Isn't it ironic that we have 15, 20% unemployment depending on how you measure it? And the stock market is going up, not down. It went down, but then it came back up, came back up because the Fed is keeping it up. So the Fed is defending capitalism really to an unprecedented degree. Hello and welcome. I'm Lynne Fries, and that was Robert Polen joining in this episode of Global Political Economy News Dogs. What would it take to move from COVID-19 lockdown to an abundance of decent jobs in all countries? Is it possible for a capitalist society to reach full employment and stay there? In this segment with Robert Polen, we get some perspective on all this and on why full employment is such a challenge to capitalist prerogatives and neoliberal logic. Robert Polen is a professor of economics and co-director of PERI, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. A prolific author, Robert Polen's upcoming new book is titled Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal, The Political Economy of Saving the Planet. Co-authored with Noam Chomsky. Welcome, Bob. Thank you. With the COVID-19 crisis, unemployment's reaching levels last seen in the Great Depression. In your book, Back to Full Employment, you delve into basic observations of Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Michael Kolecki and Milton Friedman as major thinkers on unemployment. Let's start there. Give us a press say on that. Karl Marx is widely considered to be the great thinker of socialism, which he was, but the fact is that Marx spent about 90% of his time when he wrote about political economy, writing about the nature of capitalism, and in his discussions about capitalism, one of his most fundamental insights, in my opinion at least, was his point that capitalism needs mass unemployment in order to function as capitalism. Not that you need mass unemployment in terms of the well-being of human beings, but if we're operating within a capitalist system, you have to have masses of people who are unemployed or else you can't have a functioning capitalist system. And his argument is straightforward. What he said was in a full employment version of capitalism, workers will get more bargaining power. Why? Because if they don't like their job, they can quit and just go get another job and they don't have to worry because you have full employment. So what Marx said is you have to have that mass of unemployed people or what he called the Reserve Army of Labor. Waiting outside the factory gate, waiting outside the office, waiting in the unemployment lines and that because of that, that enables capitalists to maintain bargaining power over workers and to keep their wages down. If workers had more bargaining power, they bargained up their wages that squeezes profits and capitalism without profits is an impossibility. So that's why Marx said mass unemployment is intrinsic to the operations of capitalism. Now if we move forward to some of the other major thinkers that you listed, we have John Maynard Keynes I would argue is the next great theorist on unemployment and Keynes critically was writing in the midst of the 1930s Great Depression. So thinking in terms of the 1930s, where we have 20, 25% unemployment rates, Keynes was making the argument that this was a massive policy mistake that you could run capitalism without mass unemployment, certainly not without 25% unemployment. So Keynes said what we need to think about are policies that will bring the capitalist economy to full employment and what he was referring to specifically were government policies to stimulate economic activity, to get businesses to invest more, to get people to spend more and that way and the government would then be responsible for maintaining the higher level of activity and with a higher level of overall economic activity, people have jobs. And so he was saying from a technical standpoint, we can certainly operate a capitalist economy at full employment and keep it at full employment as long as you have well meaning intelligent policymakers who are hitting those targets of keeping the level of overall activity high. Now the third person you mentioned is Kalitsky and Kalitsky is obviously nowhere near as well known as Marx and Keynes who are probably two of the three or four most influential economists ever. But Kalitsky had a very insightful approach and he basically made the point that there's a lot of truth in both Marx and Keynes and his synthesis of them is what's really critical because he said, Kalitsky said, okay, Keynes is right. Keynes made the point we have the economic policy tools and we have like really smart intelligent people sometimes in government and it's true they can raise the overall level of activity in the economy which will create more jobs. They can keep the economy at the high level of activity so you have full employment under capitalism no problem technically he was right. But then Kalitsky said, listen, Marx is also right because Marx's point was not about the technical requirements for full employment it was about the political requirements for full employment and in fact Kalitsky's famous paper is called political aspects of full employment. And so Kalitsky said, look, sure we can get to full employment following Keynes but we still haven't solved the problem that at full employment the workers are going to get more bargaining power they will bargain up their wages that will squeeze profits. Capitalists won't have profits to the extent that they want and that is going to undermine the viability of the capitalist system. So Kalitsky had this brilliant synthesis of Marx and Keynes and then the last person that you mentioned Milton Friedman he comes at it from a very different tradition but weirdly enough his conclusions aren't all that different than Marx believe it or not though he comes at it from a right wing neoliberal I mean Milton Friedman pretty much defined neoliberalism but here is basically Friedman's argument is look in in a capitalist economy you have competitive markets and people are competing businesses are competing for customers they're competing to produce products that people want to buy so any business at worth its salt is going to hire workers and as long as they need workers and they're going to pay people what they're worth bargaining is going to end up paying everybody what they're worth because otherwise you lose good you lose good employees the other businesses will hire the good employees pay them more and so you can't compete by just paying low wages this is what Friedman said so what Friedman said is if you just let the free market operate um you would be at full employment all the time everybody who wants a job would get a job they would bargain with the individual businesses capitalists in the end they would get paid what they are worth because businesses have to pay you what you're worth uh or else you lose you go and work someplace else and so that's he said look in capitalism we have full employment naturally now then what he said is that okay i know i know i know we don't really have full employment but he said the reason is that uh workers bargaining power causes the unemployment which is kind of what marx came out and said uh coming at it from a different angle but Friedman said the following take the idea of minimum wage laws so the minimum let's say we set the minimum wage at $15 an hour businesses say these workers aren't worth $15 an hour maybe they're worth 10 but the law says i have to pay them 15 and i can't pay them 15 because then i can't make any money so therefore these workers are going to be unemployed and what is causing unemployment in this case in the Friedman story what's causing it is the government intervention presumably trying to help out the workers ending up making things worse for a lot of workers because even if a worker says okay sure i'll work for ten dollars an hour the law says you can't do it so you have all these people that are willing to work for ten dollars an hour that can't get jobs because the businesses don't want to pay them 15 so that's what Friedman called it labor market rigidities and those rigidities like minimum wage laws and as Friedman also said uh unions perform the same function unions bar give workers bargaining power they do they bargain up the wage but Friedman says well if you bargain up the wage then businesses are going to get forced to pay workers more than they're worth and that won't last and so that according to Friedman is the basic cause of unemployment that workers have too much bargaining power uh that'll cause unemployment ironically Marx also said uh when workers have too much bargaining power capitalism can't work as capitalism Keynes was known as the father of macroeconomics talk about that and about the most important purpose of macroeconomics in the time of Keynes and then how the use and purpose of macroeconomics changed so dramatically from the late 1970s you know of course we had economics before the great depression and before Keynes and as i said Marx really focused a lot on the problem of mass unemployment but really it's with Keynes's book in 1936 during the great depression and in the aftermath of that that we really start to focus on this and we have this field explicitly addressing the issues of the overall economy so we come up with this term macroeconomics and really in initially macroeconomics had as its single most important purpose initially to achieve and sustain full employment under capitalism that was all the point and so the policy tools that were being refined and implemented were that the government should maintain the level of activity targeted at the level of activity that would be consistent with everybody who wanting a job getting a job so if the level of overall activity what we call GDP the level of overall activity was such that you had big big numbers of unemployed seven percent eight percent nine percent the government should basically spend more create more jobs that way till you get to the full employment point that's government spending with government borrowing so it's government deficit spending so you're not taking out in terms of tax money you're just putting in in terms of government spending and then the government pays off its debts later when you hit the full employment the other big tool during this period of macro policy was the central banks operating interest rates influencing interest rates so if you have high unemployment the central bank would lower the interest rates to the extent they could and with low interest rates businesses are more likely to borrow money consumers are more likely to borrow to buy a house or to buy a car and therefore that's the other way through which you stimulate the economy and keep it at a full employment and that was the basic that was it basically from coming out of world war two until the early 1970s that was the toolkit now countries did it to greater or lesser degrees their refinements but that was basically the model what happens in the 1970s is that you have this period of high inflation that was really unprecedented uh certainly in peacetime now the cause of the high inflation was uh the oil price shocks coming from the uh opac oil producing countries that realized they could get away with this they raised oil prices 300 percent in 1973 and then again another 300 percent in 1979 now that's just one price price of oil but that's a very important price the price of oil so that really through the capitalist western capitalist economies off kilter uh through the night let's say the early 1970s uh the rich um high income especially european economies were operating pretty close to full employment you know two percent one and a half percent unemployment rates they were succeeding in this kind of canesian model it got completely uh overturned due to the oil price shock and then the shift in focus uh in macroeconomic policy was really to worry about controlling inflation as opposed to maintaining full employment now it so happened that when that oil price shock led to the inflation you then also you return to these people like Milton Friedman who said see we told you all along capitalism if you give workers too much bargaining power just like mark said if you give workers too much bargaining power you're going to have inflation and so that we need to drive down worker bargaining power there's too much uh strength in unions there's too many regulations that support workers uh like minimum wage laws uh other forms of worker protection like unemployment insurance and so this whole gigantic shift in the policy direction really started in the early 70s but maybe more in the moving into the late 70s and really got uh crystallized with the election of margaret thatcher in england in 1979 and reagan in the united states in 1980 that were so aggressively anti-worker what they uh the way they posed it was to say well we are really for you know inflation control having an economy where we control inflation and we don't have workers having so much bargaining power so that we can now learn to control inflation and that's that's really what happened and that really is the beginning of neoliberalism uh that idea that macro policy should be used to attack the working class not to maintain sustained decent jobs full employment let's turn now to the 1990s when neoliberal macroeconomic policy really took hold in the developed and the developing world how do you explain that in my opinion the uh consolidation of neoliberalism of you know a policy regime in which we focus on inflation control over jobs in which we deregulate the financial markets in which we basically abandon equality within capitalism as a goal um in which uh the public sector is uh is uh attacked and in which we uh embrace austerity as opposed to expansion expanding the economy uh to create more opportunities even if it means government spending more so that whole neoliberal package it's been it was around forever i mean yeah Milton Friedman this is what he'd been talking about for decades um it was really however only when democrats in the u.s uh you know blareites and labor uh similar in germany the social democrats they embraced a somewhat more moderate version of this neoliberal package and that's what gave it the consolidated force that it had if the left parties official left parties like the democrats in the u.s had been a a new deal party a party you know fairly strongly committed to the well-being of workers neoliberalism could never have been consolidated it was when you got clinton in there who was you know this brilliant slick talker slick willy that was the term uh and he could talk about feeling people's pain and all that and so uh and that he was the first black president because he was so cool and he played the saxophone uh so all of that uh really helped to um uh create an image meanwhile the reality was uh clinton and the democrats were doing the bidding of wall street just like the republicans had done and the fact that it was being done by democrats is what enabled it to come in come in full force in 1998 uh the deregulation of the financial markets in the u.s was signed by president bill clinton he's a democrat this is a left of center party saying yeah let's let wall street do whatever they want and you get the equivalent uh with Blair in the uk and schroeder in uh west germany and so forth so uh really the neoliberal project uh becomes a unified project of mainstream parties and the rise of inequality has preceded a pace throughout the whole era of neoliberalism throughout uh clinton throughout bush one bush two uh obama inequality in the united states has risen persistently throughout all these periods taking a developing country experience so we get a developing as well as a developed country perspective on all this give us some context on how this transformation of economic thinking throughout the world and most especially the global south was not simply a matter of ideological persuasion that there was coercion involved take the case of south africa as an example as you have extensive experience there what really is underlying this ideological transition is the fact that under neoliberalism the power of capital becomes overwhelming so sure we have this you know beautiful revolution in south africa where we overturn apartheid and mendela uh you know impossible to believe but mendela nelson mendela becomes president of south africa a man who spent 27 years in prison as a terrorist so-called terrorism so these were unbelievable historical achievements at the same time once the african national congress came to power they made the decision that well really they can't do anything unless they have the approval of global capital they cannot upset the apple cart because they won't get any investments in they won't have any money to buy uh imports that they need and therefore they're going to operate within the framework of capitalism as defined by neoliberal capitalism as defined by wall street because they think that's the only way they can uh really succeed that's the only path forward it's very difficult to challenge that view you have to have a strong analytic foundation that's an alternative but you also have to be able to say that look we have a a political movement that is capable of challenging the prerogatives of capitalism we can elect people to office that don't accept the idea that rising inequality is a given and maybe even a good we want more uh equality we want more commitments to social investments to health care to child care to elder care that that's our priority and yes we can have market operations within that framework but the commitment to general well-being is our foundation and that really is the basic idea coming out of carol polanyi in his great work the great transformation which came out at roughly the same time as koletsky's work so these people koletsky polanyi even canes are really people who experienced the great depression world war two and are thinking deeply about how to build a decent society and polanyi said okay markets are one thing but you have to have a foundation and solidarity or else you don't have a society you have a dog eat dog situation uh and so really the challenge coming out of polanyi is what are the things we need to do to create a foundation of solidarity that was really his challenge which by the way is pretty much what you get out of a careful reading of adam smith way back in 1776 people think of adam smith as the great expositor of free market capitalism it's not actually true he did see a lot of virtues in markets especially relative to monarchy but he also made the point that we have to build a society with a moral foundation in fact the book he wrote prior to the wealth of nations in 1776 was called a theory of moral sentiments and at smith theorized yeah you could we can have markets and markets can be competitive and people can be out for themselves but that needs to be within a framework of social solidarity but briefly recap the marx problem the canes problem and the polanyi problem in the era of neoliberalism under neoliberalism as we discussed you don't have the commitment to full employment uh so the marx problem of mass unemployment being the fundamental uh regulator the operations of the macro economy uh emerges full force under neoliberalism we eliminate financial regulations for the most part and that then leads to the emergence of the highly speculative bubbles financial bubbles that then led to the 2007 2008 2009 financial crisis and what about the issues of social solidarity well we certainly are seeing that all over the world i mean the rise of neo fascism is really a a marker in terms of people basically deciding we don't care about social solidarity we have gotten kicked around by the big shots the neoliberals the politicians that some of them talk a good game none of them deliver for us we've seen this for 40 years and so uh we have to fight for ourselves and we don't want immigrants uh we don't care about we don't want social institutions we don't want to pay taxes for that so that's really uh the three critical markers of neoliberalism let's wrap up with your thoughts on the way forward in a world facing massive unemployment on the scale of the great depression and where it is technically possible to generate decent jobs in all countries if instead of neoliberal macroeconomic policy making that blames workers for inflation macroeconomic policy was used to create and sustain decent jobs at full employment yeah we've had 40 years in which the class strength of the capitalists has uh been absolutely predominant and you can see that through the figures on inequality so that you know the level of inequality peaked in 1928 right before the great depression and the wall street crash where the top one percent got about 25 percent of all national income that that number after the great depression it collapsed top one percent had about 10 percent of national income way less proportionally and then with neoliberalism in the 1980 it started to rise again to where it is basically got back to the top one percent having about 25 percent of national income the difference between now and the 1930s is that now it is still staying at 20 you know the top one percent still has 25 percent of national income in the 1920s it was at that level 25 percent and then collapsed so the power of capital uh under neoliberalism has just been extraordinary has been really historically unprecedented what i'm advocating is yes a reversal uh back to something like a new deal tradition something like the kinds of things that uh bernie sanders was talking about in his campaign so you know sanders calls himself a socialist but really the types of policies he was advocating were basically along the lines of a new deal and so that's you were nice enough at the outset of the of this interview to mention the new book which is called climate crisis and the global green new deal so in addition to the issues of inequality obviously we have to focus on the issue of the climate crisis and what to do about it i see the the notion of the global green new deal is a way through which we can synthesize an egalitarian agenda and an ecological agenda we have to leave it there robert poland thank you thanks so much it's really been great talking to you and from janeva switzerland thank you for joining us in this episode of gpe news docs


Okay, good afternoon folks. Larry Pesavento for TFNN. We've got the stock market pretty strong today. We've got gold and silver down a little bit. We've got crude oil. It was up on the day sharply. Now it's slightly lower. Not a big deal there as of yet. And of course, we have the natural gas folks went below $2 per cubic foot today, folks. It was $10 per cubic foot early in January of this year. So it's had a slight retracement as they say in the trade. Anyway, it's a big move down. We're trading at $218 right now. The spot number for the April went hit $199. It's now trading at $203. But it is in liquidation now, folks. So it liquidates today. I think it's Friday is the last day for liquidation. Those are the main things that we're looking at. Treasury bonds and treasury notes, they're basically holding their own today. They're down very, very slightly after being sharply lower earlier in the day. And now they're holding up relatively well, given some of the other things that are going on here with these different things in the market. So it's going to be interesting to see what happens as we say in the trade. We have that NASDAQ is setting at that 382 retracement of the whole move down at $12,900. We got the down yesterday to $12,660. And then we had a pretty substantial move to the upside, which was a very positive figure. As we were watching it during the day yesterday, it looked like it was trying to make some type of a bottom. And it certainly did. Now going below that $12,200 now would constitute a failure. And that means stocks would probably go a lot lower. And that would make them more susceptible to being bought out for things like having the transportation that they need for certain things. And that's what you want to be watching. So we'll see if that's the case. Now, I don't mean transportation. Hold on just a second here, Larry. Let's get the act together. Oh, one other thing that we wanted to mention too, we have some big crop reports today. We have pig crop on Thursday and we're waiting to buy pigs. And we have soybeans, which is a big crop. And that's the planning intentions report. That's the big daddy rabbit. And that's the one on the 31st. You do not want to have a position into that one. That's for sure. It's very, very interesting to see if that's going to be the case. So we'll watch those as we go through each day here looking at some of these things. We have Thursday Friday. We'll take a break<PHONE_NUMBER>.


What you're privy to today is an Ant-Man in the Wasp Quantamania rant. Not a review, it's a little bit of a recap, mostly an airing of grievances. So if you liked Ant-Man in the Wasp, Ant-Man 3, Quantamania, maybe don't watch this. Or if you're open to other people's thoughts, ideas, critiques, stick around.  As you may have guessed, based on the shirt I'm wearing, I'm not that serious of a person. I have serious thoughts and ideas from time to time, but for the most part I just want to have fun, talk movies, get out, get entertained. Ant-Man in the Wasp Quantamania certainly can do that for people. Some people that haven't seen 35 Marvel movies already like myself in TV shows and whatever spin-off crap that's come out. For people that go to movies once in a while, this is a fine little film.  I was not impressed in the slightest to put it lightly, to put it mildly. I should point out, although I think it's probably pretty obvious, this is a spoiler video. There is a spoiler-free review on my channel, Adam Does Movies. Please subscribe. Please stick around. I'd love to have you. We're gonna break things down. We're gonna go a little bit in depth as much as I can remember. My brain was already on the floor by the time the credits rolled, so retaining the information that I saw is gonna be hard. And honestly, we have limited space up in this hard drive. I prefer not to have Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantamania plot points filling up the very small amount of room I have left. Speaking of small, this is Ant-Man. Why was there hardly any Ant-Stop? I mean, there were literal ants, of course, but I felt like the other films were far more creative when it came to shrinking things down and growing things and having fun with that technology. Maybe it was the fact that it was said in the real world that made it a little bit more fun, you know, seeing a giant pez go down the street, seeing him run up a gun. That was awesome. Or just escaping from a bathtub scenario where water is splashing down like the Niagara Falls. But now we have everything set in the quantum realm. And when nothing's real, then, I mean, what are we looking at here?  That's what. The plot of Ant-Man 3 is the plot of No Way Home Again. We have a dumb-ass decision which leads to cataclysmic events. Let's break that down. Let's really expand on that premise. We see Scott Lang when this movie starts kind of on Cloud 9. I think that's the expression. Everything seems to be going his way. He saved the galaxy. Everyone looks up to him. He's a hero. Sometimes they confuse him with Spider-Man, maybe because they read the script and they're like, oh, this is Spider-Man No Way Home Again. No, it's Ant-Man. It's Scott Lang. His daughter, Cassie, is not impressed with him. She's kind of garbage in this. I'm going to be honest. Both acting wise, terrible. And just the way she's written is kind of obnoxious. She doesn't really look highly on her dad, which is ironic because he would do anything for her.  He was gone a lot in her life. And the time that he was away, because, you know, the blip and everything, she was actually building technology that would take them into the quantum realm. She's just as smart as the old man. Fine, whatever. Shenanigans is going on there. Grandpa Pym took her under his wing, showed her the ropes, showed her how to communicate with ants, showed her how to build quantum things, I guess. It's a comic book movie. We'll let a little of it slide, right? What I won't let slide is just the poor setup, the poor premise of this. So we are to believe that all the years that have gone by where mommy Pym, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, who's still smoking hot, she has decided to forego telling everyone in her family about what happened in the quantum realm. Seems a little out of character for Dr. Hank, not to really prod, not to look for details from his wife, considering how meticulous he is with everything else. I mean, look at the ropes he made Scott jump through in the first movie just to see if he was the guy he wanted, the master burglar. Now he, I guess, doesn't have conversations with his wife. His estranged love, who's been gone from him for many, many years, only to return with a massive molar of a secret. An entirely different life, a second life in the quantum realm, where she apparently bedded a few other gentlemen. She has needs, she says. I have needs too.   So Cass, he's in the laboratory, or laboratory, if you will, and she's tinkering around with this way to do a communication with people on the other side. She doesn't know who she's talking to, she just sends a message out into the ether. Whole family gathers around the Christmas tree, as this thing lights up like the 4th of July. We have different metaphors going on here, it's confusing, I understand that, but let's keep going. It pulls them in after mom is like, unplug this thing! Scott's mom, not Cassie, sorry. Let's keep going. They unplug it, but it's too late. I mean, they did unplug it, yet somehow it was too late. So I don't really understand technology, and I don't think the writers of this do either. Something comes out of this machine, and it pulls the Swiss family Robinson in, and now they have to get out alive in one piece from the mess they caused themselves. It's how they ice-runk the kids in 2023, except for not near as good as that. The rest of the movie takes place in front of a green screen. I've been criticized for this several times. That's fair, you can criticize a critic. I'm open to suggestions, I'm open to recommendations all the time. But they say, Adam, how are you supposed to make a quantum realm if you don't use a green screen in CG? I'm old enough to remember movie sets. I'm old enough to remember that you can actually build things with your bare hands. You can make extrav- Have you seen Willy Wonka? That movie's not new. I mean, there's the Johnny Depp one. Regardless, both of them use practical effects to build a fantastical world. A tapestry of rich colors, vibrant setting, and characters that you didn't even need a computer generate. You just had to find some little people and spray paint them orange for an afternoon, and you're done. Here, though, we're back on the MCU train where everything has to be CG. And it's come a long way, and yet it's gone backwards in a lot of ways. If we look at Jurassic Park as an example, you take your whole, Adam, how are they supposed to build it when these things don't exist? Well, guess what? We don't have dinosaurs. We don't have dinosaurs last time I checked. Yet Jurassic Park, which came out in the 90s, built big-ass dinosaurs. And yes, there was CG mixed in too, but they were wise with it. They were smart with it. They put them in the shadows, behind leaves, in the dark. There's rarely a scene in that first film where it's broad daylight, and when it is, they may damn sure it worked. They may damn sure they framed it up. Contrast that with Ant-Man and the Wasp, Quantamania. You have characters standing clearly on green sound stages. The ground looks completely fake.  It's fantasy, right? You know, it's not real. Well, it matters because you already lose. You're already disconnected from that world and from the struggles these people are facing. I need my brain to be convinced. I need my eyeballs to be convinced that what I'm looking at is actually a threat. I need to know that these people are in some sort of danger, otherwise it's just noise. And that can only be exciting for so long. If you're just going to throw garbage at the screen, loud effects, make the movie an hour and a half. Let me get in and out of here. Don't push over two hours. That's a waste of everyone's time.  There's a sequence which I think opens the film up. It's a little rocky when it comes to the action department. We see Janet shooting these CG dog alien creatures. Rough choreography, to say the least. But there it actually looked like she was on a soundstage and they made a nice little set. And they go back to that set later when she's communicating with Kang. That's the only time I felt that I was involved in a scene. Where I knew, or at least they convinced me, that she was there with Kang. We can go the other direction with it too. If you look at a movie like Avatar 2, which maybe Avatar 1 would be better because I liked Avatar 1. Avatar 2, I did not care for the story. I thought it was terrible. However, the visuals and that world are rich. They're inviting. And because everything has a consistent look, you are invited in. You can be part of that much like an animated film. But these newer Marvel movies don't have that at all. It really genuinely feels like half the time they're just standing in place looking around in awe. And the animators do their best to build up these cool worlds. But nothing's being done with them. There's just shits blowing up. That's it. Stuff's blowing up. People are like, whoa, boom, boom, boom. This is a movie. I am disappointed we don't see the Ant-Man crew in this one either. Michael Pena's gone. That whole like robbery crew. We don't see the ex-wife or the fiance. They might be married at this point. I'm not sure. Regardless, they're not in there. And that's a shame because those were the fun characters that brought the Ant-Man world to life. I can't overstress this enough. The reason Ant-Man one and two work so well is because they were smaller scale. Because of the Ant stuff. But also just the story in general. It was lighter. It was, it was sillier. Now we put him in such a high stakes scenario and all the little charm is gone. And what's left is a family acting against backdrops. And once in a while, Kang shows up who's supposed to be this big bad new threat. I felt nothing about him. He did not impress me in the slightest in this. He had a cool factor, sure. But you need more than that. Thanos worked so well because he was this looming threat. You got him in end credit scenes. He showed up in Guardians of the Galaxy. He was always there. There was always the little whispers of him. So they really built him up. Like they built up John Wick in that first movie. Everybody knows who that Sandman is. You know, that guy that's gonna take you out. Baba Yaga. Is it Baba Yaga? We're gonna go with that. Baba something. Okay, he hunts you down. Everybody fears him. But we just are introduced to Kang with one of the Lamer Avengers and he's going toe to toe with him. And I think Kang's already been taken out once before in Loki. So I just, what are we doing here with this guy? You're not set in a good standard. You're not making me fear him at all. I digress. They get to the quantum realm. Janet eventually tells the whole family that, yeah, I'm a big deal down here. Everyone knows who I am. I pissed off the wrong people. I went against Kang.  This guy's the real deal.  He wants to blow stuff up. Not entirely sure why. It doesn't matter. That's just what a conqueror does, I guess. And her family's like, oh, why didn't you tell us? And she's like, I was ashamed. I was too scared of Kang. Yeah, no, no, I'm sorry. What? I'm sorry. What?  If you were that scared, you would say, hey, let's not toy with the quantum realm anymore. Let's not go back in there and collect bumblebees or fireflies or whatever the hell he was doing at the end of Ant-Man 2. Remember the uncredited scene where he's off collecting and then the snap happens and everyone goes away? Why didn't she say anything then? She didn't seem too concerned when she was sitting there overlooking the whole thing? She didn't seem too concerned then? Oh, dumb. We find out that Kang has been imprisoned and he's only one of many versions of Kang, of course, because everybody has different variants. Which, much like the green screen, disconnects people even more from any sort of stakes taking place. Because, yeah, sure, Iron Man made the ultimate sacrifice, snapped and killed himself, but there's other Iron Men. There's other Robert Downey's potentially that could come back to this character. Sure, it's not that one, right? But it kind of still is that one. I just, it loses its luster, it loses its magic, and I just don't care anymore. Since Kang has had a lot of time on his hands, he's amassed himself quite the army down there, quite the reputation, short for reputation. He has humans down there too. Where did they come from? Who are these people? I didn't understand that. Like, why are they humans? There's Broccoli Guy, Broccoli Joe. There's all sorts of people down here. No one really makes a comment about where these people came from. It's never, maybe it's mentioned. Maybe it's mentioned. I should maybe not count that as a negative, but I was sitting there thinking, where did these civilizations of people like spawn from? Let's get to the elephant in the room, at least when it comes to the size of the head, and that's Modoc. M-O-D-O-K based off a comic book character that people seem to really like. The only thing I know about Modoc is he was in that terrible Avengers video game, and he also had a show. I think it was done by the robot chicken crew. It was kind of that claymation stop motion style voiced by Patton Oswald. I tried like one episode. I wasn't really into it. Maybe it got better. He's a more goofy character in that. I don't really know how his real personality is. Just that he's like a super genius thing.   They don't really explain why the head got so large, or the rest of him got so small, but whatever, right? Nothing's explained anymore. It's all just silly. It's popcorn, laugh, love, live. Don't worry about things making sense. We don't. He was dumb, but entertaining. He was funny. I'm out of place. Just weirdly inconsistent whenever he showed up. He's cracking jokes. He has one of the cringiest back and forth conversations, one of the cringiest exchanges I've ever seen in my entire existence, and I've seen a lot of movies.  This is like top 10 worst dialogue exchange ever. Cassie takes him out, right? And he's like, how do I get better? How do I change? I don't want to be bad, which also bizarre character arc for this guy. He's got like all this advanced killing machinery. He's like top of his game, and he's like, but I really want to be good. Why?  Why do you suddenly want to be good? Whatever.  And he's like, what?  That's all.  Terrible. Terrible writing. Terrible performance there too. All around. All around just miserable. Why was that in the film? Cut that out. Even if you enjoyed this movie, please at least get on my side when it comes to how poor that was. How bad that was. I didn't like to look at this movie either. Looked like Power Rangers. It looked like Spy Kids 3D. And I like some of the Spy Kids movies. I don't like 3D. I don't like that one. And that's got Sylvester Stallone in it. So I'm kind of half on board, but it lost me. Lost me with the look. Lost me with the terrible effects. Why is this so bad? I'm sorry. We're so many movies in now. These should be getting better, not worse. But phase four was miserable, and phase five is not off to a good start. It really isn't.  And if that's what they're going for, fine. If you're going for the like 10 year olds or the young teenagers, that's cool. If that's what we're doing, right? That's gotta be. But I remember being a teenager and watching movies like Fight Club and Seven and thinking, man, these are freaking awesome. And even treading into like Donnie Darko and Mulholland Drive and being like, that's insane. But this, really? This is what you're watching and thinking, this was awesome. I just don't know if I can get on board with it.  Because now it's like an episode of a show. It's a two hour episode of a TV show and you're waiting for the cliffhanger so that you can salivate and want more.  The variants, by the way, awful, awful versions. I'm Kang. We can't wait to see what we have in store next. His voice, his performance.  Oh, it's gonna be grand. This is so bad. I forgot what the second one was. Oh, it's Loki. Loki season two. Cool. Loki was fine. Loki was fine. This wasn't fine for me. This was bad. The final fight between Ant-Man and Kang. Again, no real stakes. I was so checked out. Oh, is Scott Lang gonna die? Probably not. And he didn't, which fine, whatever. He kind of seemed different in this movie anyways. Paul Rudd loved him to death. Didn't seem very into it this time around. And maybe it's because it was a more serious character for him to play, not the jovial, more fun loving guy. Here he's, you know, yelling for his daughter constantly.  It really was.  They're building a civilization over there. Kang, I guess just doesn't care. He's got superpowers where he can Darth Vader people's asses around. Like, I can kill you whenever I want, except for he doesn't use it when it's useful. There's armies of people. Why can't he just pick them up and throw them? Can he pick up buildings and smash them down? I feel like this is a very underutilized ability. And it was also unclear as to how it worked. Was it part of his suit? Because I don't think he has any powers himself. It was just a lot. A lot of noise, a lot of spectacle, but nothing was that spectacular. I'm running very hot on this video. I understand that. I'm just kind of sick of it. I guess is the bottom line. There are so many movies that come out every year that are far better than this. Yet these are the ones everyone sees still. These are the popular ones that people go out and watch. When I put a review out on one of these, it does so much better than everything else I talk about. And that's kind of depressing. But also it's kind of pathetic that Disney spends $300 million on these things. And this is the final product. Where is the money going to? Pretty background wallpaper? And again, it's entertaining to watch pretty colors move around the screen. I would get lost for hours. Watching a Windows screensaver where there's just different colored pipes going around. Hours of my life have been wasted watching that. But I see the laziness in the story department. And that bothers me. And quite frankly, I don't need to praise it. I don't need to pretend to like something I don't like. I don't need to convince myself that what I'm watching is good. Because when I'm in the theater and I'm checked out thinking about other things I could be doing with my time, that means the movie didn't do its job. And so I have to do mine and talk about it. Alright, those are my thoughts on Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantamania. I probably missed something that you might be wanting me to talk about. I apologize if I did. Let me know in the comments what those are. Like the video if you had some fun. Again, please subscribe to the channel. Love to have you stick around. I post new movie content every single week here. It's a good time. Alright, thanks again for watching. Hopefully I see you next time. Take care.


Hello, all right, so we got to fix something gotta fix something first of all why Where's Rajah Mooli? Don't have it. I need dad Raj Mooli. I need dad R R R. Yeah, Ram Charan and junior They're not on there anywhere. No, and and you've told me to not hit SRK with my head But how am I how do I avoid this? I mean look and he's off kilter now.  You don't even see his face anymore stop touching stuff.  Thanks for patreon follows to account subscribe to like button How are things in the cesspool known as Twitter? Papa bear. I don't know. I've been It's free agency and NFL. So I've just been oh That's what paying attention to that you don't do the brackets do you for March Madness? Yeah, me neither college not at all. I don't watch basketball and I don't me too I I don't I I watched basketball when we lived in San Antonio and the Spurs were the great team that they were And I haven't followed it's been 15 years since I've watched basketball. Yeah, I don't I don't know anything about yeah, basketball Yeah, yeah, well, I know I know I know I like the game like that but anyways today We got a new trailer a Hindi trailer with Sarah Ali Khan and Vikrant. I'll see it's called gaslight Which is what Rick does all the time gas lighter. Yep It's my favorite thing to do and it's what Aaron Sorkin likes to put in scripts that are period pieces when the term didn't even exist anyways Let's see he's a great writer, but that was a big bone I had to pick among many with the Lucy movie.  I think that's who's Chitran God If it's not, please correct me in the comments below. Here we go. It's a new Disney hot star film Look at you. Get me buddy over you so good to see you Misha welcome home I Know directed by that guy So you need to say key That was a knee Raj was it Oh Geez Nice trailer it gave me a vague vibes of that horror film. We just watched what was it called in 1920 Is that what it was? Yeah, I did have I not have not not that it's a redesign or anything I think in everything in terms of like going to an old house. Oh, huh being a person that you think is there Yeah, I kind of kind of vibes. So it's looking like it's like a murder mystery slash vape like Like horror. Yeah, light horror Genre which is cool. Yeah, I hope it leans in I mean my personal preference is that it leans in a bit on the scary Yeah, but irrespective I I would absolutely watch that me to a vicarant messy obviously He's not a ghost, but he should be a ghost. Yep, and Sarah I like Khan nepotism. Yay. Yay It looks like because I don't believe she's gotten a lot of do in terms of like her acting career. Not yet It's a little more Gonna be on her shoulders in terms absolutely. She's the lead And it looks like she's playing a lady that's in a wheelchair for whatever reason And it didn't look like a big kind of production or anything like that But it looked like it's gonna be pretty acting and obviously kind of story driven. Yeah Film yeah, I'd be quite intrigued to see this. I would absolutely to and I'm rooting for her as I root for We've seen her on coffee with Karan, you know, we've said it over and over again, but it's Bottom line is it and if you saw the romantics you'd understand definitively for people who are in the industry That just because you're related to somebody doesn't mean it's gonna work One you have to have talent to you have to be accepted by the audience Yeah, and there's a lot of pressures that are put on kids of people in the industry that Non kids of people in the don't have to deal with there's there's there's yes, there's advantages There's pros and cons to everything so I'm rooting for her that it looks really good And is this I'm sorry. I missed it. This is a hot star Disney hot star. That's right So that the beginning right and so look it's going to straight to OTT kind of so it's probably going to be Hulu for us probably my my hope and it's looking like we're kind of getting there India is trying to make a lot more In the horror genre lately. Oh can please not and I don't think they've gone scary scary But they're really leaning into the horror comedy specifically. That's like yes genre that a lot of people like because it's more family friendly I guess But you know, even we haven't seen that subin horror one that we still but we haven't seen it because it's still in theaters Because it's doing really well in theaters. Yeah, but it's not playing here And so we have to wait for OTT. Yeah, and if keeps doing well, then they're gonna keep pushing back OTT release But and then we've seen this we saw the Malayalam horror film last year Bidya, which is the same which we still need to see which was that wolf one the same makers of street, right? Right, I think it's in the same universe. Is it I think okay I I think I heard something like that and we once again We didn't get to see it when it was here sadly But it feels like they're making a lot more even though this doesn't feel strict horror, but it has some horror It definitely has some horror. It's definitely in the in the psychological thriller mystery who done it and I I just I Would love of everywhere around the world. I would love to see and India could like just knock it out of the park and an online and OTT horror Series, oh, yeah, where every week you're looking forward to a new episode That's gonna scare the poop out of you and you're gonna be invested and interested in the characters The only ones in recent memory have have been the haunting of Hill House and the haunting of Bly Manor Which I can't get enough of that, but we don't need it to come just from one director, you know who'd be really good at the Amos the director of Amos. Oh my goodness. Yeah, like he would you'd be pretty good at that. Absolutely And you could do you could do another, you know, just just do a series where you have all of the great directors Take on an episode. So you have an on-your-og. You have of the Shaw. Well, you have a we have a we haven't done it yet But it's part of that whole series that Zoya on your on that anthology. Yeah, cuz they've done three mm-hmm lust stories Another one, but then one is ghost stories. Yes, I remember And so they they did something like that, but it was just an anthology movie. Yeah, we haven't gone through any of those movies yet Which we maybe we should maybe those are good for watch along since when is this drop 31st? I think it said great. Yeah, 31st of March great great great So, yeah, let us know what you thought about the trailer if you're excited for it if you're gonna watch it and Anything else we need to know down below


In the world of elite physical performance, sport, athletics, dance. Every moment is repeatedly captured, watched and analysed. Because even the smallest of margins can deliver the biggest of games. Now, with the Touch Surgery Enterprise platform, you can benefit from improved surgical performance by recording any MIS case. But surgery is not a spectator sport. Important standards must be met to safeguard patients and their confidentiality. With this safety in mind, our proprietary Redactor technology automatically blurs video outside of the body to preserve patient and staff privacy. Annotations can be added during or after the procedure and performance assessed so techniques can be refined and standardised. Then, once the procedure is complete, your video is immediately transferred to our high-security cloud-based servers where it can be organised into a library of procedures. Tag and categorise to make searching and scaling easy and without restriction. Easily access your private library on the go through the mobile app or compatible web browser. With just one tap on a mobile device, you can easily share with multiple colleagues, highlighting points of interest and allowing them to review the surgery and analytics. And simply and securely access your content anytime, anywhere. Identifying opportunities for targeted improvement. With the Touch Surgery Enterprise, you can unlock the power of surgical video and realise the benefits of improving performance of the whole team. Touch Surgery Enterprise Platform. What would having your entire case history at your fingertips make possible for you?


is set and we can start on the final part of today's ER session. So, let us get started with the solution. So, the tutorial was to design an ER diagram for a railway system which has a few basic piece of information highly simplified and let me first give you the solution. It is also available on the Moodle side, but not yet made visible because I did not want it to be visible until everyone has had a chance to try it out. I will make it visible at the end of today's session. So, the things which we need to model are basically we start with entities and then add the relationships. So, we have listed it informally here as part of the problem specification. In general what all do you think we would need to model in a railway system at least from a passenger information view point. The actual Indian railways needs to model lots and lots more stuff, but let us just worry about the passenger side of things. So, first of all you have stations of course, you go from one station to another and then you have tracks connecting stations. This is something passengers often do not need to really worry about, but occasionally they do because of rerouting and so on. And then you have trains and schedules for the trains. Then you have passenger bookings which go from one station to another on a train. So, now what are the details which we need for each of these things? We have made some simplifying assumptions here. So, first of all if you see tracks it is a pretty complicated actually. There are often multiple tracks between any pair of stations. Sometimes a track has a platform at a station, sometimes it does not. There are in suburban sections in Mumbai for example, there are fast tracks, slow tracks, some of the stations have platforms on all four tracks. Some have it on two only, some have six platforms. Life is pretty complicated in reality, but we have avoided all that and kept it very simple. And we are assuming that there are tracks connecting stations which are specified, specific stations. And we are going to assume there is just one track for simplicity and we are not going to worry about any further details of the tracks. We are just saying these two stations are connected by a direct track with nothing in between, no stations in between. Again in reality as you know there are many, many more things. There are points which connect to tracks, there are signals, there are cabins, there are what not, level crossings and so forth. Again we are simplifying life greatly. So, these are the basic entities. And now there are schedules which record what time a train passes through. Now what should this schedule be? Should it be an entity set? Should it be a relationship set and so forth? So, let us maybe go to the white board and start working on it. But yeah, before that this is a last couple of points from the problem statement. In reality trains can start on one day and reach next day, the day after that even in some cases. But to make our life simple we are just going to assume a time, the trains reach on the same day. So, you just need a start time and end time, that is it. And furthermore trains go through a number of stations and our schedule includes stations where the trains do not stop. This is sometimes published by the railways, sometimes not. But surely the railways knows when a train is supposed to go through a station regardless of whether it stops or not. So, our train schedule is going to contain the time through each station. And as the problem statement says if the train does not halt, we are going to make time in equal to time out. If it does halt, we will make sure it is at least a one minute halt. And then there is a sequence numbering, why is this important? If you see a relation with just the time in time out and so forth, maybe you could sort it, but you would not know which are adjacent stations and so forth. So, we are going to assume that the data will contain a sequence number, the order in which a train visits each station along its route. So, that is for the track. For the passenger booking side of things, as we said we already need to know which train which is the from station to station. And then we need the usual information about which coach, seat number, passenger names and so forth. Now, if you wanted to build an ER diagram where passengers are modeled as entities, we have to create a person or passenger entity. We have made it clear here that we do not want that. The Indian railways does not really care whether you have travelled with them 5 times before or 10 times before or you are coming for the first time. Airlines on the other hand are different. They have frequent flyer programs which aim to lure back passengers who have been regularly travelling with them and give them good deals. So, that they will, the people who travel most will be loyal to you and would not switch to some other airline. Railways does not need to do that. So, in the case of such an airline system, a passenger might be an entity because they want to keep track of all the journey, the trips that a particular passenger has made. So, again for the railways we decided we do not care about it. So, that is the set up. Now, let us start working on the ER diagram. Get the whiteboard up here. The first is we need to model a station. This station is an obviously an entity and what are the attributes of it? Usually there is a station code to uniquely identify a station. There is usually a name also for it, not just usually, all stations do have name and in general there may be other information, but I think for our purpose there is not much else that we need. That is it. Next we have the tracks which go between stations. So, that is a relationship. We will come back to it. What are the other entity? We have a train which is an entity. So, what are the attributes of train? There is a train number. There is a name. Maybe we should call it train name or some such thing and for our purpose that is it. In reality again there is a lot more detail associated with the train. How many coaches does it have? So on and so forth. What are the types of coaches? Again we are going to simplify our job, but if you want to make an actual booking system you do need that information. How many second class coaches? How many AC, third AC, second AC? How many seats in each? So forth. We are ignoring all that. Next we need to have a booking. So, what is a booking? We are going to treat a booking as an entity. Now if you had a passenger and a train and so forth maybe you could treat a booking as a relationship, but it would get a little messy. Passenger may have multiple bookings on a train and as we saw between a particular pair of entities you can have only one instance of a particular relationship. So, it is actually much cleaner to treat a booking as an entity rather than as a relationship. But now what is a booking for? Is it a booking for a train on a date? Is it a booking for a particular instance? So this is a train. The train is just a number and a name. So now we can think of a particular train running on a particular date. We could think of it as a week entity which is a train instance or some such thing. So that is an option. Let us keep it simple and not worry about it, but if we did wish to do that we could create a week entity link to train which is a particular instance of a train journey. So we are not going to do that. So now what is a booking? So a booking must have some kind of ID, booking ID PNR. Let us call it a PNR because that is what the Indian Railways calls it I think. And then what else is there with a booking? It usually has passenger name. So we could treat that as a multi-valued attribute perhaps, but actually it is a little more complex. Along with passenger name, so each passenger, what all does the thing record? It has a name, it has an age, gender and a seat or birth number. So we can put all that in there. But before that let us put the other details. A booking is for a particular train. So do we have to put that as an attribute? Should train number be an attribute of booking? No, because we are model train as an entity set. There should be a relationship between booking and a train. So let us say booking train is the relationship between booking and train number. A booking is also on a particular date. So let us put the date here. And furthermore a booking need not be from the starting point to the ending point of the train. It could be from any intermediate station to any other intermediate station. It does not matter which station. So what can we do here? We can have a from relationship and a booking to. So booking from one station to another and booking sorry booking from a station and to another station. And we have treated this as two separate relationship here. Now again there are other alternative designs possible. We could have had a turn way relationship which is which associates booking with two different stations. But it really is not important here. In this case a booking has to have a from and a to station and it cannot be associated with more than one from station and more than one to station. A turn way relationship is useful when you have multiple combinations. So maybe if you could have a booking which is from one station to another and the same booking can also be associated with another pair of stations then having a turn way thing might be meaningful. But here a turn way relationship is pretty meaningless. It is much cleaner to go with binary. Do not use a turn way or higher relationship unless there is good motivation. Here there is absolutely no motivation. So we have got a booking is from station to another station. What else do we need? We need to know the names and so on of passengers. So let us make it a multi-valued attribute. Name, age, outer space here. So I am going to continue this over here. This is not proper notation. This is just for convenience. So there is a multi-valued attribute which has name, age, maybe gender. I do not know if you can read that. It is a little small. And then continuing on there is a coach. I think the Indian Railways probably assigns all seats for a particular booking on the same coach. Maybe I am not sure. But let us assume that each person in a booking could be on a different coach. So we have a coach and then we have a seat of birth. Let us just call it seat. So this is now a multi-valued attribute. So this is a continuation. So the curly bracket starts here and inside the curly bracket we have a name, gender, age, coach and seat. So that is what we have as far as the booking is concerned. The last part that we wanted to model is that a train goes through a series of stations. And we want to know for each station what is the sequence number in the path of that train. And then there is one more. There is a track relationship. So there are two relationships which we still need to model. So let us start with the track relationship. Track is the relationship from station back to station. So we can, if tracks are directional that is traffic is only allowed to go in one direction. We might have a from and a to here. But in our simplified model we are assuming there is no directionality to the track. Just that these two stations are connected by a track. And then a train goes through a series of stations. So we need a relationship between train and station. So let us say travels through or we could call it schedule. Train goes through a station. But we actually need more information. We need to know what is the sequence number. Is it the first station in the journey of the train, the second and so on. May not stop but it is the first station that it passes through. So we want a sequence number. And then what else do we need? We want a time in and a time out. So these are all attributes of this relationship travels through. So that is the complete set of attributes. Now what if a train starts at the station? Then is there a time in for that station? Maybe you could track when the rake actually reaches the station. This is something which the railway sometimes announces but usually does not. So maybe time in should be left out and let us make it null. What about for the last station along the route that it does not actually leave that station officially? Of course once it drops off passengers it may be taken off to the yard for cleaning. So there is no time out for the last station. For all of the stations there will be a time in and a time out. Now note that travels through is a relationship between train and station. And as we said a particular train entity and a particular station entity cannot be related by more than once on the same relationship. So the primary key for travels through would be station code which is the primary key for station and train number which is the primary key for train. Now this rules out trains which pass through the same station multiple times within a particular trip. I do not know if such trains exist. I would not be surprised if there are some weird routes that do this. Unlikely but not impossible. But we have ruled out such things here. I mean I do know that there are stations where the train actually temporarily leaves the station and comes back in order to reverse the rake or some such thing. So those are not really modeled here. So what we have is now reasonably complete ER diagram for the train thing which we started off. If there are any questions about this please ask. I am already seeing a few questions on chat. So I urge all of you who have questions to please ask it on chat. The first question I am seeing is how a gender and age a multivalued attribute. Actually what we have here is it is not that each is a multivalued attribute. It is actually a composite attribute which has name, age, gender, coach, seat and that whole thing is multivalued. What does that mean? Think of name, age, gender, coach, seat as one double. The multivalued attribute here is like a set of such double much like a relation nested inside of a entity here. So if a name, if passenger were an entity we could not just take name here. We would have had a relationship with passenger and then age, gender and so on would be part of passenger and then coach, seat could be part of the relationship attributes for the relationship between booking and passenger. So that is an alternative. Other questions on chat. There is a question before this which is differences between ER diagrams and UML diagrams. UML is a big thing. UML class diagrams are the part which are closely related to ER diagrams. So in our slides we do have details of comparing our ER notation with UML class diagram. I kind of rushed through that at the end of today morning session. So if you can go back to those slides and see the comparison, the notation differences between our ER notation and the UML class diagram. Now obviously if you use some other ER notation there are going to be other differences also. Ours is very close to class diagram. There are other questions on chat. Meanwhile maybe we can take some questions live. Team college boy sir. Sir how to convert the schema into relationship? In general. That is a good question. So that by converting this particular schema into a set of relations. So that would be a good exercise. So let us keep this schema in mind. So let us take station. Station is going to become a relation and then track is going to become a relation. These are all entities and relationships. Train is going to be a relation. Before that we need to add the constraints on this because that affects the relational design. I forgot to put constraints on this. So let us put the relevant one. Booking is obviously for a particular train. It cannot be for two trains. So there is an arrow there from booking to train. Now similarly booking is from one station and to one station. So we have and similarly here and moreover a booking must have a from and to station. So this is a total relationship and a booking must be for a train. So that is also total. Now how about train travels through? Is that a total relationship? Train at better travel through at least one station. In fact at least two. So we could actually put a more complex cardinality constraint here. Total means at least one, that means a train should participate in at least one instance of travel through. But in fact a train has to have a start and a stop station and maybe other stations along the way. So the minimum is two. So a train must travel through at least two stations and so let us put two and it can travel through many stations. We really do not have a bond on it. How many? We do not know. Depends. So two dot dot star. This is saying more than just total. Total means one dot dot something. Two dot dot star is a little stronger than just total relationship. And on the other side should the relationship between station and travels through, does it have to be total? Not necessarily. There could be stations which do not have any train traveling through them at least scheduled train. Apparently in Pakistan this has been happening. The railway system is in the shambles and they have stopped many, many train routes. So there are many stations with no trains going through them. Luckily I think that is not been happening in India. So we are not going to enforce a constraint that a station must participate and travel through. How about a track? Can you have a station with no track? I do not think so. So maybe we should enforce that a station must participate in track. So if it must have a track, coming in it must have a track, going out. So it is participation on both sides of track. If trackway directional would be total. Now it must have at least one but it could have more than one also. In fact it is not bounded. So we could just make it total which is equivalent of saying one dot dot star or we could make it explicit here. So let me just illustrate the other notation. I will say one dot dot star on both sides. That is the same as saying total. So those are the constraints. So I think we have all the constraints that we want and now we can start on the relational schema design. So the first step is to create a relation for each of the station, train, track and so forth. And what about this relation? Booking train, booking from booking to, are they going to be separate relations? Now remember these are many to one relationships with total participation. So in all these cases we can fold those relationships, those relations into the booking relation itself. So booking can have an attribute called from, an attribute called to and an attribute called train number. So we are going to do that. There are no separate relations for these three relationships. How about travels through? Travels through is not many to one, it is many to many. So for that we will have to have a separate relation. So now let us start listing the relation. The first one is station. Now note that this is a schema diagram. It is no longer a ER diagram. I want to point this out and I want to draw it this way because many times people get confused between these. A schema diagram is showing an actual relational schema. Therefore attributes like from to and you know train number which would have been relationships in an ER diagram get folded in and become attributes in the schema diagram. So the notation is different, do not get confused between the two. So station has a station code. That is actually going to look much like the entity and it has a name. Then you have travels through this thing is going to have unlike the relationship it is going to have the primary keys of all the participating entities in this case station and train. So train number, station code. So those are the primary key attributes. Since it is many to many both of them together will form the primary key here and then we have the remaining attributes. So train is a sequence number time in, time out. So now what about train? Train becomes a relation also. That is straight forward. There is nothing new here. Train number and name and no new attributes. Now we have a foreign key constraint. Note that since this was a relationship which became a relation, train number will be a foreign key this way and station code will be a foreign key. Now note that the arrows in the schema diagram are foreign keys. They are not relationships they are foreign keys because attribute is here and it refers to that. Then moving on booking is a relation which now has several attributes. It has a P and R. All the basic attributes are the same as before date. It has a multi valued attribute which we cannot put in line. We have to make it a separate relation. So we will hold off on the multi valued attribute. But it also has the relationships. Let me just show it to you. If you can see it now, the booking has booking to, booking from and booking train. Three relationships. Each of those is going to become an attribute of booking as we saw from to and train number and yeah, train number that is it as far as the attributes of booking go. But note that from to and train number were relationships which were folded in. So each of these is going to become a foreign key. So from is to station. Two is also to station. While train number is a foreign key referencing. Now what else is left? We have to have the multi valued attribute which is going to become a new thing. It will become P and R. It is a primary key and then all the attributes of the multi valued attribute which were name, age, gender, coach and seat. Now we have to give a name to this. So let us call it booking details. Now what are the primary keys of these things? For booking P and R is the primary key as we saw. Nothing new. For train, train number is the primary key. For booking details the P and R is not primary key by itself. You need more. So if there are two passengers with the same name on the same booking is that allowed. I kind of doubt it, but if it is allowed then you may need to distinguish them in some way. So instead of name the other option is use P and R, coach and seat as the primary key. So it is not possible for two passengers to be given the same coach and seat. So these three together will uniquely identify a particular tuple in the booking details table. And for that tuple, for that seat who is it being allocated to what is the reagent gender. So that completes the relational schema for this particular ER diagram. So the second part of today's tutorial is an ER diagram for this program. What is this program? This particular workshop which all of us are participating in. So we want to model various entities. What are the things we would model here? We do want to model participants, the people. We want to model resource centers where all of you are located. And IIT Bombay could also be a resource center, a central one, but still it is a resource center. And then we want to model who is the coordinator at each resource center. We want to model the capacity of each center and the faculty who are attending at each resource center. And for each person we also want to know which institute they are from. So there are a few entities which we have to decide on. Obviously person would be an entity here. Resource center would be an entity. What other entities do we have? We might want to model the institute to which a person belongs as an entity. Why? Because we may want to have like restrictions on you know so many participants from a particular institute and so forth. And we want to know which all colleges have participated in this program. If we just turn it into an attribute of person, you can put in any old value there and there will be chaos. So we want to model institutes as entities. So let us keeping that in mind, let us start on the diagram. So we have a person. Now how is the person identified for the purpose of workshop like this? There is usually an ID, name and any other information that the workshop may choose to collect about that person. And then there is an institute which is where they are from. So we may have a unique key for it which is again created somehow. Let us call it instiD. Then we may have a name, location and may be a few more attributes which whatever we wish to keep track of. And now we need a relationship between the two. Where is this person from? So we can say space is a little limited here. And if you can read that it says belongs to, you probably cannot read it. It is too small. That says belongs to. Can a person belong to more than one institute? No. So let us put in that constraint right away that a person belongs to only one institute. And a person must belong to an institute for the purpose of this workshop. You cannot just walk in from nowhere and participate. Therefore a person must have a total participation and belongs to. So that is one part. Then we have a resource center. Again we will have let us call it RID, resource center ID. We have a name, capacity. Now typically resource center is actually part of an institution. It is not separate. So instead of modeling it like that, instead of having resource center ID here, we could have modeled it differently also. We could have used the institute ID. So if you had at most one resource center per institute, then we could just turn this into it could even be a, what are the options we have? It could be a weak entity identified by the institute. Because it has to belong to an institute. And if we only allow one resource center per institute, there is no need even for a discriminator. That is no key and so you can just get rid of RID name. Everything can go and it simply becomes a weak entity with only one attribute capacity or other things which you want, descriptive attribute. And linked by a identifying relationship part of let us say resource center now part of the institute. So we have forced that. We could keep it independent by having a separate resource center ID. I am not sure how it is actually done for this program, whether there are separate IDs for resource centers and institutes. Then we need to know that a person attends this course at a resource center. Now all of this we have simplified by saying it is just for one course. You may want to model courses and so on, but we have kept it simple because we just had a limited time. So we may have a person attends a resource center. So for one course, the person can presumably attend only one resource center and must attend it. Well not must attend. Some people may not attend. They may be coordinators and so forth. So at most one resource center let us put an arrow that. Now we said we also want to keep track of who is the coordinator for each resource center. So let us make that another relationship coordinator between resource center and person. Now depending on whether we allow more than one coordinator we might have arrow or not. If we allow only one resource, one coordinator per resource center then we would have an arrow like that. So what else do we need? Sometimes we have a registration number for a person. We may have a person ID and the person is attaining this resource center, but we have a sequential number 1, 2, 3 within the resource center for convenience. We could certainly do with the person ID, but if you wanted a sequence number, roll number of some kind or registration number we could add that also. The registration number is some kind of confirmation that yes you have registered with us and this is a number which is given as confirmation. So that basically wraps up our year design for this particular task. Again there are many variants possible. We will not go into every one of them. So let us stop the design here and now we will take questions. We have NRA institute, Bhopal please go ahead. Sir, I have a single query. You told in 7.27, slide number 7.27 how entity, so my question is how entity set plays a role in relationship. Give another example other than that prerequisite role. The role. So we actually had several examples right in the previous one. Let me go to the white board. So here we had track which is between two stations. Now here we did not bother giving a role identifier because it is kind of symmetric. However, if you have a directional track and the railways actually does bother about this. If you have two tracks, they have different track number and they may be called something as simple as up and down. But let us say that they have a separate number and then a track is if it is directional also. This is typically how the railways operate. Tracks are direction assuming that at least two tracks. There are segments with single tracks where the track is not directional. Trains go in both directions. But typically you have two tracks at least and tracks are directed. So then track here would look like this. We have not given a role name here, but we would have to do it in that case and role names would be from and so we have role indicators along with the edges. So it is a relationship from station back to station, but we have two separate role names and when we end up creating a relation from the track relationship, the two attributes of that track relation will be from and to. So we have a direction established from one station to another station. Did I answer your question? Sir, can we add another attribute or we can say column in the same table station so that this problem can be solved? Can we add another column for this same station table? Yes sir, for the track. Adding a column to the station table is not going to help you because there may be many tracks into and out of a particular station. So the only way to model this is by having the roles for the track from and to. You cannot link it with the station in any way. Does that answer your question? That if we have a generalized entity that how can we represent its actual occurrence in the program or in the database. So a person is a generalized entity with specialization being employee and student and so forth. So if the question is how do you translate this to a relational schema, then we saw that. We saw two different ways of translating it. In both the cases we had tables for person, student and employee but the attributes in those tables were different. There is also a special case where we can do away with the person table. If we know that the specialization is total that is every person must be a student or an employee and furthermore it is non-overlapping. So everyone can be only one of employee or student can be both. Then we can get rid of the person table but otherwise we have to keep the person table along with the employee and student table. Does that answer your question or is it something else again? That means instantiating an object only from the generalized class. So if you think of it in terms of objects then you have an object which can play multiple roles. It can be a person, it can be a student, it can be an employee. Now most object oriented programming languages insist that an object must have a most specific type. That is you cannot have an object which can be both a person and an employee and a student. It can be a person and a student by virtue of being a student. It is automatically all the super classes. If it is an employee it will automatically be a person also. But it cannot be an employee and a student unless you have one more class below it which is both an employee and a student. Then the most specific class of the object would be that other thing. But that is not a fundamental restriction of the idea of object orientation. In fact some of the oldest object oriented languages allowed to take on multiple roles and to be in multiple classes without having to be in a most specific class. I do not know this was related to your question but it is a point to be noted here. When we go from this to object oriented data, we are not going to cover it here but that was an issue which people had to sort out. So I think the object oriented features in the SQL standard also went the same route and said that a particular object in object oriented SQL must belong to a most specific class. But the specialization generalization of ER modeling is more general. It allows anything to happen and this is actually the right way of doing things. Thank you sir. Government engineering college Bikaner, please go ahead. Sir, I had to query regarding this resource center problem. Actually there might be N number of workshops held at a resource center and a person can be involved in N number of workshops at a time. So how do you model these two? That is a good question. I simplified life a bit by saying this is for a single workshop but in general there can be many workshops. So how do we model that? So let us go back to the diagram and then see how to modify it. So what we have here is somebody is a coordinator for a resource center, attends a resource center and so forth. But actually they do not attend resource center. You are attending a particular workshop at a particular resource center. So what we want is something which models this that somebody is attending a workshop at a resource center. Now we have a few options for this. So maybe we can have a ternary relationship which links person, workshop and a resource center. So first of all we have to introduce a notion of workshops. This DBMS course is one such workshop and then there are other workshops. So let us add a workshop here. Do not have much space in this figure. Let us work with what we have. So we have workshop and there may be a name, date and so forth. So the coordinator's workshop is one workshop. The main workshop which is going on is another workshop. Now we could have a person who is in a workshop at a resource center. So each of these coordinator and attend could become ternary relationships. So now we could simply add that and this. So now we have ternary relationships to model this issue. But there are alternatives. We could have modeled instead of a resource center workshop. We could also have something which is a relationship between a resource center and a workshop. So what we have not modeled is the fact that a resource center is linked to a workshop independent of the coordinator. So even if we do not have a coordinator at this point, a resource center may have agreed to run a workshop. So maybe there is a relationship. We can give it some suitable name. I would not give a name right now which links a resource center to a workshop. So now this relationship can be turned into an aggregation. So I did not really cover aggregation. But aggregation in the ER modeling context takes a relationship and treats it as an entity. So this relationship between a resource center and a workshop could be treated as an entity. So then in diagrammatic notation let me start a new sheet here because this is getting too messy. We would have resource center not going to show the attributes. Just the entity set workshop. This is a center for this particular resource center is acting as a center for this workshop. And now things are related to this relationship. That is the person can participate in this. They can be a coordinator for this and so forth. So now what aggregation does is take this relationship and treat it as an entity. Diagrammatically we show this relationship with a name and identified by the other entity sets a participate and then draw a box around it. And now we can link this to person. So now a person can participate in this. Attend this person can attend this. A person can be coordinator for this. So what we have done is include the specific workshop and we have a nice example of a aggregation. Now the aggregation basically what did it do? We had ternary relationships. By taking one relationship the center for and turning it an aggregation we have now replaced those two ternary relationships by two binary relationships. And it is really easier to understand this. It is a little cleaner. In terms of the relations that get created in the end it will be pretty similar. There is not a big difference. I did not talk about how to convert aggregations to relational schema and so on. All those details are in the book slides which are online. But the final result will look pretty similar. But in terms of the ER diagram this looks a little cleaner. But it is an option. You could do the other one also. That is also fine. It is not nothing very wrong with it. So is there any follow up question on that? Sir, so we treated this resource center workshop as a single entity for the relation in this aggregated resource. Thank you sir. I think we should probably break now.