So, we shall continue our discussion about the real valued functions defined on some subsets of the real length namely the intervals. So, in the last class we were discussing the meaning of symbols like this that is let us write it in this fashion f x tends to l as x tends to a and we have already defined what is the meaning of this when l and a both are real numbers. Now, what we want to do is that or rather what we have done in the last class is that we extend the meaning of this idea of the limit by allowing this l as well as this a to be in the extended real length. So, l and a can be both in the extended real length and remember that extended real length is usual real length in addition with these two symbols minus infinity and plus infinity. So, what has the additional thing that has happened is that now l can be a real number or plus or minus infinity and similarly a can also be a real number or plus or minus infinity. Now, let us recall what was the idea how we have defined what we had seen is that if either a or l is a real number then we take neighborhood of a that is that we take as something like a minus delta to a plus delta that is an interval containing a or a minus epsilon to a plus epsilon either one of those and neighborhood of infinity that we take as something like this m to infinity that is nothing but the set of all x such that x is bigger than m and similarly neighborhood of minus infinity that we take as minus infinity to m and so what is the meaning of this f x tends to l as x tends to a we say that this means let me again write f x tends to l as x tends to a this means that for every neighborhood u of l there exists a neighborhood v of a such that whenever x belongs to v f x belongs to u or which is same as saying that we will say that f of v is contained in u and when a and l both are real numbers we take this number who u as l minus epsilon to l plus epsilon and v as a minus delta to a plus delta and then our definition becomes for every epsilon there exists delta such that etcetera. So, similarly using these neighborhoods we can translate these definitions also in a very usual manner if you want let us just take one special case. So, suppose let us say a is real number and l is infinity that means f x tends to infinity as x tends to a and a is a real number. So, what will be the meaning of that for every neighborhood u of infinity neighborhood of infinity is like this m to infinity. So, it will mean that for every m bigger than 0 there exists now neighborhood of a is.    Similarly, you can rewrite the definitions by considering various combinations where a can be plus or minus infinity or l can be plus or minus infinity or one of those real numbers and other is infinity all sorts of possible combinations are possible. We shall not go into separate discussions of all these cases this one definition covers all those possibilities by just this understanding that neighborhood of a real number is of the form a minus delta to a plus delta or a minus epsilon to a plus epsilon and the neighborhood of plus or minus infinity are of this form. Now, using this definition we can also show that whatever are the usual theorems about the sums and products of limits etcetera that we have discussed they are also true in this new situation also. So, we shall not go into very detail proof of that I will just take those theorems here because those are some things which we shall be using in future.  So, any of those can be plus or minus infinity or a real number then again as x tends to a first thing is f x plus g x tends to l plus a sorry l plus m and then f x into g x tends to l into m and last thing is f x by g x tends to l by m. And if you remember in the usual way of stating the theorem we stated these two things as they are only by stating the last theorem we stated that force if m is not equal to 0 that is because if m is 0 l by m is not defined but that is the that is the care now we have to take in all these cases because it can happen that l plus m is also not defined because we have seen that suppose you have l is infinity and m is minus infinity then this is infinity minus infinity that is also not defined. So, if here also if it is infinity into infinity into 0 that is also not defined. So, what I will say is that all these things are true provided the right hand sides are well defined that is all these things are true provided right hand side I will separate RHS is defined. We shall not discuss the proof of this theorem because there are no new ideas involved basically the same same same idea will hold here. Now, let us again let us go to now discussing new concept here new in the sense we are discussing it for the first time, but you would have already come across this in your under graduate courses namely differentiation. So, let us just recall a few things again here as I said when we are discussing the real valued functions it is not our aim to just repeat whatever you already learn during your under graduate courses what we want to do is that we shall just review a few things and try to emphasize where exactly the ideas of real analysis come into picture like things like connectedness compactness see what could have happened is that you might have used those ideas earlier without realizing that that is a thing that is involved. So, we shall point out whenever such things happens. So, let us begin with the definition.  Obviously, this cannot be defined if t equal to x. So, we will say that this is defined for all t in a b and t not equal to x or you can say t in a b minus x. So, now we consider limit of this function that is limit of phi t as t tends to x of course, phi is not defined at x, but that is not required for considering the limit that is what we have seen for defining for talking about a limit the function need not be defined at that point. So, we can talk about a limit of phi t as t tends to x if this limit exists and now when I am thinking of this definition I mean the limit exists as a real number now I am not talking of these extended definition of limit. Now, if this limit exists as a real number then we say that f is differentiable at that point x and whatever is that limit a real number that will be called a derivative of f and we will denote that by let us say denote that by f prime of x of course, there are many other notation d f by d t at t equal to x etcetera let us not bother about that right now for time being we will say we shall. So, let me say that if limit exists if limit of let me give this function in full f t minus f x divided by t minus x as t tends to x exists we say that f is differentiable at x and the value of the limit the value of the limit is called the derivative of x value of the limit is called the derivative remember we already proved that whenever limit exists it has to be unique there cannot be two different values of limit. So, with the limit exists there is only one unique value that is the value real number which will be called the derivative that is why the derivative of f at x and we will denote it by f prime x. Now, one well known thing is which about derivatives or differentiability that you have already learnt I am sure is that whenever a function is differentiable at a point it is continuous at that point. So, let us just recall that if f is differentiable at x then it is continuous at x it follows immediately by looking at the definition of the derivative that is recall that since the whole thing is happening inside an interval all points are limit points. So, when we say that the function is continuous what we will mean is that limit of f t as t tends to x must be f x that is what we require and to see that we just look at the difference f t minus f x and write that as f t minus f x divided by t minus x and then multiplied by t minus x and consider the limit of both sides as t goes to x we already know that since f is differentiable at x this goes to f prime x this goes to f prime x and t minus x obviously goes to 0 as t goes to x. So, this goes to 0 so the product will be 0 and so that means that limit of that is same as say that limit of f t minus f x as t goes to x is 0 which is same as saying that limit of f t as t goes to x is f x and that is same as say that f is continuous at x. Of course, this is something that you already know, but the point is we have made a crucial use of the fact that f is differentiable at x here. So, this proof will obviously not work if f is not differentiable at x, but of course, that immediately does not say that the converse is false. To show that the converse is false again as I said there is only one way we have to think of a counter example that is counter example of a function which is continuous, but not differentiable at some point again I am sure you would have come across that function it is a well known function namely the absolute value of x or mod x which is which is continuous in fact at all points, but it is not differentiable at x equal to 0 and one can use several examples like that there is no depth of examples. Then we shall also just quickly review the theorem about the various operations on derivatives. Suppose we take say two functions f and g defined on the interval and suppose both are differentiable at a point then we want to know what happens for the sum and product etcetera. Now, before that let me also say one more thing here here we have talked about limit of phi t s t goes to x and when we say nothing about the limit it is the usual limit, but we have also considered for the real valued functions what is meant by left hand limit and right hand limit etcetera it is possible to consider that also it is possible to consider that also and that sort of thing will be called left derivative and right derivative etcetera. So, it is quite and again from whatever we have learned about the limits it is well known that if the limit exists then both left hand limit as well as right hand limit will exist, but the converse is false that is it is possible that left hand and right hand limit may exist, but the limit may not exist which is what we have called a discontinuity of the first step namely jump discontinuity. So, using those ideas we can define what is meant by left hand derivative of a function what is or say we can say function is differentiable from left or differentiable from right and those values we can define as a left hand derivative and right hand derivative etcetera, but we are not going to do that kind of thing here. I mean it is possible to do that, but since no really new concepts are involved we shall not go into that there is only one thing that we note you should notice here. I have taken here a strictly less than x less than b that is because we are considering the usual limit if you take x is equal to a since there is nothing on the left of a. So, the only limit that you can consider is the right hand limit. So, at the point x equal to a if you want to talk about derivative it will be only right hand derivative. Similarly, at the point x equal to b it will be only left hand derivative. So, sometimes we may need to talk about that kind of thing at the end points of an interval. So, at that time we will mention, but otherwise we shall not go into too much details about the left hand and right hand derivative coming back to what I said just now. Suppose, we take two functions let f and g from a b to r and suppose f g are differentiable at x in a b. Again I will take x in this interior point x in just to avoid this. So, discussion of left hand and right hand derivative we shall take the interior point. Then first thing is f plus g is differentiable at x and the value of derivative that is f plus g prime at x is f prime x plus g prime x. You can see that there will be nothing much in the proof of this. This will follow simply by the corresponding theorem about the limit because if you write the for example, if you write the function of phi t replacing f by f plus g it will be f plus g of t minus f plus g of x divided by t minus x. So, it will be f t minus f x plus g t minus g x divided by t minus x and if the limit of both since f and g both are differentiable the limit of each of those components will exist. So, the limit of the sum will exist. So, all these things follow whatever I say about derivatives all these things will follow by using the corresponding theorems about the limits. And of course, some simplification and some adjusting of sums etcetera. So, second part is that about the product f into g is also differentiable at x at x and derivative of f g at x that so called product formula. So, that is f prime x into g x plus f x into g prime x.  So, it will be f t into g t minus f x into g x and if you remember what we do is that you add and subtract a term f t into g x and then just since the limit is with respect to t wherever the terms involving only x are there you just take them as a common factor and then you will get this formula there is again there is nothing much in this. So, and finally, this f by g is differentiable at x and the derivative of that f by g prime at x f by g prime at x. Remember that this is different from the corresponding theorems on limits the product of the derivative of the product is not same as the product of the derivative unlike the limits, but you of course this follows by using the corresponding theorems on limits, but before that you have to do some work because if you replace f by f t into g t etcetera you are not getting the product of this kind of fractions. So, that is where you need some work.  We shall not go into that kind of details because I am sure you have done you have seen these kind of proofs in your under graduate courses. If you have forgotten you can always look into one of those books. So, what is this formula f by g whole prime x that is this is g prime x square then here you have f prime x into g x minus g prime x into x this is g prime x square yes sorry g of x whole square I am sorry it should be g of x whole square that is right. Now, coming to the usual functions and their derivatives again as I said this is a topic which you would have done quite thoroughly in the under graduate course. We shall not spend any time on that how to find the derivatives of some well known functions by using various formulas and doing things like so called logarithmic derivatives etcetera etcetera those type of things we shall not go into we shall not discuss in this course. But we shall just recall that we will need the facts that derivatives of some well known functions are again some well known functions let us just recall a few things. For example, if f is a constant function then its derivative is 0 that is again follows clearly from the definition and further if let us say f x is equal to x f x equal to x then that function phi t which will write that will simply become t minus x divided by t minus x. So, that will be just one constant function one. So, in this case this is differentiable everywhere and so f prime x will be equal to 1 for all x. Then using this fact and repeat using this second thing here we can write we can write suppose I take g x is equal to x to the power n then you have to just use this repeatedly x square x cube etcetera etcetera products of various thing using this repeatedly we can we can get that g prime at x is n into x to the power n minus of course, here I am assuming that n is a positive integer power. So, n is n of course, n equal to 0 is also fine if you take negative powers then you will have to use you will have to use this of course, I should have mentioned here that this last formula is very provided g x is not 0, but that is understood because at no point of time we are allowing the in the discussion of derivatives where we say derivative exists it means that it exists as a real number we are not allowing the extended real line value for the derivatives at least right now. Let us see if we need to change that in future. So, if you take n as a negative integral value then you will have to use this last thing also right. Then you can use this well known functions like things like derivative of e power x is e power x or log x is 1 by x and things like that and various trigonometric functions and inverse trigonometric functions and all those things. Let me just say one more thing here that or one theorem which is quite useful and which will be which needs to be used quite often and what is called chain rule. This is about the derivative of composite functions. So, again let us say that suppose f from a b to r is differentiable x in again let me take some open interval a to b. Suppose we consider one more function g that is defined not on this interval a b, but on some interval which contains the range of this function f on some interval which contains the range of this. So, let us say that let this range of this interval I shall note by f of a b. Let f of a b be content in some interval i g is defined from i to r g is defined from i to r and since f of this whole interval lies inside this interval i f of x is a point in i f of x is a point in i and so g is defined at that point g is defined at that point. So, g from i to r and suppose I assume that g from i to r is differentiable at f x at f x. Remember f x is a point in i and g is defined on i then what this chain rule says is that the composite function g compose with f that is differentiable at x and it tells us the value of the derivatives. I will continue here let us say define h from a b to r by let me write like this h is equal to g compose with f h is equal to g compose with f or if you want to write in the full form that let us say h of t is equal to g of f of t for t in a b h is differentiable at x h is differentiable at x and h prime at x that is the derivative of h at x it is same as g prime at f x and multiplied by f prime at x that is see till now we had just talked about the algebraic operations on the functions now this is a different type of operation here we take the composition of two functions and then this says when is the composite function composite function here is h is g compose with f if g and f are differentiable that is f is differentiable at x and g is differentiable at f x then h is differentiable at x its value is given by this formula this formula is the one which is called chain rule again I am sure you have seen this formula earlier and used it also I shall just discuss the main idea in proving this without going into too many details of this how how does one go about proving this what is done here is as follows see f is differentiable at x let us again recall the definition what we had done is that we had defined this function phi phi t which was defined as f t minus f x divided by t minus x this was defined for t not equal to x so what we can say is that what we know if f is differentiable at x this phi t has a limit as t goes to x as t goes to x and that limit is nothing but f prime x that limit is nothing but f prime x so which is same as saying that if I if I look at the function phi t minus f prime x if I look at the function phi t minus f prime x suppose I call that function something suppose I call that function let us say u of t then u of t is it clear that u of t tends to 0 as t tends to x saying that phi t tends if f is differentiable at x what we should have what we should have is that this function u of t should go to go to go to 0 as t tends to x now what I can do what I will now do is that I shall use this whole idea as follows I will say that f t minus f x is nothing but phi t into t minus x and phi t is nothing but f prime x plus u t so I can say that f sorry f t minus f x this is same as I will say f prime x plus u t into t minus x f prime x plus u t into t minus x and what is the all that I have done is just I have written this whole thing and with the property that u t tends to 0 as t tends to x now whatever I have done for f whatever I have done for f I can do the same thing for g only only difference is now g is not differentiable at x but it is differentiable at f x suppose I call that point f x is y then it is same as in a g is differentiable at y and just to avoid confusion instead of using the variable t I shall use some other letter let us say s so what I can say is that is just this f t minus f x let me call say g s minus g y then g x minus g y since g is differentiable at y if g is differentiable at y let me write this y is equal to f x we are assuming that g is differentiable at y then we can write g x minus g y similarly as this will be g prime y plus some function of s which goes to 0 as s goes to y which goes to 0 as s just as here we have taken u t there will be some function some other function suppose I call that function v of small v of s v of s into instead of t minus x this will be s minus y instead of t minus s it will be s minus y where what what we know is that where v s tends to 0 as s tends to y now we just use these facts in simplifying and getting this I shall just give one more step and maybe remaining part of the proof you can complete now we want to show that h is differentiable so we should look at the corresponding fraction of about h that is what we should look at is h t minus h x divided by t minus x that is what we shall see that is what we should look at right that is our aim is to show that h t minus h x divided by t minus x this has a limit as t tends to x all right this dividing by t minus x I will do little later now h t minus h x by by that this is say minus g of f t minus g of f x right let us just use this notation what is the one notation one notation is y is equal to f x and let us say s is equal to f t then this is nothing but g s minus g y is nothing but g s minus g y and use this g s minus g y is g prime y plus v s into s minus y that is this is nothing but g prime y plus v s into s minus y where what is the property of this v s v s goes to 0 as s goes to y and y means f x okay now let us write let us unpack this s minus y s is f t and y is f x okay so now I will change these two is it clear that I will I will rewrite this okay so this is I will write this as s is f t and y is f x okay now use this first thing that is f t minus f x is equal to f prime x plus ut into t minus x okay so this is same as so this will remain as it is this is g prime y for this y I will write back again f x okay g prime y g that is g prime at f x plus v s into this f t minus f x is f prime x plus ut into t minus x okay and now I think we have all the all the required things for the proof so so consider t is not equal to x then we can divide by t minus x okay so let us say that t not equal to x then divide by this t minus x so what we will get is h t minus h x divided by t minus x that will be same as this g prime of at f x plus v s into f prime at x plus ut and to show that h is differentiable at x means that we should show that limit of this left hand side exists as t goes to x okay as t goes to x what happens look at the right hand side as t goes to x ut tends to 0 as t goes to x ut tends to 0 so this limit of this becomes just f prime at x what about this bracket this is independent of t okay g prime f x is a constant what about v s now here we have to use the find that when a function is differentiable it is also continuous so g is differentiable means g is g is also continuous so essentially we want to search v s goes to 0 as s goes to that is f t goes to f x that is the find that we have to use f t goes s goes to s goes to y which is same as here f t goes to f x which means f is continuous but that is true because f is differentiable at x so that is why v s goes to 0 as as s goes to y or s goes to y means s goes to f x so this tends to g prime of f x into f prime at x okay so we so we have proved that h is differentiable and its limit is nothing but g prime of f x into f prime of x okay let us now just see a couple of examples of using these theorems that is both the earlier theorem about the sums products etcetera and this chain root let me just take this example first okay f x is equal to something that we have seen earlier x sin 1 by x for x not equal to 0 and equal to let us say 0 for x equal to 0 okay now if x is not equal to 0 there is no problem that is it is x this is this function is differentiable everywhere if at all there is any problem it occurs because of this function sin 1 by x okay but again if you use the chain rule we let us assume that sin is differentiable everywhere and its derivative is cos of whatever is inside okay so so the the problem is about this function 1 by x okay then function 1 by x okay the one is differentiable everywhere that is a constant function so you take 1 by x so that will be differentiable at those points wherever x is not 0 right so this product is differentiable every at all x not equal to 0 the only point that needs to be check this what happens at x equal to 0 all right so at x equal to 0 again you think of this f t minus f x divided by t minus x so that is okay now we are looking at derivative at 0 so let us look at f t minus f 0 as divided by t minus 0 okay so that is nothing but t sin 1 by t minus f 0 is 0 divided by t okay and that is nothing but sin 1 by t and the question is whether the limit of this sin 1 by t exists as t goes to 0 okay and we already seen that this limit does not exist okay we already seen that this limit does not exist okay and so so what is the conclusion that f is not differentiable at 0 what is the conclusion f is not differentiable at 0 remember that we have already shown that f is continuous everywhere okay f is continuous everywhere okay and so we have got one more example of a function which is continuous but not differentiable okay this function is continuous at 0 but it is not differentiable at 0 now let me consider a small modification of that so now I think of f x is instead of x sin 1 by x suppose I consider x square sin 1 by x for x not equal to 0 okay and say the same this here it is set 0 for x equal to 0 okay again you will see that for x not equal to 0 there is no problem okay f is because if x is not equal to 0 you have product of the two functions and this is again composite function so it is it is differentiable and we can find a value derivative if we want by using product rule under chain rule okay if necessary we shall do it later okay so the real point is because there is what happens at x equal to 0 right let us say again we do the same thing so suppose we take this f t minus f 0 divided by t minus 0 then this will be t square sin 1 by t minus 0 divided by t minus 0 t minus 0 so what is that so this is t sin 1 by t okay t sin 1 by t and we have already seen that the limit of this as t goes to 0 exist okay and that limit is nothing but that limit is nothing but 0 so this tends to 0 as t tends to 0 which means this function is differentiable this function is differentiable at x equal to 0 and its value is value of the limit is 0 okay so so with the conclusion is so f is differentiable at x equal to 0 and what about the value and f prime 0 is 0 right f prime 0 is 0 okay so as far as x not equal to 0 is concerned we already know that f is differentiable okay so we can say that f is differentiable for all x in r okay f is f is differentiable on r okay again this is something let me explain I have not mentioned it earlier if is if f is differentiable at all points in some interval just as if f is continuous at all points in interval we say that f is continuous on a b similarly if it is differentiable at all points on some interval we said it is differentiable on that interval on that interval or on that set in this case that set turns out to be r okay so f is differentiable everywhere on r okay let us say suppose I now I want to ask a question is this f prime a continuous at 0 is f prime continuous at 0 if that is to be answered what we will have to do we will have to find what is we know that f prime at 0 is 0 so we will have to look calculate f prime x for x not equal to 0 also and take the limit of that as x goes to 0 that can be done right let us say let us say let us do this okay what is for x not equal to 0 what is f prime we will have to calculate this f prime by using two theorems proved earlier namely the product rule and the chain rule okay we can do it quickly so what is f prime x so let us it will be 2x into sin 1 by x right that is derivative of this into this okay multiplied by plus x square into derivative of this first first it is cos 1 by x and then multiplied by minus 1 by x right okay so this becomes okay this will remain as it is so 2x sin 1 by x and minus cos 1 by x right okay now if we want to know that whether f prime is continuous at x equal to 0 we will have to take the limit of this as x goes to 0 limit of this as x goes to 0 and show that that limit is same as 0 okay now what is the answer here does the limit of this exists as x goes to 0 again as far as this first term is concerned there is no problem x sin 1 by x limit of that exists as but what about the second term cos 1 by x the limit does not exist the limit does not exist so this function is differentiable everywhere but it is not continuous at x equal to 0 that is f prime is not continuous at x equal to 0 right is it clear and what is the type of discontinuity it is what we call discontinuity of the second time because the limit does not neither left hand limit nor the right hand limit will exist okay so this is the discontinuity of the second time okay fine okay we will stop with this for today we shall continue with the discussion of this different types of discontinuities etcetera in the in the next class.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jazmy's casebreaks.com coming at you with a 2022 Tops pristine baseball pack Ram team break number 27 Big thanks to this group right here for getting in on it for tonight only If you bought a full spot, you got a chance to win some extra spots So that's our first ice roll. It's gonna be the top top eight After seven four and three seven times one two three four five six and seven and final time After seven with extra spots Aaron Jarrett Kevin Aaron Harry Oliver Paul and Nick Now for the rest of you don't worry You're still part of the main promo Before we do that, we're gonna randomize you a team in this pristine pack Let's roll it and randomize it six and a six twelve times each one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven and Twelfth and final time six and a six twelve times for the teams one two three four Eleven and twelfth and final time after twelve times. We got the Cardinals down to the Yankees All right, there's the first half of the list right here There's the second half of the list right over there and let's alphabetize by team. Let's print and Let's rip and at the end of the break we'll do these we'll do this team random. So there's the Official print out. Let's do this pack first. Nothing crazy there, but what about this that's Roberto Clemente nice 49 out of 54 the Pirates that'll be for Aaron Miller All right now. Let's see who's gonna win teams in the next break. Let's gather all these names here third and final dice roll and We're randomizing just your names and lining up with some teams in that bowman sterling break, which is coming up next So half the break we'll be getting teams. Good luck everybody six and a five eleven times top half after eleven one two three four five six seven eight nine Ten and fingers cross everybody eleven than final time after eleven There's the top half right sir Aaron. Sorry. I know you're up here, but some spots down there Thanks for taking the risk though. At least we got you some teams in there Apologies to everybody here, but congrats to the top half Here's what you got And we'll put a little rooftop next to name so you want you know you won that spot in this in this filler here So Aaron with the rays Rex with the Royals Harry got my Dodgers Aaron with the Cubs Nicholas with the Tigers Dan with the Yankees Aaron with the Nationals Kevin Giants and Blue Jays Oliver with the Rangers that extra spot you on coming in handy Kevin with the Braves Brian see Orioles and Mets Harry with the A's and Jared with the Cardinals. There you have it. I'm Joe. I'll see you in the next video. Bye. Bye


I've had a blast revisiting the Fleming novels for this series so far. I finished the first three novels in the blink of an eye and quickly moved on to number 4. Diamonds Are Forever. Now, I remember not liking this novel as much, having last read it six years ago. And as you can tell, it indeed took me a lot longer to make my way through this book once again. Was it indeed a bad novel? How do I feel about it with this one fresh in my mind again? Let's get back into reading 007. Diamonds Are Forever takes James Bond undercover, taking the identity of diamond smuggler Peter Franks. His mission is to uncover a diamond smuggling ring and follow the pipeline that stretches from the African mines in Sierra Leone through London into the United States, and he needs to find out who is behind it all. During this mission, Bond teams up with a mysterious go-between in the pipeline called Tiffany Case, and learns that the people behind this are the ruthless Spangler mob, controlled by brothers Jack and Sarah Fimo Spang, whose influence stretches all across the United States. So Bond needs to go undercover in this novel, posing as a diamond smuggler, which to me sounded more exciting than it turned out to be. He's very quick in revealing his real name to Tiffany Case anyway, and doesn't bother to change his personality or appearance, which I guess is a very Bond-like thing to do anyway when he's undercover, but I feel this aspect could have been played out more. Throughout the story, Bond is constantly underestimating the people he's up against. From the moment M gives him his mission breathing and warns him to take these mobsters serious, Bond is just very light-hearted and dismissive about his enemies. M's chief of staff also gives him a warning and tells him how M is only ever really worried about certain groups of people. Smurfs, the German cipherbreakers, the Chinese opium ring, and the authority of the mafia. And again, Bond is just like Okamon. They're just a bunch of spaghetti and pizza-eating hoodlums squirting scent over themselves, which to me was very unlike Bond, who usually has some form of admiration or respect for his adversaries, even when he despises them, and at the very least he knows to never underestimate the opposition. But here, Bond is just so bored about this whole mission, and automatically, as a reader, you feel very similar, at least in the first half of the book. Of course, Bond is wrong in underestimating his opponents, who all turn out to be quite dangerous indeed. But I do feel Bond is somewhat right in how boring some of these villains are, especially compared to the other villains Flemming wrote about so far. Jack and Cero Fimo Spang really were far from Mafiosa type of villains that I was expecting and honestly hoping to read about, and they were also far from classic Flemming like Bond main villains. Cero Fimo is the owner of the Tiara Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, who has a wild west fetish, dressing up as a cowboy, owning a couple of ghost towns in the desert outside of Vegas, one of which is called Spectrefield by the way, a first showcase of Flemming's love for the word Spectre. And he also owns a classic locomotive that becomes part of one of the three climaxes of the book. The other Spang brother, Jack Spang, doesn't really show up much in the book at all, Bond just has to figure out who he is. It turns out Bond already met him early on, just using another alias, Rufus BC, also better known as ABC. But there really isn't much noteworthy about him either, he just controls the European side of the diamond smuggling pipeline, and he meets his demise in the helicopter at the end of the book. There are several other gangsters appearing in the novel, one called Shady Tree, a gangster with a hunchback and a voice that squeals, that is responsible for getting Bond paid for his job posing as Peter Franks. This is an aspect I really liked about the novel, the efficiency of the gangsters, thinking of clever ways to pay out thousands of dollars without making the authorities raise an eyebrow. So Shady Tree makes Bond go to Saratoga to bet on a horse in a fixed race. Of course Bond rigs the race, preventing him from getting paid, so he can go deeper into the pipeline. I guess the most notable villains are the assassins from Detroit called Mr. Wind and Mr. Kid, who are described to be the torpedoes of the Spangled Mob, who show up several times throughout the book in some of the Dark Passages, one of which is the execution of the jockey through a hot boiling mud bath, which is quite brutal. They are also responsible for giving Bond a so-called Brooklyn beating later on in the story by stomping on him with boots, leaving Bond as a wounded animal. But again, though there are definitely threats in the novel, I think the biggest weakness of this novel is the lack of any real strong main villains that make a huge impact and have clear Bond villain-like motivations, especially when you're just coming off the brilliant Hugo Drax from the previous novel. The novel's Bond girl, however, Tiffany Case, is one of the best female characters Fleming wrote about up until this point. If you take a look at the previous Bond girl so far, with Vesper being desirable yet secretive and uncommunicative, Solitaire being sensual and mysterious, Gala brand intelligent, heroic, and perfectionistic, Tiffany seems to be the most believable and real so far. She's a tough, yet wounded woman. And the chapters of Bond first meaning her half-naked isn't just interesting because of her lack of clothes. She's described to have arrogance in the set of her head and shoulders, scornful grey eyes, and a sinful mouth. She's a woman that's been through it all, that can take care of herself and isn't about to just sleep with anybody. American Bond girls may often seem less exotic than other Bond girls that Bond comes across, but Tiffany makes up for it being one of the aspects that keeps the book interesting. And Fleming seems to imply that Bond and Tiffany are slowly falling for each other by the end of the book as they are sailing on board of the Queen Elizabeth. And this is one of my favourite descriptions that Fleming ever wrote about of an early relationship development. It is an intoxicating moment in a love affair when, for the first time, in a public place, in a restaurant or a theatre, the man puts his hand down and lays it on the thigh of the girl, and when she slips her hand over his and presses the man's hand against her. The two gestures say everything that can be said. All is agreed. All the pacts are signed. And there is a long minute of silence during which the blood sings. I do like, however, that Bond as a character does not believe in marriage. In his opinion, most marriages don't add two people together. They subtract people from each other. Which is just another one of the fascinating insights into Bond's mind that I always enjoy when reading Bond. Felix Leiter also makes his third appearance in the novels. After being maimed by the sharks in Live and Let Die, he is now no longer working for the CIA, but instead is the world's most obvious private detective with a wooden leg and a hook for a hand. I guess he's only missing an eyepatch and he would be a pirate. It's still cool to read about his return, though. He mainly functions as a source of information in the book, knowing all about the Spangled Mob, but quite frankly also being indirectly responsible for a lot of the trouble that Bond ends up in throughout the novel. The movie Sharing the Same Name was adapted very loosely in 1971. The setup of the movie is the same, with Bond taking the identity of diamond smuggler Peter Franks, who gets taken into custody so that Bond can take his place and dive into the pipeline. He also meets this movie's version of Tiffany K's inside of a hotel room during her makeup. But apart from that, story-wise, the movie takes a completely different take. Though there are mobsters in the movie, and there is also a character called Shady Tree, and some of it is also set in Vegas, Bond does not go up against the Spangled Mob in this film, but instead takes on Blofeld once again in the form of Charles Gray. Mr. Wind and Mr. Kid are also in the movie, but both are more of a comic relief than the menacing Hooded Duo Bond takes on in the novel. It's implied in both the movie and the novel that they could be a gay couple though, so I guess the movie did play into that aspect of the characters too. Other than that, the movie and the novel are two completely separate animals. Tiffany K's in the movie ends up being much more of a bin-bow near the end of the film, and is a completely different character to the one I picture in the novel. There is a moment in the novel where Tiffany works as a dealer of a blackjack table in the casino, which I think is somewhat adapted in the way Loopy becomes the dealer in the casino in License to Kill. And I guess you could say some of the cheating with the horse racing also shows up in A Future A Kill, so some of the influence of this novel still translated to other Bond movies. Those that know me well know that I am not the biggest fan of the movie Diamonds of Forever, mainly because it had so much potential to be a great revenge story follow-up to the movie Under Majesty's Secret Service. Here, with the novel Diamonds of Forever, I feel very similar for vastly different reasons, because I feel the book also had a lot of potential. This could have been a great Bond vs Mafia type of story, but I think it's very clear that Fleming doesn't know as much of the Italian American Mafia when reading about the characters he came up with for this story. And of course, you can't really blame him for it, this was written in 1956, a time when there really wasn't that much known about the Italian American Mafia compared to the breakthroughs that followed later in history, throughout the 60s to 80s, when so much more about how Mafia families are structured was discovered. It would have been great to see Bond infiltrate a mob family, Donnie Brascostow, finding out about the dons, the capos and the consulieres that make up the higher ups in the real-life five families centered in New York. Bond could have infiltrated to win trust inside of the family and break them from within. Instead, Bond is mostly up against a cowboy and cardboard-like hoodlums that seem to come from 1930s television. He's often bored throughout the mission, complaining a lot about everything that is wrong with America and it's just a lot harder to stay motivated reading this one compared to the three books that came before this. That isn't to say this is a terrible novel. Like I said before, Tiffany Case is a character that succeeds in making the story a lot more engaging and the novel essentially covers not one, but three climaxes of which are pretty satisfying. It's not a terrible book by any means, but it does take you to come to the last third of the book before it finally starts to become more engaging. The lack of any sort of presence of a main villain that has clear motivations, I think really hurts the early parts of the book and I think that is the biggest shame. On the back of my book, this is described as a first-rate thriller, but above all, it's a terrific novel by Jonathan Kellerman. And I'm sure a lot of people agree with him, but I just wish I could share that sentiment, because to me it doesn't really feel like a classic James Bond-like novel. It feels like a book that could have gone from decent to great. I'll mention this though. I gave the book a second chance after finishing it by listening to the radio drama by Toby Stephens and other actors. You can find it right here on YouTube too. This way, with the story being more concise and fast-paced, I surprisingly enjoyed it more. So my advice if you still want to consume this story is, type it in on YouTube and listen to the audio drama for free. In the case of this story, it just seems to work better. All in all, it's a decent book, but you will find that it's lacking a bit in quality when compared to the free that came before it.


Hello, I am Dr. Poonam Patil working as Medical Oncologist in Manipal Hospital here in Bangalore. Asymptomatic breast cancer and early breast cancers are diagnosed only through mammography. Now mammography is basically an x-ray of the breast that should be done annually after the age of 40 years. Apart from that, there are other diagnostic imaging methods such as ultrasound of the breast and MRI of the breast that could be used to diagnose breast cancer. But in our country, very important is breast self-examination which a woman herself should do every month in first week after periods and even pregnant women should have regular breast self-examination because this is something that women often ignore. They don't give time to themselves and they don't check their breast and sometimes even if they have found a lump, they do not attend the doctor's clinic either due to ignorance or due to the fear that it may turn out to be cancer. But if it is benign lump, let the doctor check and decide and if it is benign well and good, just go for regular follow-up. But in case it is malignant, we have lost the opportunity of having it treated in an early stage where cure is slightly. So once there is a suspicious abnormality seen in the breast the next step is to take some tissue out of the lump to see what kind of tumor is it is it benign or malignant and there are two ways that it can be done. One is a fine needle aspiration cytology which is again an office-based procedure in which one needle and syringe is put into the the needle is put into the breast lump and the contents are aspirated by the syringe and examined under microscope. The second is a core biopsy. Core biopsy is also an office-based procedure where a small amount of tissue is actually taken out from the lump and sent to the laboratory for testing. Rarely when these do not give us an answer, an excision biopsy is also performed in which there is a small amount of tissue actually taken out surgically and then sent to the pathology laboratory.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasperiescasebreaks.com coming at you with a one box break of 2021 Upper Deck Skybox Metal Universe Champions. Random letter break number 31. You can tell the next one is up there. And we have a little special here. We're giving away six spots. It's almost a buy one, get one. If you're one of the first seven spots taken, you get a chance to win one of the six spots that we're giving away. It's pretty nice. And then we'll do this random letter break going by their first letter of their first name. Big thanks to this group right here. There's the seven. So the top six after, they check, after seven. Top six after seven, we'll get extra spots. One, two, three, four, five, six, and seven. There you go. Travis, Nicholas, Travis, Nicholas, Adam, Adam. Top six after seven. We'll put those rooftop symbols next to your name so you know that they are, so you know that those are your winning spots right there. Get them here, let's roll it, let's randomize names and letters seven times. One and a six. One, two, three, four, five, six, and seven. Got Nicholas down to Nicholas, Nicholas B down to Nicholas S. Two different nicks in this break. One and a six, seven times for the letters. One, two, three, four, five, six, and seventh and final time. After seven, we got E, G down to S, Mr. S. All right, Nicholas B, E, G, Adam, Z, and all other letters. Nicholas S with A, Michael with L, Adam with W, Michael with J, Adam with P and T, Nicholas with R, Travis with B, N, Michael with C, D, Travis, H, V, and M. Wasn't H, V, M a music store? Adam with K, maybe in the UK, and Nicholas S with S. So remember we're going by the first letter of their first name. We'll remind her right there. We're gonna pause the video, and when we come back, we'll have that one box break. So stick around, B, R, B. All right, welcome back everybody. No deals were done, so the list remains the same. First letter of their first name, break number 32. The next break is in the store right now. Just a quick little one box here. Let's see what we got. I think all cards should, right? It should. Yeah, yes, it does say all cards should. That's where they're located, by the way, which is, Paul's bed is about two hours south of us. I wonder if they do, I doubt they do. I wonder if they have some kind of tour. All right, good luck everybody. So we're looking for the PMGs, that's a safety. So she's signaling there. There's a metalized Josh Giddy. It's pretty good. Intimidation Nation Tiger Woods. That'll go to letter T, Adam. And the Josh Giddy for J, Michael. Is that a PMG? We usually have like a little PMG in the circle right there. Ooh, and an autograph, Lexi Thompson. Autographs are pretty few and far between. Michael P, last spot mojo, L, Lexi. She's pretty good. And we got a Tiger Woods, 91 out of 150. Nice Skybox premium insert, I'm not sure what that goes for, who has T. Adam Cupperman has T for Tiger. Tiger, Tiger uppercut. Couple golfers out of there, nice. There's a LeBron James for L. That'll be for Michael. I'm not sure if that numbered Tiger replaces a PMG, although not every box has a PMG. So maybe that numbered Tiger and the auto takes the place of that, but we'll see. There's Michael Jordan. Travis with the letter M. Cut above, Sabrina Ionescu. There she is, she's pretty good. That'll be for letter S, Nicholas. The Skybox premium LeBron James. Michael with the letter L. Looks like that is that. But not bad, an autograph and that numbered Tiger Woods card. I'll take it, that was random letter break number 32. I'm Joe, I'll see you next time for the next one, bye.


I'm just making myself a stir-fry because I have all this chicken I need to use. What I'm talking about with you guys today is my thoughts on the whole Last of Us 2 controversy. I just got a little chicken out of the frame, you can't see it. So obviously a lot of people are mad, and if you can hear the humming, it's because the microwave is cooking. I can understand where people are coming from. This is obviously a very, very big, touchy topic. I watched someone play through the Last of Us a long time ago. I just finally played it myself because obviously there's nothing to do right now with quarantine and everything. I can see where the hype is from. It's a fantastic game. An amazing story, pretty gnarly gameplay. I'm not a person for stealth games, but it got me into it. And that's something to say because if you ask any other person who watches me play video games, they realize I am not a stealthy player. If any of you haven't seen any of the spoilers or any of the leak footage, don't keep watching this video because I will address what I've heard. So if you don't care, don't watch now, wait about, what, 16 days from now and you're going to see it. So what happens from what I've heard is that someone's going after Joel with a reckoning, but after Joel and Ellie, and Joel gets killed with a golf club. And yeah, that's kind of unfortunate for the character. That's an on way to die. And then apparently they're going to make you play as the character who kills Joel, as well as Ellie. It's like a back and forth. I'll give you one thing though. Joel isn't a good person. Technically what he does at the end of the game is for completely selfish reasons. He dooms the human race.  Was there really any reason to try and save the world? Or was he just basically getting a second chance of being a father? Which is really what the game is about. However, he kills an entire, basically wipes out an entire resistance group that was hellbent on trying to save the human race. Anything that he's got coming to him, including the lie that he told Ellie right at the end, it's not entirely unwarranted. Is the means of how they do it a little bit odd? Yes. Are they possibly trying to put some sort of progressive message in it? With the inclusion of Anita Sarkeesian and how Neil Druckmann does not stop talking about her? Perhaps. So going to the nearer, Sarkeesian and Neil Druckmann thing. Druckmann has proven himself to be a pretty decent designer. He's worked with Naughty Dog for quite some time. He's been there with The Uncharted. He was the writer of the first game. He was the writer of the last game, the designer too, which is kind of an interesting concept. Usually you don't see that as much. Dan Hauser was the biggest one for the longest time for me from Rockstar. I know that Amy Herning was not a part of it and I've heard there is some interesting bad blood between Naughty Dog and her. Considering she finished a drake, she like drake was her baby apparently and then it ended. Druckmann coming in and finishing it. Yeah, I can understand there's a little bit of bad blood there. And then the whole Anita Sarkeesian thing. I understand what she's trying to go for, but she comes across about it like a plunky or something, whatever. He was on H3H3 and he talked about his interactions with her. And he says that you have a good idea. You have a good stance. However you come across it, you're not appealing to anyone except people who already agree with you. And that's what Anita does. And also she takes people's money and doesn't finish projects. Again, for the idea of what she was pushing, and there are some designers and other people in the industry who do it a lot better, Amy Herning is one of them. Anita is not helping her situation except for helping bolster herself amongst those who already agree with her and helping the divide of those people who don't like her and disagree with her already.  And that's her biggest issue, in my opinion. And the fact that Druckman constantly says that she's great is a little bit discouraging. And the fact that he gave her some sort of award at a game event. And the fact that she had something to do with The Last of Us 2. I'm a little bit skeptical because she doesn't know video games. She's apparently gotten a little bit better at it, but when she first started, she did it for money and for press and for PR and it's worked for the most part.  That was great. It's good. I'm on the fence as to whether The Last of Us 2 will be good. I understand that a lot of you out there are very, very upset and some of you feel betrayed and you feel like there is a bit of a progressive or sort of an agenda being pushed in. And if that does happen, I will understand. However, Druckman has proven that he can actually take a little bit of a controversial topic such as The Last of Us. And he can turn that into a very interesting narrative. Has Naughty Dog and Sony handled this entire thing horribly? Yes, I can 100% agree on that.  Copyright DMs and just basically shutting up people. Unless they were showing the leak, which legally they have the right to shut those down. Anyone talking about it, they can't do anything about that.  But I think from a narrative perspective, the idea of playing as the person who kills Joel could be a cool narrative aspect. Could it also be terribly wrong? Well, we bet you. Very, very decisive, very risky move. But like I said, Joel doesn't exactly warrant a good person death. While he did save Ellie's life, he also did it for completely selfish reasons. You just come after her. So yeah, that's my thoughts on it. I hope the stir fry turns out good. Kind of interested to see what you guys have to say.    Anyways guys, that's all for me. I hope you enjoyed this little video. Sorry you can't eat this. I hope it's good. If you're interested in The Last of Us, part two, all the power to you, I'm very excited to see how it turns out. I don't have a PS4, but my roommates do, so I'm hoping one of them buys it. I guess all I'll say is you can say what you want about how Druckman is dressed in. Troy Baker, I like Troy Baker. I've met him before. He's a nice guy. His video didn't help. Do not go after the game designers or the artists. Those guys put so much time. And I'm not talking about Druckman, I mean like just the staff of Naughty Dog. They put their heart and souls into those games. Even if you think that the story might not be good. Just watching that gameplay footage prove that it looks like a spectacular game from a visual and a design aspect. It looks great. Is there a possibility the story is going to be shit? We'll have to wait and see. Anyways, that's all for me. See you guys later.


The Navy family ombudsman is a highly trained volunteer who is able to offer support and guidance to command families. This husband or wife is the one who families turn to whenever a helping hand is needed, especially while their loved one is deployed. Now the Navy has an opportunity to recognize these exceptional ombudsmen who have served their command and families with selfless dedication and commitment. The Mrs. Sibbles Stockdale Ombudsman of the Year Award recognizes four ombudsmen who have demonstrated outstanding commitment to their command families. She set an unflagging example supporting families of POWs during the seven-year internment of her husband in Southeast Asia. Her dedication to improving communication emulates the importance of the flow of information between the command and families. This award is an excellent opportunity for commanding officers to recognize their ombudsmen who have served for more than one year. Nomination packages are due by June 30th. Visit the Commander Navy Installations Command website for more information.


Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. My name is Bill Burns, and I'm the president of the Carnegie Endowment. My great pleasure to introduce today's keynote speaker, the first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Carnegie Endowment alum, and my friend and former colleague David Lipton. On the eve of the first anniversary of the Iran nuclear agreement, it's only natural because we've been doing throughout today's event to pause and reflect on the road traveled. There is no doubt that looking back and drawing lessons is a worthwhile exercise, but it's far more important, in my view, to look ahead. There's still a great deal further to travel. Paralysis, political, diplomatic, regional, and technical landmines litter the road before us, and all those traveling on this road and navigating around these obstacles will have choices to make. Choices that will determine not only whether this specific agreement will hold, but whether regional order can be rebuilt, and indeed whether the global nuclear order can hold together. It's important to recall why we ended a 35-year diplomatic vacuum and engaged directly with Iran, including the quiet bilateral talks that we began more than three years ago. We had one clear objective in mind, to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, to achieve that objective diplomatically. We knew we needed to demonstrate a willingness to engage, as well as the ability to build leverage. Over a number of years, we built an unprecedented set of sanctions and other forms of pressure in service of an equally unprecedented verifiable agreement. The agreement we saw was one that would close off all the pathways to a bomb, which sharply constrained Iran's program over a long duration, and it would set out an intrusive monitoring verification and inspection regime that would detect and address violations quickly and effectively. This was not the perfect outcome, but it was the best of the available outcomes, and it was the outcome that was achieved. We did not expect any overnight transformation of Iran's disruptive and threatening actions across the Middle East, and we certainly did not expect any overnight transformation with Iranian relations. What we set out to do was to ensure that an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program, let alone a nuclear-armed Iran, could not add yet another layer of risk and fragility to our already chaotic region. Thanks to President Obama's leadership, Secretary Kerry's determination and the skill and perseverance of the entire multilateral negotiating team, Iran stands today and for decades to come, well short, with the bomb. We are safer, our partners in the region are safer, and the world is safer, but we cannot afford to be complacent about implementation, about the nonproliferation regime, or about the broader region. Rigorous implementation of this complex agreement will require sustained attention and focus. Already over the past year, parties to the agreement have come together to ensure compliance and to address issues quickly and to the letter and spirit of the agreement. One of the challenges before us is whether the member states will ensure that the IAEA will have the resources it needs to implement effectively. Our first panel today touched on the IAEA issue and a number of other technical aspects of the deal that deserve careful examination. It also looked at what features of this agreement could serve the broader nonproliferation regime, including our own team's effort to define a firewall between civil and nuclear weapons programs. Another priority for this and the next administration is embedding the nuclear agreement in a wider regional strategy that pushes back against threatening Iranian behavior, reassures our partners and allies, and addresses the political and economic dysfunction which makes many parts of the region so vulnerable. Our second panel looked at Iran's evolving domestic politics as well as regional reactions and recalibrations to the post-deal landscape. For our keynote session, we are very fortunate to have with us David Lipton. David recently visited Iran and can give us all a fresh perspective on Iran's efforts to reintegrate with the global economy after many years of sanctions and many more years of economic mismanagement and decay. Few people have a more intimate sense of the complexity of economic transition. David has lived and worked through the post-Soviet Union transition to capitalism, Asia's recovery from its financial crisis in the late 1990s, and the tumultuous global economic transition we're all living through today. Few people bring a broader set of perspectives and experiences to the task. David has worked in a number of senior positions at the Department of Treasury and White House at the IMF and private finance and here at the Carnegie Endowment. And few people bring to this task a sharper mind or greater skill than David Lipton. So it's a great pleasure to welcome David back to Carnegie. I hope you'll all join me on giving us a speech. I almost dumped it on the Quran alongside my podium. Dr.  Thank you. And it's great to see you, Jessica. I have a special place in my heart for Carnegie. I came here as a fellow after serving in the Clinton administration. And it's a great institution. One of the few places I came here because I like the fact that one could be working on subjects in the economic area, but alongside people working in other related disciplines and the way in which the institution brings together thinking in different areas. I think it's key. It's key to the way I try to approach subjects. And I think the subject that I want to talk about today, Iran, is one that really demands this. It's very hard to simply go at the subject of Iran looking just at one or another aspect. I think to understand Iranian issues demands looking at all dimensions. We've had sessions today on nuclear issues, talked about sanctions, talked about regional politics. And I want to add the economic dimension. I won't talk about the other subjects. I think the choices in the economic, well, all of the choices Iran's going to make with all of that coming up, understanding the state of Iran's economy, the problems they face, the possibilities that they have, I think is something that regardless of which subject interests you, it's something that's well worth considering. I believe that with the JCPOA implementation now happening, Iran faces a very fundamental and simple economic choice, whether to stick with the present economic structure and the approach that they've had, and that seems an oil-based economy, fairly closed economy, or to try to integrate into the global economy with all of what that means and entails. I think the first, to me, will fail to deliver job growth, economic growth, dynamism, because the economy really is still oil-based, fairly closed. I think the second can succeed, but it's by no means a simple strategy. It's a strategy that will require very deep and meaningful economic change. I think it will really require a transition that's on the scale and of the type that countries in Central and Eastern Europe had to go through. This will be challenging, challenging to existing structures, existing vested interests, and it's a process that even if done well, will take quite a lot of time. Now I know which I would recommend, and this was subject to many of my meetings and remarks in Iran, but having been there and spoken to them, I'm not sure which way they will go. Let me back up for a second, though, and set the stage for what I want to say. As I'm sure you know, Iran's a member of the IMF, and so in a sense our relationship with Iran is different than a country's relationship with Iran. Iran is a member, like all of its members, we have an ongoing and uninterrupted relationship. We have had annual policy dialogues, sometimes when those were a bit delayed by the geopolitical events and tensions, but we have teams that visit Iran every year, and we have had good and a working relationship. Iran participates in our executive board in all of the discussions and decisions that we make about other things we do in the world. Now of course we take into account geopolitical events and geopolitical realities in as much as they affect Iran's economy and our assessment of their economic prospects when we formulate policy advice, but we try to focus on the economics. I visited in May with some others who are sitting here today with me. It was the first visit of anyone from our management team to Iran since before 1979. I went in order to further develop our relationship since coming at a time when we see Iran at quite a critical junction with the nuclear agreement, with economic decisions to make in key areas that are going to affect their economy, but I think also affect the political prospects and their international relations. We were hosted by the central bank, by the central bank governor, saw various senior economic officials, of course the people we saw were reform oriented. Let me say roughly speaking what we heard before saying what kinds of messages, what kinds of conclusions we drew and messages we conveyed. We found them very interested in restoring growth and trying to do without rekindling the inflation that the country has faced. They all focused very sharply on the need to reestablish links between their banks and international banks. We're interested in what was causing the problem and what we could do to help. They were trying to figure out how to cave in the face of continuing sanctions, but also the sanctions relief that's taken place. They were trying to understand the reluctance of international banks. I had a sense, although no one really quite explicitly said it, that they were very eager to show some economic results from the JCPOA and concern that unless they could do that, that would put them in a difficult position as advocates of reform. I had also the sense that they were concerned that continued financial isolation would block reintegration and block down from their objectives. As we look at the Iran's economy, clearly the legacy there is decades of an oil-based economy, many years with limitations on the degree, the kinds and degree of interconnectedness that they could have with the global economy. And now with a very substantial need for a range of reforms to become integrated. And we see that integration as key to bringing some prosperity. I think one of the strengths of the IMF is that we have 189 members and have for years been working with them to deal with the problems that they have encountered. So we have some experience that we can bring to bear in visiting a country and looking at its situation. So what I tried to do in the trip was to bring to bear some of the lessons that we thought were applicable, while of course the international experiences of countries are rather special, countries are all different, but we thought there were some quite important lessons that could be brought to bear. So let me mention three. First and one that I think Iran for the most part really has heated but is well worth for them bearing in mind because there are continuing pressures is that it's very important to protect stability. And if there's no reform, there's in essence no reform path that's going to be possible, no integration that would be possible or successful if there's financial destabilization. I think that's something we've seen range of countries that tried to reform but succumbed to various populist pressures that have led to instability. They have for the most part reacted to the increased costs, trade interruptions, the limited access to foreign exchange in a way that shows they appreciate the need to establish and maintain financial stability. They in the last few years have supported growth but at the same time reined in an inflation that had gotten out of hand that reached about 45 percent. They've been reasonably careful about keeping budgets and debt from being in the danger zone. We forecast growth this year to be more than half percent and inflation to be around 10 percent. Now while they have that recognition, I think that there are pressures mounting that may challenge this accomplishment with banks in the country having some financial problems of their own. There are temptations. There are political pressures to use. Central Bank created liquidity in order to deal with problems in banks. That approach to using a monetary policy to deal with a real economic problem certainly could lead to a loss of the hard-worn investors. Like other countries, Iran has to deal with what's going on in the world. The oil prices, of course, are very relevant to them. Their production is recovering but the oil price is low and is likely to stay low. They're dealing with a world in which aggregate demand to growth is sluggish and likely to remain sluggish. They have to deal as other countries, as emerging market countries with market access have to do with the risk aversion in capital markets, the volatility that we're seeing in capital markets. So Iran has various challenges to the macroeconomic and financial stability that are important, but I think I certainly felt that they were very sharply focused. The second subject and one that I think runs to the core of the challenge that they face and will be a much harder challenge to meet is the need to modernize the economic structure of the country. The old structure really was one that just evolved. It was an oil economy. It wasn't terribly diversified. It really wasn't a terribly open economy, very integrated with the world outside of the oil sector and then, of course, with various sanction regimes. The degree of interconnectedness has been much reduced for a long time. When you look at what that structure looks like, it's a distinct lack of competitiveness in the economy. There's still heavy regulation. There are sectors that have various forms of protection, whether it's tariffs or state-granted monopoly rights or privileges. This has led to companies that make money that are able to capture economic rents and with the capturing of economic rents come all kinds of other problems. This lack of competitiveness is not an environment that's going to be creating a lot of jobs for a population that's a very young population. Demographics that Iran has really needs to open up, integrate with the world and be able to create jobs and create companies that can export, import and domestic industry that's protected and geared toward domestic consumption is not going to be the engine of growth that the country needs. So they need a kind of structural reform that is not easy. I think the kind of challenge they have is more akin to what we saw in Eastern Europe. They need a broad liberalization of the economy that will remove some of the privileges that companies have. But of course, in doing that and forcing companies to compete, they will have to reckon with the vested interests that have benefited from all of the regulations, all of the protection, all along. So I think this is hard, but I think it's absolutely fundamental. Second, they're going to need an ownership structure that is suited to a modern open economy. State ownership remains very prevalent. There are military and security entities with deep involvement in industry and commerce. There's cross ownership in the economy where companies own banks and banks own companies. There are close relationships between companies, banks and the government that mean that you don't see the kind of governance that's required to support a substantial investment and vibrant growth and certainly not the kind of governance that's going to attract foreign direct investment, something else that they say they want and in fact that they need. When I was asked by a fairly senior Iranian official for lessons that I drew from my experience in working in other parts of the world, and I basically went through these points and talked about Poland and Eastern Europe and talked about the cozy relationship issue of the relationship between banks, companies and government in Asia and the role that it played in the Asian financial crisis. When I finished, I asked him, does any of this sound familiar? He didn't say a word, but he smiled and nodded his head. The third subject, of course, is the need that Iran has to earn confidence of all of the foreign business community with whom they're going to trade and interact and deal with in the world of finance. Sanctions are still a substantial burden to the economy. This is not my area, but surely Iran's actions, policies, behaviors will be a determined whether that confidence can... They are attempting to restore confidence where sanctions removal is creating opportunities. They want to and are trying to open accounts with foreign banks, establish correspondent banking relationships that will allow trade. Some of that is beginning to happen. There's a lot of discussion. We had a lot of discussion about international banks' reluctance to interact with them. The question that was implicit is whether this reluctance is because of the existing sanctions, because of suasion that is coming informally from the United States or other governments, whether this has to do with banks' own decisions, their own risk management considerations. And I think in the end of the day, they have to think about that third question, because that's the one where they have something that they can do about it. Central Bank is dedicated to creating an anti-money laundering, countering the financing terrorism supervisory regime. They that they want to spend money laundering and the financing of terrorism in their financial system and in their businesses. And doing that is key. They have passed a counter-terrorism financing law. It's not perfect, but it's a start. And now the next step is for the Central Bank to establish an AML-CFT regime and in turn to see that once that regime exists, that banks come into compliance with that regime. It really will take all of those steps, I imagine, for banks to feel fully comfortable or more comfortable business with Iranian banks. Of course, another aspect of this is that FATF, which presently considers Iran to be a non-cooperative country with respect to AML-CFT, the absence of AML-CFT, would have to find that Iran was coming into compliance and changing their determination. That's a process that will take some time. The Iranians have for some time asked us for help in this area. We have extensive expertise in working with bank supervisors on a range of supervisory issues, and one of those is in creating buying AML-CFT regimes. We've had teams work with them and we'll be sending another team to do work on the creation of this. When speaking with banks, CEOs are very aware of what they may differ in the responsiveness once there's such a regime to bring in place AML-CFT clients' features in their banks, but I think that the banks that do that are going to be the ones that want to find some restoration of confidence. I know that FATF has recently recognized that the Iranian Central Bank is taking on this task and in recognition of that, while they've not changed their determination of how to consider Iran, they have suspended for a year some of the building's requirements that they have been asking banks, whether this is symbolic or appreciable effect, we'll see, but it certainly shows that the world is going to think it shows that the world is recognizing the efforts that they do make. So, what to make of all of it? I think it's a moment where Iran has a very substantial opportunity. It needs to decide on its own economic strategy and chart its own economic future. It also, of course, the other side of the house has to decide on relevant political and security issues and approaches. But whatever they decide on the second, I'm quite sure they aren't going to have economic prosperity without doing the first, so I think it makes sense for them to do the first. I'm sure they preserve macroeconomic stability in really quite intensively to address the structural issues in the economy and that they act to restore confidence of foreign businesses being able to do business in Iran without too much concern but undue risk with respect to the AMLC. So Iran has a decision to make. I think the West also needs to decide whether to encourage and support economic reform and reformers. That calculus will itself feedback and have political and security dimensions to it. Our job at the IMF is to make the policy choices and the consequences of those choices clear to Iran and clear to the rest of our members and to speak publicly about this. We're trying to assist Iran in carrying out, mapping out and carrying out economic reforms that can support growth and stability and can provide opportunities for the next generation. I'll stop with those remarks. I'm happy to take some questions. Thanks, David, and thanks again for coming. I get the privilege of asking you a couple questions and we'll turn it open to the rest of the group. I guess the first one is simple but it's relatively rare for an American with your experience to be in Iran and having the meetings that we did. Just general impressions, first of all, because a lot of us can't travel. Well, I'll tell you, my first impression was arriving at the hotel and seeing that there were flags of Croatian and a huge delegation of Croatians, including the Croatian leadership. And then the next morning those had been taken down and there were the Italian flags and the many businessmen and officials from Italy. Europe is interested in this reintegration. European business is interested in participating. There's a bit of a buzz about Iran right now. That doesn't mean that people are ready to act. I think they aren't, but I think they are ready to go and suss it out. They want to see what Iran is going to do. They want to understand what the opportunities but also what the obstacles are. I don't remember whether it was just before my visitor after, but Prime Minister Renzi was there and had conversations. I think it's a very lively re-engagement going on. Where it will go, I don't know. In your remarks you talked about the various causes and combinations of causes for the difficulty or at least the way forward for Iran to have the kind of growth it wants on a sustainable basis. I think you suggested this and other people have that at least as important as the sanctions or the fundamentals of the structure of the Iranian economy and the issues of transparency and rule of law and all of those things. In your conversations, did you get the impression that your Iranian counterparts feel that way too or is there a tendency, did you detect the tendency to think that the problems were mostly externally imposed and if those external impositions went away, things would just flourish? I think it varies from person to person. But first, I think the Iranian government itself has been saying that the difficulties that the Iranian economy has had are not just about the sanctions that they recognize that their own policies and approach play a role. In the meetings I had, of course there's a natural, it's natural that the first question that they ask is what can you do to help us re-establish relations with international banks. But I think as the conversations went on, there was a very realistic assessment on their part of most of the senior economic officials of the problems that they face, the fact that right now the banks are not profitable, that something will have to be done about that, that there are risks if you do it wrong, that there are important policy choices to be made. They get that there are longer term structural challenges. They were very interested in thinking a little more perhaps than they had about exactly which were the better and worse ways to go about that. So I felt that they welcomed me. I think they were wary at first. But once we got into the substance of it, I felt that this was a quite earnest exchange of views that they considered to be quite relevant to their own thinking about their own situation. Ben, one of the things that you raised a number of times in your presentation is the anti-money laundering, terrorism financing, in a sense, requirements and the penalties of not complying with that. In the discussions, did they raise kind of definitional issues? In other words, it seems to me that on terrorism piece in particular, the terrorism that is usually associated with Iran isn't what we tend to have in mind what happened in Istanbul yesterday or that kind of thing. It's more structural and political, whether it's with Hezbollah or other organizations. So you can imagine a real definitional dispute, but they don't get a vote in how it's defined. So did that come up in your conversations? No, and I understand there are some things that visit like this that are not discussed explicitly and perhaps is even for the best. But at the same time, I think the central bank's view is that they need an AMLCFT regime. They need to have a situation in which their institutions, in which their institutions can monitor what's going on and where they as a central bank can know whether activities that couldn't be happening are going on. Of course, whatever a state does is a separate matter and its consequences. Our consequences, Iran, will have to deal with. But our view is that to the extent that they are trying to create this AMLCFT regime, which allows for monitoring and allows for enforcement, is a step and one we ought to all be supporting. The feedback I get from the official community country members of the BADF is that they support our work in this area. Yes, it's kind of switched it a little bit and then open it up. But we work here a lot on nuclear policy issues and nonproliferation more broadly, where the potency of sanctions has always been a question. Would it be effective enough? Is it a useful tool? And I think with the Iran case, it surprised many people how effective those sanctions were. And there are reasons for that in terms of the evolving quality of the sanctions and information that goes into them. But where you sit and from an IMF point of view, is there any kind of systematic evaluation of kind of sanctions as tools and how they can be used or not used or how they maybe even interfere with the objectives you guys are trying to seek in terms of stability in a country and where is kind of the sanctions issue fit with you? Given our mandate, it's just not an area that we look at from an analytic standpoint. There are various restrictions that are proscribed in our articles, various kinds of exchange restrictions. But there is in our legal structure an exception for a country that does something for national security reasons. And in essence, once that's invoked, and if that were in principle invoked, it wouldn't be for us to say one way or another, good or bad. So we don't really study the matter. I don't have for you the body of years of analysis of this subject. I think it is clear though, just having also been in the U.S. government watching this different sanction regimes over the years, that obviously multilateral sanctions can be more effective than bilateral sanctions and there are examples of that in the U.S. And it really matters whether there is strong determination in clarity about the application in terms of sanctions. We also of course, in a very relevant case to the IMF, see the sanctions on Russia right now. We have an economic support program with Ukraine. So the Russia-Ukraine conflict is germane to us. So we do have to look at how this is there. It seems to us important that there's clarity about the intention and not back and forth where at one point there's sentiment for sanctions and another weakening of sentiment for sanctions. Useful purpose to uncertainty. But the issue of the choice of sanctions is really not something we get. No, I won't belabor it. But partly I've been thinking about Pakistan and not that it's something IMF affects but if you've got to vouch safe that you think that you're going to get paid back and then that country has sanctions put on it and it affects the prospect of payment, that's where I was wondering if analytically it comes in. In a sense of kind of risk assessment that the IMF makes in working with the country. Yeah, I mean when we lend to a country we have to think about the assurances with respect to the payment so we look at a wide range of things typically been on our list. Let's open it up, same deal as before. And because Barbara Savin was first before, she can be last now but I'll make sure you get in. I've got to be fair. This gentleman here. Doug Hengel with the German Marshall Fund. It sounds like you met mostly with people who were receptive to the reform message and your messages. Did you also meet with people who are sort of on the other side of the spectrum and how did they react to your messages? What's their pushback? No, on this visit I was the guest of the Central Bank and the government and so the official meetings were with people in the government who are our interlocutors and they were all reform oriented across the spectrum of the economic parts of government. I visited a university setting, met with Chamber of Commerce and met with bankers and again it's not at all representative of full population, full range of views and I had no illusion that I was hearing points of view from the more conservative side of the Iranian society. You're surprised by how green it was going around Tehran? Physically how many? No actually quite, rather the contrary. I mean I don't know that part of the world well but it seemed drier. You know there was still snow on the mountains. There wasn't that much foliage at that point. So if anything, having never been there before I was surprised that it was less, I mean the parks in the city are beautiful and a lot of people out and about. I thought the city seemed very lively but I guess I also hadn't expected how, I didn't realize how huge. Young man here and then the lady next to him. No offense, I'm not saying you're not young but there's a really young guy right behind you that I was having in mind. My God, it was your hand that looked like it was coming out of his shoulder. Alright then maybe I've offended you anyway but go ahead. Michael, you sort of answered a little bit part of the question where he walks a moment ago. I want to know how did you find the people? Are they happy? Are they sad? Are they fearful? What are they thinking about the future? I asked that in light because there's been a very sharp decline in fertility rate in Iran, part of it of women coming off the land and going to universities and so on and getting an education. What are these people going to do with the price of oil so far down? How much employment is there from the public sector? And my last point is you mentioned structural reform and all these things. Do they have the personnel to undertake structural reform? Are they around or do they need some foreign assistance to do that? Because it's not a simple task. A lot of questions but they're good questions. I can't claim to have met a representative or a broad sample of Iranians but I found that the people I met with were engaged. They really wanted to have these conversations. This is true in the university, true in the UNA, the speech that I gave. I was traveling with a group from the IMF and with some women who were covering their heads and bodies for the first time and so they were very aware of the role of women in Iranian society. There were women in a number of the meetings that I participated in but never did one of them say anything which I thought was interesting. They didn't ask questions either at the university or at the beach. Whether that tells you something about Iranians as a whole or not perhaps it's just about them. But I certainly found that in everyday life walking down the street seeing people seemed like a pretty normal and positive environment. On the question of reform, it's never the case that a country really has barely the case that people have all the expertise they need to do very fundamental reforms especially in economies that have a kind of a misdevelopment and a long legacy of that. Ron certainly has a very well educated population especially in technical matters which is part of its potential. We at the IMF have had excellent Iranian economists. I think it may be that many of the most experienced Iranian economists are not in Iran. And whether at a time of some dedication to a reform process that expertise could be brought to bear, I don't know. But I suspect that they will need, if they want to go down this road of course they have plenty of, a lot of expertise but they could sort of benefit from some outside expertise as well. Thanks to the lady here. Hi, my name is Dorothy Maseka. I'm retired from the Treasury Department. I was with the U.S. Saudi Arabian Joint Commission back in the day. I wondered if you had, thank you very much for an excellent presentation and I want a sense of the political will of these reformers that they can't have or had given the political constraints of it. The answer to that is, I think the answer to that is yes. I'm a little reluctant to, I don't want to say what certain people said and so on and who in the government. But having seen quite a range of economic policy makers, I think there are people who really want to make change. They know that the change is probably bigger and requires more ambition than they're presently talking about. That's part of the reason why they wanted to engage in this kind of dialogue. Whether they will win the day in two senses with the senior government leadership and then with the conservative side of society I don't know. But I certainly thought that I had the impression that they really want to understand what does it take to succeed so that they can bought out a reform program. More on this. Jessica, I know while we're here, we'll go Barbara and then the gentleman back in the back there. Thank you, Jessica Matthews of Carnegie. Almost your last sentence, David. I said the West also needs to decide whether to support the economic performers. And when I was listening, I thought, wait, haven't we already decided that? And then, well, maybe you're talking about something else. So can you tell us what to think about? Look, I don't follow the security discussion that closely. But I understand that many people, there are groups here in the United States in the Middle East elsewhere who are skeptical about Iran's aims and intentions. And there are certainly some who feel that prosperity in Iran may lead to resource availability to be used for purposes that they aren't going to care for, they aren't going to approve of. And so it's not like when Poland transitioned, that everyone wanted Poland to leave the communist system and succeed in becoming a successful capitalist economy. I suspect even in this room we would get some yay votes and some nay votes with respect to whether we'd like to see Iran become rich sometime soon. Because you'd like to know the answer to the question, to what uses will they put energy in other resources. So I don't presume, as I say, I think from the IMF standpoint, our mandate is to help our members grow in pursuability. Personally, I think that if the two sides of this are taken together and there's a path towards addressing security issues of mutual concern as well as helping Iran see the opportunities that could come through reintegration, creating growth that really will provide social stability in the country. I know what I would prefer, but I don't want to presume to know the answer that everyone in this room would give. Yeah, we're going to get to you. Thanks for being so generous, George. Barbara Slavin from the Atlantic Council. It's just a point of clarification, really. When you talk about an AML CFT regime, you're talking about safeguards for individual banks so that money trails can be followed and so on. And this is separate from whether the state, the government of Iran chooses to send suitcases of money to Hezbollah and Lebanon or to Hamas. So what I'm trying to say is can you give comfort to businesses and so on that will be dealing with Iranian entities, that they can be dealing with entities that know how to follow these regimes and that particular money won't be diverted and explain to them that that's separate from other Iranian governments. I think that's fair. I mean, obviously, the state, the central bank is the state, the central bank is the supervisor of the banks. And so there's a lot that would be in their hands in terms of control. But we know that there are specially designated entities that have been involved in or alleged to have been involved in activities that they shouldn't. And what this regime would do, what the central bank is dedicated to do, is to have a regime in which there will be both legal consequence and enforcement capability to make sure that banks are not involved in that. And that other things equal will allow, would at least create some basis for foreign banks to have confidence that they can do due diligence about their customer and know what kinds of dealings they're in. That is, yes, that is conceptually separate from the question of all of the potential activities of the sub-state. I'm Haigugar as with Argus Media. I wonder if you had a sense from your conversations that there is a vision for the oil and gas sector in Iran among the economic officials. And whether they are watching what Saudi Arabia government is proposing, I'm glad you mentioned that. I should have said more about this. I'm not advocating that it become a non-oil economy. Certainly its oil resources are substantial. That the last ten years have been a period in which they've not produced as much as they had or as they can. There's been news stories on this just this week. They are increasing production this year and aim to increase it further. I did meet with the oil minister who went through his plans and projections and what could be done with present investment levels and what would require additional investment including foreign direct investment and technologies and so on and so forth. There's no question that oil will be a very important sector. Now of course the oil price will matter a lot in how much income that sector brings. I think there's another dimension of this that has a security and important security dimension which is that in a scenario where the nuclear deal is implemented by both sides where there's further steps of reconciliation between Iran and the West one could well imagine Iran establishing closer energy relations with its northern neighbors, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. And at that point western countries might have to ask themselves would you rather see some of that oil and gas flow through Russia to Europe or through Iran? This came up in our discussions and I can tell you it's something that they're focused on as an economic matter but it's something I think perhaps the West ought to focus on. Young guy back there and then Ellie up here. Thank you very much. Dimitri Georgia from the Crumpton Group. You mentioned in your presentation investor confidence is a key element to jump-starting the Iranian economy. What can foreign investors look for in terms of signals that Iran is serious about building investor confidence? Some concrete signals. Thank you. A tough one. I'm hesitating because look there are plenty of examples in the last few decades of history where foreign direct investors are take comfort from a strong state that gives assurances that investments will be well regarded and protected even if they're going to sectors that are in a number of respects protected and not necessarily exposed to competitive pressures and so there can be that. But if foreign direct investment is going to go into say as well into new industry in Iran industry that hires young Iranian engineers that is not in the energy sector but are in technologically advancing sectors then you really need assurances that the legal system is going to respect your investment that the financial system is going to fund your investment in terms of short term funding needs that the trade system is going to allow you to export etc etc that in essence that you'll be operating in a liberal environment regulated by law and suitable governance those are the kinds of structural reforms I think they need to consider I would recommend that they do and I think that then FDI technological change entrepreneurship can be a job creator for a country that really has a demographic challenge With that we're going to thank you again and let you go back to work but really great thanks David Thank you, so we're going to see you