobile accident like we do stories about polio or typhoid some you know. It's the pro natalist argument for self driving cars. I kind of like it. It sure is. I'm here for this. Yeah. You're on board. You're on this corner. So Peter this you do transportation policy. What do you think the the prospect of this is what are the proponents of this this vision potentially missing. I guess for analytic purposes I think I would separate two things you mentioned. One is whether cars are automated or not. And two is whether we share them or not. I guess I'm my senses. I know I'm supposed to be the economist here. You gave the economist argument in my senses there we're forgetting culture. And even though we economists don't know what culture is I guess some of it it exists. And I guess again I cannot imagine well for me getting a car and owning it and then petting it on Saturdays and then washing it and then keeping it clean. I do not want anybody else in my car. I could not conceive of it. I would not want it. I would not use but I can't conceive of anyone using my home. I would never consider Airbnb to rent my home. That's just that's just creepy to me. I know that and if I were young I mean I just I never crashed on people's couches and I just hotels. They're there for a reason etc. But you're just just my idiosyncratic weird Dutchness or something. This segment brought to you by the National Hotel Industry Association of America. So anyway I'll just be up front that those are my so then the other thing is people use their cars as extensions of themselves. They store everything in them. I mean I have friends who just throw everything they've ever eaten in the back seat and never touch it. And so for people like that sharing any people wouldn't want to share their car. And B when I get in my car I want the radio to be set to the stations I want. I want the CDs. I know that dates me that I want in the player. I have my sunglasses on the right hand side.  So I think the whole sharing thing may make sense for younger people. Again it's if you're price sensitive and this gets you access to a vehicle sooner in your life than you otherwise would have fine. But we already have taxis and Uber and Lyft where you already have the options to share. The driverless feature the weather or not will have automated cars. Again my nostalgia the sort of I like driving in the country on the weekends on roads that have curves and and whatever and like. When I talk to younger people particularly if you live in cities that's not what driving is about. But if I'm in the country on weekends driving my 1986 alpha. I cannot imagine not having a steering wheel and not being able to do that being illegal because I'm I've resisted technological change. But for I get the throughput I mean I get the notion I mean I see lots of bad drivers out there. And if we all were closer together and computer driven and all of that the throughput of our current transportation road system would be much greater and we're going to need that. So automation might be endogenously adopted under congestion pricing if we had that anyway. The whole sharing thing I'm I'm I just but that I'm probably idiosyncratic on that. I think there is something to it we think about the sort of vulgarities of public transport having gum on your seat that sticks to you. And taking all of that to your car doesn't seem like a winning proposal. Now from an efficiency standpoint when we bring culture into the usual expectations we have around self driving cars do we end up with or are we likely to realize the off anticipated efficiency gains. I.E. if instead of people buying shares in a fleet of self driving cars they simply buy one for themselves and perhaps instead of just going out in it they send it out to do errands for them. You could end up with a scenario in which cars are on the road or more cars are on the road and you still don't really eliminate the parking issues or anything else we would expect to. Well certainly the history of transportation innovation is anything anything that makes driving more easy. But we don't price driving means there's more driving. So their econ does come into play. So anything that people perceive is making their lives easier that isn't priced is going to lead to more whatever that thing is and so more. So we're going to have to have congestion pricing. We may need to have it even on local street right if we get congested and you can't build any more streets and you can't. And then because of more centralized jobs rather than decentralized more people have to come downtown. New York will grind to zero right there. Nobody will be getting me now they're not getting around but it will literally everyone will be in an automated car going nowhere. And then we're going to have to have congestion pricing on every street all the time to keep all these automated wonderful things off the road. One of the things you mentioned right that making people's lives easier leading to a certain level of adoption. People want stuff that makes their lives easier in a way that's kind of I guess less price sensitive. I mean some of this is a function of if you make things cheaper more people will do it. Sure. So if you make car ownership cheaper it might not lead or car use cheaper. It might not lead to fewer cars. It could just lead to it will be have everyone will have the same number of cars. They'll just do more drive more miles because they don't leave people behind the wheel anymore. But one of the things I was thinking of it uses to innovations texts that are currently being being used. So you can have your car have keyless entry for Amazon packages. So rather than them leaving your Amazon box on your front step Amazon currently has a program where you give Amazon couriers access to your car so they can put the box in your trunk where it's safer. We also have essentially grocery pickup services. Walmart does it other companies do it.  So you add on top of that a driverless car and yeah from work you just say here's the groceries I want. Go pick them up. Walmart loads them in your car using a keyless feature you know function not unlike what Amazon currently uses. I mean you can see how close we are to that kind of system. But I think your point will and Peter that this might not actually lead to the kind of efficiencies on the road that I laid out my scenario are apt and we might not lead to that at all. That's a good thought. I mean at the same time there are those gains. I mean I any kind of system where you're saving lives on the roads is going to lead to a pressure to make people driven cars. We've teased this on the show before the idea that someday it's not only a question of will most cars be self driving cars. You can imagine a tipping point where there's pressure to put you in your 1986 alpha off the road entirely because who wants this you know older driver who's veering around corners on Sundays like a madman putting young people at risk. No we gotta get rid of that.  You know you that it has to be put on the self driving car trailer to get there because I can't trust them the roads. I mean you can imagine that kind of future world. Yes. Then they'll they've already done it. Then the the old codger called Peter will be I'll be at the door with my shotgun. You'll take Clint Eastwood. Right. You're going to take the cold. What was that phrase the from my cold dead hands. Yeah. See I mix up my old white guys. The emotionally repressed old white guys. It's a it's a it's more like the basis for a cake song. They tell him he can't drive and he just goes out doesn't stop. I don't know. I mean you already see subcultures of people with very expensive race cars that just trailer them to the track to drive drag racers. Yeah. But I don't want to it's interesting. I mean we we go through Frederick County Maryland on weekends and and these wonderful beautiful country roads and there's no one on them and the hills are rolling and there's usually a whole bunch of old guys on motorcycles and people like me and then some pickup trucks and that's I know I'm so but so to to give that up. It seems I would resist. Well we have kind of a you know the indication of how that works. I mean there was a point in time where nostalgia for the days when you know you and your your dad often bought an old beat them up and rebuilt the engine yourself in the garage. This was like a marker of what it meant to become a man in the 70s. We did. Right. And now the cars are computers that haven't have wheels and my brother and I took apart 1964 Dodge and 1970 Chevy Vega probably and learned how everything works and that's not possible now. No. So we accepted that that transition. The same thing could be true for driving itself. I don't know if you'd end up seeing a totalizing ban. I mean today if you have a horse and carriage you can take it on the road. You can't take it on the interstate but you can tool around Frederick Maryland in a horse and carriage if you want to. So it might just be. The Amish the Amish. Yeah. Where I grew up in Northern New York actually there's lots of Amish conflict over in the because they're they they're farmers and they they have. Anyway there's lots of car buggy crashes and the St. Lawrence County officials and district attorney have had to wrestle with how to deal with matching the 20th century and the 18th century together. Imagine doing that with the 21st century. Yeah. Peter and his old alpha causing trouble. So apparently the moral of the story there is that I mean because a lot of the Amish exception legal exceptions are a function of religious freedom. Right. They've been able to successfully argue in court that we need to be allowed to drive our bug and carriage on the road. Is that. Yeah. Other people can go out with a horse and buggy though. Well if they can it's because. Well actually there are issues where the New York state where they're they're against colors. So the all you have to do with a slow moving vehicle is have a slow moving vehicle triangle. Yeah. On the back of your but and they resist that because it is ostentatious because it's color. Yeah. Same idea. But that Chrome black. The exception got carved out though. I mean even if non Amish people can enjoy it. It got carved out because of the kind of religious freedom exemptions. So the key clearly Peter is that if you want to resist the trend of self driving cars eat the form of religious group around car ownership and maintenance and self driving. Okay well why don't we move on to our next subject and for this one. Why don't we go to you. You will. I titled it where's the beef. Yeah. In the lab. I guess getting around lunchtime here in the studio. But we've seen a couple a number plethora even now of efforts to create meat in the lab without killing any animals. And a lot of people who either for ethical or to some extent health concerns don't consume meat now are very excited about this. They're also potential environmental upsides. So back in 2013 the first lab grown burger was eaten in the Netherlands for the eye watering price of $330,000. Since then however the cost of this sort of artificial in a sense meat has fallen. And they're currently we're currently expecting that we'll see it in stores in the next year or so at a markup from meat but not certainly not an incredible one. Now in terms of the environmental context here. There's a thought that growing meat in this way could cut the amount of land required by almost 99% if I'm doing the lab I guess rather than bunch of fields. Even in terms of the inputs and all of that. Wow. And from the chef's perspective for the gourmet you can grow only the cuts of meat you want. So if you want fillet or particular kind of marbling in your steak you can know that you're going to get that and not waste any other bits of an animal that you aren't going to consume. So it's possible that in our lifetime people will be hitting an inflection point where they're consuming more lab grown or they like to call it non slaughter meat than they're buying from farmers or ranchers. And obviously that'll frustrate the farmers and ranchers. So you've already seen the U.S. Cattleman's Association lobbying the USDA to demand that cultured meat not be allowed to be called meat or beef or treated as an animal product. And this seems as though it's to some extent an extension or the next frontier of a number of fights we've seen between legacy food producers and folks trying to create either more ethically or environmentally friendly versions of their products. So are Peter likely to see this meat in stores soon and if so what kind of conflict will attend it? You've described the conflict very well which is there'll be fights by the legacy producers and they will use their lobbying efforts to try to engage in labeling fights as you've described what is meat, what isn't meat, what's dairy, what's not dairy. We've already actually gone through this and I'm surprised while I'll bring it up since which is we've had a fight over margarine versus butter. Oleo margarine. Oleo margarine which was a product of industrial chemistry, right, polyunsaturated fat was made and formed. So the big issue in the state of Wisconsin was could it be colored because what this product looked like would be like Crisco. Yeah, yeah. When it comes out of the, so but butter is yellow. A block of pale, gray Crisco. Don't put Crisco on your toast, what? So there were laws, if memory serves me correctly, Wisconsin in particular being the dairy state, Wisconsin, it was illegal to sell colored margarine. I don't, I should have, I did not look up the history but there were court cases. I don't know if it went to the Supremes or not but eventually coloration was allowed. Now the irony of all this of course is that this particular new industrial food called margarine turns out to have trans fats and turned out to be just horrible for our health but we didn't know it at the time. It was thought to be better than, you know, so we, in my lifetime we've gone through this whole innovation being better, dairy being bad and then now it's all been flipped on its head which is the innovation turned out to have been horrible and we now have banned trans fats. And so now margarine is still sold but now it doesn't, it's not made the way it was originally. So, but yes the, so the meat folks and the, the, we're having this with milk as well which is consumers are being misled about oat milk and this milk and that milk and the organic sections of stores. But I'm seeing some blowback which is the dairy industry actually isn't getting very far. I mean sort of a basic American sensibility which is people sort of, people understand what they're doing and they know that almond milk isn't milk and et cetera, et cetera. So I, the dairy industry at least is not getting far in its attempts to ban the use of milk to describe. I'm less aware because it really hasn't come forth yet about whether, whether the Cattleman's Association attempted to find meat in a certain way will be more successful. So on the topic of milk FDA Chairman Scott Gottlieb has entered a quote for the ages on, on while ruling that almond milk shouldn't be allowed to be called milk because in his words an almond doesn't lactate which is undeniably true. There are no lactating almonds but the question. And also completely besides the point. It's as if there's vast numbers of consumers out there who thought that there were lactating almonds and little sheds being milked regularly which is ludicrous, the lack of trust in consumers. But I think this is an interesting thing you've pointed us to Peter which is there's almost the, it's, it's very narrative driven. So each side in this argument your legacy producers, your, you know, new tech fueled insurgents are trying to seize on the right narrative to win, you know, consumer approval. So, you know, if you can frame it as, as you mentioned Will, slaughter free meat.  So you're appealing to the kind of animal rights consciousness. Or that Oatly and oat milk, I'll call it oat milk producer, which was not allowed to call its oat milk, oat milk and instead fell back on the slogan like milk but made for humans. So that's, that's pretty good. So, you know, again, I think we've come to this with designer babies. We're coming to this again now it's the tech actually seems pretty good. And the cost estimates. I mean, you're seeing this declining cost of cultured meat. There's clear advantages to it. There might be unforeseen ill consequences. Maybe we'll find out in 30 years that actually cultured meat was killing an entire generation like trans fats, who knows. But, but you see the, the, the use case of the tech is pretty good. It's a question of culture when it comes to adoption or not, right, which is something kind of beyond economics and beyond even tech. And from a regulatory standpoint, when we do see these attempts to limit how something can be labeled, what legs are the restrictionist standing on? Are they able to draw upon, say, anti-adulteration laws when you talk about coloring margarine or how does the regulatory system get enlisted in this anti-competition effort? Well, most successful, maybe all, but certainly most successful regulatory coalitions consists of what we call bootleggers in Baptist. The most famous article ever published in regulation by, by an economist. Bruce Yandle? Bruce Yandle. Right. Way back it was. The subtitle was the education of a young FTC economist. And the metaphor persists and correctly so, which is, so incumbent producers want to use the state to restrict competition. That's a constant. It is not a variable. Once one has made a lot of money selling something, one would like the money to keep coming in. And I think we could perfectly emphasize with that sentiment. And one can use freedom of speech granted under the Constitution to then say, the newcomers are slime, are bad, are no good. You can do all the negative advertising you want about the newcomers. But what if people adopt that product? And then you need a philosophical rationale which delegitimizes the competitors. That's where the Baptist part of the bootleggers and Baptists come in. So you need activists who have a normative view that comes from somewhere, be it religious or philosophy or culture. And then they say the new product is bad from their point of view. And so the Baptists and the bootleggers form an electorally useful coalition of people who gain economic advantage from a regulation. And then people who morally want the regulation to come in because of the set of views they have that resonate with the wider public in some way. So here you'd have cattlemen and GMO skeptics? Could be, yes. Think of the, yes, that'd be a good example, which is the, you know, there's this among some upper middle-class people, there's an odd anti-scientific odor. The anti-vaccine crowd, the anti-GMO crowd, and there, you know, Franken food and this and that and the other thing. And these are not poor, these are usually college-educated but non-science people who object to something called product of a lab and who love something called nature. And they may often be environmental and you could think of it as a quasi-religion and they're out there and they vote. And the cattlemen will exploit that view and then say, this regulation prevents all this stuff you don't want from occurring and, yes, the cattlemen benefit, but that's... I'm thinking here of the, there was a bit of a panic a few years ago over Pink Slime. Do you remember Pink Slime? Yes, I wrote, yes. I assume I'm still eating it and that nothing's changed? Well, actually it was irradiated beef, right? If you want to stop E. Coli. If you want to stop E. Coli infections, which are just horrible, why would anyone be... Well, you can expose ground beef that because of the way ground beef is made, the possibility of E. Coli contamination in the slaughterhouse is not zero. Whereas with steaks and things that are cut from the center, but once you throw the remnants of a carcass into a grinder, then whatever bacterial infection or viral infection exists, or remnants exist, that then is spread through the, by the grinding process and it's in everything. Well, then how can you stop that? Well, one is cook it to above a certain temperature, but then that's well done and then that's not very tasteful. So the other way is to irradiate the beef. The second was this Pink Slime. They used an ammonia exposure process. They used, they exposed this very cheap ground beef to ammonia in the slaughterhouse. To kill the bacteria. To kill the bacteria. Well, that didn't, people did not like the sound of that. And it was, it's very cheap and it was used in the federally subsidized, you know, at school lunch programs and things like that. So it was very, very, very cheap and culturally offensive. And it did not, it died a very loud death, I guess it would be the way to... So it's not used anymore in the federal program? Well, I think the manufacturer, I mean, yeah, I think either it's used and I don't know about it and it went away or it's still there, but it's very quiet. Or the uproar sort of resulted in them, in the manufacturer losing out because they just couldn't sell it. So was it an opt by the folks who produced beef irradiation machines? Was it a... An operation, PR, campaign, you know, thinking about trying to find the bootleggers everywhere? I don't know. I don't know. I do remember it during the, I mean, there's a lot of breathless, you know, 6 a.m. news stories at the time about it. And the definitely, I don't know if the Kalman's Association specifically, but there were a lot of legacy producers who said, see, this is why you need real meat from, you know, for our kids. Our kids deserve the best, not this fake stuff. And yeah. The irony is that the pink slime was the real stuff. It was just, it had been discard. I mean, it was going to more marginal, marginal cuts that were then ground. And the question was how to make it safe for mass consumption without E. coli possibilities. And this industrial process was the way to do it. It looked bad. And once you show, you know, tracking shots of a tube of meat paste coming out, once you see how the sausage is made, you can't unsee it. I think it is a good reminder that, you know, it's easy for us to have this, like, for tech, for technologists to have kind of a teleological narrative of progress, which is a fancy way of saying things get better and better. And the right side will triumph in the end. But, you know, sometimes culture narrative, you know, the religious concerns will trump things just because even if they are technologically or economically preferable or superior. Like, there is no guarantee that olio-margarine wins out over Big Butter. There is no guarantee that pink slime will win out over whatever else, right? And the same thing applies here to cultured meat. This is a site of contest. There are no guarantees. I think with that, we should wrap up for today. So thank you, Peter, for coming on the show. Thank you, Will. And until next week, be well. To learn about Building Tomorrow or to discover other great podcasts, visit us on the web at libertarianism.org.


If it's a partner, that's going to be holding a pad, like bring a pad. But if he's holding a pad, if it's a stiff punch, it's going to be... You can hear the thud, right? It's a thud. And if it's more relaxed, it's going to be more of a smack. The pitch is higher, right? And which one do you think causes more damage? The second one, because it goes into the target more.


The difference in strength between my prosthetic side and my meat leg side still blows my mind because when I'm walking around in daily life, I don't think my right side is so weak in comparison, but when I do isolated exercises like this that I can barely accomplish, it's mind blowing to me how much our bodies compensate for lack of strength or stability in other areas. Doing completely unweighted step-ups, I still have to balance against a wall and you can see I'm super shaky. I'm trying to focus a little bit more on this kind of one-sided strength training lately so I can gain more strength and stability on that side.