Okay, so welcome to the talk of provided calling. I'm going to show you something interesting because there are some people are asking for RC, if you'd like better to understand how to use the call. So that's why I'm going to do some demonstrations. So I see what to do, like everybody's got their own game to do, which is the error register, which makes a big difference. D, the program. Call B is one of the tools for the company to set up, define its profile, and what it basically does, it interprets the program. Yeah, it interprets the program. It basically tries to set the records, all it takes a little bit. So you can get something called. It records it, and it will give you a call graph and it will also give you a text. And there is a countercard, which is the tool to visualize it.  Here you have function B, which goes more than nine times. And there you call one of the letters of real estate, one of the real estate letters. It will take 19% of the time. It will take just that person. So if we are on the tool and just have a little result, basically the visualization is mainly used. It moves from the view of the Cormie man interpretation. So this is the small function, which spends like four... You can't do that. You can't do that. So basically it wants cause you can see the visual representation. This is just a small part of the program. And here we have the views like this in the summary. This is the standard which is spending. This is the inclusive cost and how much time it's spending in the function and everything it costs. And here, just itself, it just spent in the function itself. So for example, here we can see that the vast majority of the program is in function C. And there are some functions here. Show you this program and it's percent. So we can see that that's basically like 90% of 10%. Just think we will, and we can see what cost each function. So for example, in the center, we can see that it's called from main. We can inspect the source code which also shows some information in the source code. Here's the source code for main and you can see that the vast majority of time spent in the main is called from C as well. Yeah, so this part of the life is like a summary of the skeleton stuff like we're just going to source code and inclusive this time which is spent in the function and it calls recursively. It calls an incident that's spent in the main and everything it calls which is basically usually the more inclusive time. The self-time is usually when you actually find something which won't improve life. If something has a bit inclusive time, it's self-time usually. Our option is maybe something is called some kind of sort of a kind of something called an inclusive time. It's often not just a simple tree sometimes a better person actually like you may have a function which in some conditions is made in the core here or this one sometimes may hold this for example the edge number the size of the status that you We have info for each role, but we have info for a million calls and we are trying to find out whether we can in order to make something call less. So we are trying to have inclusive calls, it's function. It needs to be improved because of this function, but this function needs to be improved because of this function. So if I like the functions, it should be improved each other, and it's going to be C, which is going to be number 2 and B. So this file, if it looks sometimes confusing, it's necessary to be caught. As I said, there is a cycle and you may be found making something many times more. It pops. Or maybe you just follow those words and it pops. If you want that, then start counts, stop counts, start counts. It's something important to look at. Profiling to separate your instrumentation account. Let's see where the most important ones are. They start with A, you can go down. In this case, I'm going to turn it off simply. We shall have shows again. This is just shows then, this is in parts. It's not just that they are more boring. We can see that there is a sweet list of listeners, which answers the name. And it describes when you start expensively screening formula. Instead of just asking. And your improvement is not as big as this shows. Because...


A six-month-long Maharishika Bharat Dharmayatra, 108 days of free open-to-all satsas, 10,000 kilometers of travel by road, numerous locations, the existential suffering of thousands reduced, countless lives transformed forever, become part of this chapter of history in the making. Maharishika, with her Sangha, will travel from the ancient lands of Parashurama Bhumit in Goa to Mumbai, from Mumbai to the Himalayas to Rishikesh and beloved Maganga, from Rishikesh, crossing to the east to the land of the great goddess in Bengal, then down south to the sacred mountain of Thiruvannamalai, and from Thiruvannamalai over Mumbai back to Rishikesh, encircling Bharat Varsh, the cradle of Sanatana Dharma. Please donate immediately to support Maharishika's unrelenting call to realize self and act from source. Donate for this revolutionary teaching to reach millions. The teaching that connects you to the Guru within, the source, the truth, the Mahantaratman, click on the link in the description box below to make your generous contribution to this epic yatra. Invite Bhunya, invite Brace into your life, as your ancestors did, support the human quest for the truth. I first met you in Rishikesh for one life, Satsang. I think that was in 2019. Very resistant to your teaching first, I did not want to hear it. I changed my mind. So recently I I watched every video I could get on YouTube. And my question has to do with the conflict I'm in. Your teaching, which I love very much and which I would love to put much more into practice because I feel I need to be in contact with my inner guru. It's difficult for me because I already have a guru. I've been initiated by Sri Ramakanth Maharaj in Nashik India in 2017. He's a disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj. Since then I'm practicing four pajams every day and at least two hours of mantra meditation. And this mantra is very powerful. It brought up a lot of my own dark tendencies. I saw them so clearly and it's very painful. I experienced again and again that I would behave aggressively in contact. So I just pulled back not to cause too much havoc. My question is, how could I find my inner guru? That's also what Maharaj teaches. You have to find your inner guru. That's the most important thing. Before you can be loyal to any master, you must be in contact with your inner guru. But on the other hand, he says, you must be loyal to the guru, not just change gurus and go here and there. So how could I realize your teaching of finding the inner guru, following the inner truth first and still not go away from Maharaj? Because there's an inner conflict. Well, this is really a conflict. I feel it's not a simple thing. It's almost existential. So I would like to put into perspective first what you have presented. So from what I've understood, you have first listened to me some years ago. I think in 2019, you said. And it was not a teaching which spoke to you. You have a guru now who has been teaching you to, or training you to get in touch with your inner guru. You then have started opening up to my teaching which clearly speaks about the inner guru. And now you have a conflict because if you have to move towards the inner guru, you would have to also follow more and more of what I'm saying, which is not directly perhaps in conflict to what your guru is saying, but then how do you maintain loyalty to him? Right. This is not an easy thing to handle. I understand that dilemma that you're in. I normally tell people who have a guru, take permission from your guru and ask the guru if you can take up this practice.  Oh, she's amazing. And she has this brilliant teaching and she's this. It's about, do I love her or do I love him or not? Do I feel a deep, deep love and gratitude? If I do, then that person is my guru and otherwise the person is not. So if you feel that love for your guru, you also have the possibility to speak with him, explain to him what is going on, explain to him what has happened and tell him that I told you that you should speak to him because if you leave him and you abandon him and you come and take up another teaching, I can't imagine then that things go very well for you because having a guru is not just going into a supermarket and picking up the chocolate where you like to cover the most. It's a lot more than that. And it's a commitment, it's connection, it's a love. So if you have that kind of relationship with him, then it's a good idea to talk to him. I mean, he would understand your dilemma in terms of the teaching here. I don't say that you have to find your inner guru first before you can find your outer guru. The steps are clear as it is taught in the subcontinent over the millennia and it was also taught in Europe and in all ancient cultures. It was first the bowing down to the parents, then it was the bowing down to the deities, to the gods, to whatever was considered suprarational beings of power. And then it was the bowing down to the human version of the supernatural or the human representative who was the guru or the shaman, depending on what culture. And then finally that guru would show you the inner guru. So the parents showed you the gods, the gods showed you the guru and the guru showed you the final destination which is the antar guru, the inner master. So the guru basically is here to direct you towards that inner master. And that is what I am very clear about speaking here and also teaching. I show how to tune into that inner master. And sometimes depending on the culture you come from, you will have more or less of guru vada involved like say for an Indian it's easier because it's culturally more familiar for the Europeans it's more difficult because there is a history of religion here and a religion which clearly stated that a human master is not what you should be aiming at because there is just you and the divine and the church makes the connection between yourself and the divine. In such a case of course spiritual masters have practically no space or place. So after the advent of religion in Europe and the Middle East there was a decline in the presence of spiritual masters which is now of course changing as religion and its impacts decline in different parts of the world. So for you in order to come out of that dilemma it's best to talk with the one with whom you connect as a guru, as a teacher and ask him what he thinks. And then based on that you make your decision. Your question is also is it possible to have two gurus? Some people do have two gurus it's rare but they do. They actually move from one to the next to the next. My advice generally to people is till the age of 36 it's okay to keep on doing your guru tourism but at one point it's better to fix on one and then to flow with that unless of course it's a criminal guru who makes you do things which go against the law of the land. That is not okay. First step, talk to him, see what he says. Ask him if you can take up this course of practice and if he's in agreement you can take up this course of practice. If he's not in agreement you need to think for yourself what is it you're going to do? Apart from which regarding mantras that bring up the dark side of you. That is actually no dark side. That is simply ego that is revealed and it is important when ego is revealed to move past the ego to the core of the being and to the center of the being to the light which is at your center. So it's a difficult thing to do but it has to be done that once all this comes up it's out and you move towards your center. First thank you so much that I have another opportunity. Very grateful. It's also very good when people ask questions. You're also giving when you're doing that because when you ask a question which can help also another it contributes to this whole satsang. So it's a give and take. Yes, go ahead, ask your question. I thought from you that if you love him he is your guru. Then you can ask him. I must confess when I took the initiation I really took it, I did not receive it. Which means my impulse to go to this master was very much inspired by ego. Ah, yes. I felt that's a famous master. I want to go there and take the initiation. It was not in a state of surrender. I was very greedy and I was even aware that I did not meet the requirements for initiation which were clearly set up by him and still I asked him for initiation. So I feel this has been an act of trespassing there is a super imposition on this relationship by this trespassing. It's not a clean relationship. No relationship is clean. Don't beat yourself so much. Well, yes. You know what you're doing? You're trying to look for a way out of that commitment. You're trying to say that well it was something I pushed through so maybe it's not exactly so I don't have to really and this is not the way to proceed because there's no relationship is clean. Every relationship has an issue and a problem and a this and a that and an up and a down. You don't have to beat yourself. It's fine. You have been greedy but your greed has been for spiritual knowledge. The thing is that people go for spiritual knowledge because of different reasons. Sometimes it's because they really, really want to know what is this life about? Sometimes they do it because they've been pushed into a corner by life and they cannot get out. There is so much pain and so much trouble and so unhappy and so miserable and suffering that much that they can only look for a spiritual way out. And then there are those who take up a spiritual let's say a spiritual path because they want to have power over other people. So the question is what was your motivation? My motivation was very much mixed up. Another thing I remember you saying is in India you learn to bow to your parents first then you learn to bow to God then to Guru. I have trained myself throughout my life just the opposite way. I didn't bow to my parents.  Throughout my school time I was arrogant towards teachers, towards professors and the university and even towards the spiritual masters. Now you're paying the price for all your arrogance. Yes. Now you're all confused what am I supposed to do now? I want to go towards the soul but then I have to take this and see that's where the arrogance leads you so now don't be arrogant. Just be relaxed, trust. Have trust in your spiritual master. Talk to him, tell him, you can also show him maybe a video or something. The point is here left his body one year after I took initiation so I cannot meet him in his body anymore. He's not in his body. No. Well then he's not in his body so there's no problem. Well he said when you really take the initiation seriously I will be with you no matter whether I'm in the body or not. Exactly, so he probably brought you to me. I would be very grateful if this was the case. Why do you think you're around? You came not to me some years back and you were not... you were not so thrilled or what? Well what you were teaching in Rishikesh was against everything I had thought. It destroyed all my systems and I didn't want them to be destroyed. Fully understandable, fully understandable. Don't beat yourself if the master is not in the body. See the difference between a master who has left the body and a master who's in the body is that the master who's in the body can give you two slaps if required. I don't mean necessarily physical slaps. It can also be just conceptual slaps, you know. But a master who has left the body whatever comes after that is religion because there is no physical presence. Yes, I do understand that we have connections to people who have passed away and they are beautiful connections and you should maintain that connection of love. But if he's not in the body, how are you going to ask him? Will you be able to get an answer? You can ask him to tell you in your dreams maybe. You can try if you want. I cannot ask him because there is not this deep love relationship from my side. You are not in love with anybody, that's the point. Right. And it's fine, it's okay, there are many people like that. But perhaps your time has come now to start to love yourself because you can't love somebody else if you don't love yourself. You cannot. It's not an easy thing to just love somebody. First you have to love yourself, which is what he told you. First you have to find yourself and then you can, you know, it goes both ways. So you have convinced yourself over your lifetime just because you have an intellectual ability that you actually know. But knowledge is not the same thing as intellectual ability, you know. And knowledge doesn't come from thinking, it comes from not thinking. See what I mean. So for you, the process now is to surrender, to be quiet. Not to try to grasp and grab and gain, but to give, to give. You have to learn to give. It's beautiful, it's a beautiful way to proceed. I don't know if you're going to do it. That is up to you. But this is a chance.  And you should take it as a chance to reach that which is your core, your center, your truth, you know. Then maybe you will also be able to experience that love and to love the other. Love would be a blessing. You also have to be very careful because, you know, it's a female guru and that love cannot be a male-female thing because then you'll go in a mess again. Know what I mean? You cannot see this person sitting here as a female. It is a guru. It is a source of truth. Understand?  I sure do wish to do that and I know where it's such a difficult task. It's such a beautiful experience to actually feel oneself, to learn how to self-realize. But you have to also make an effort and you have to give. You cannot sit and sort of think you're going to find yourself. You have to go into a role of giving on all levels, on all levels. You have to give to the other. It's not about you. It's about the other. That's how you have to think. And I'm saying this to you. I'm not saying this to others on this satsang. This is especially meant for someone like you. I have a feeling that you might actually go into a very powerful process of self-realization. But remember one thing.  It can be quite tough. So don't don't get fooled because I'm smiling at you. That's the best thing that ever can happen to me. Because of your intelligence, you've got away with a lot in this life. And now it's time to stop with all the thinking and start with the actual being, you know. And already you are probably planning out strategies of how you can outsmart me. But you won't succeed in that. You just won't. I can tell you that already. I'm not saying it out of pride. I'm just saying it to strengthen you and to help you. No, it's a promise. When you say, I won't be able to outsmart you, it's a promise. Well, it's not a promise. It's a statement of fact. It will be all right. Don't worry. Don't think too much. Just do your sadhana of tuning into the source. That's the important thing.  Namaskar. Namaskar.


What's up everybody, Jason here for jazzybyscasebreak.com. 2022 Panini Immaculate Baseball just sold out, eight box case break, pick and jeans number three. And again guys, fresh case. Here is the list of names. We just had to do a three team R&B, everybody else is in of course. And here's the names with the teams. So another case of Immaculate down. Let me actually scan this out for the inventory purposes. And let's lower this down for copyrights. Don't want to get copyrighted. Let's open up the case and let's have some fun. I feel like we've yet to pull, I mean we pulled a Bobby Whitt I think in the last case, but we've yet to pull like a Wander, you know, we'll assume Julio's in this, isn't he? Or no? I'm assuming he is. All the bigger rookies. I think Bobby Whitt's been like the biggest rookie so far we've pulled. All right, here we go. Tristan McKenzie, nice three color patches there, 17 out of 25. That is for the land going to John. We have a Chris Bryant to 25 for the Colorado Rockies. Walter with that one. A little eye black patch autographs to 36, sorry, Glen Otto. That is for Texas. Going to Curtis. Love a little Goldie, Paul Goldschmidt for the St. Louis Cardinals. That's four of 15. St. Louis going to Matthew Wood. We have a Camilo Duvall to 48, two color patch and eye black for the Giants that is James and Greg Deichmann for the Cubs, 19 out of 49. Three color patches at the bottom, triple relic. Jeremy on the board there, buddy. All right, next one. So Suzuki is in this. Nice. This will be one of the first times we're going to see his autographs. I feel like, I don't feel like I've seen his autographs at all. We have Sonny Gray. I think he's only been in a couple products and they've been like Panini ones actually. Sonny Gray, Minnesota. It's going to Daniel. We have Tony Gwynn. Padre's Relic to 49. We have four. I feel like this is like the fourth time I've pulled this dude in all of our products. This time I think it's out of his jersey number, about a 64. Santelan, Santelan. And Shadowbox Signatures Red Josh Bell. And I believe that's going to go to the Washington Nationals and that should be going to spot zero. If I'm correct, let me see. Car number 27, yep. And a red is out of 49 or less. So he's already out of 49. So I'd assume that would probably be out of 50. Or sorry, out of 50, out of 25 I should say. Because it doesn't say out of 49 or less. So he's already out of 49 as a base. So I'd assume out of 25 maybe. And there you go. See? Totally. Nice Gavin Sheets RPA. That's a seven of 10. Nice catch there. Jake with the White Sox. And a Benny Montgomery to five. Colorado with that one. When a Walter. I actually haven't done it Logan. Probably do it in a little bit. Not in a rush. Tim Hudson for Oakland to 25. Oakland, it's going to Sean. Dustin Padroi Relic to 25. We have a RPA there to 76 for the Metz. Patrick Miseka. Metz, that's going to Yan. We've got another redemption. And it's an Immaculate Marks red, Jonathan India. That's for the Reds going to John. That's probably out of 49 or less as well. Then we have a piece of the glove that looks like one of 10. Yohanna Don for Washington. That's part of the random number block spot one that's going to Martin. What I'll do just so our shipping team doesn't get confused, Jeff. What I can do to compromise is that I'll still have it as Jeff as both names, but I'll put in like parentheses after it, John. So that way the shipping team doesn't go look for a John and then they realize it's not there and they're like, hey, where's this order at? I don't see this guy's name because we go by the name of it. So if that's cool, I can do that. Then we got Shane Baz. 45 out of 99. That's for the race. No problem, Jeff. Thank you, man. Yeah, yeah. When I get to it, man, I'll do that after this break. I'm gonna go through orders. All right, next box. All right, we gotta read Detmer's. 91 out of 99. Angels that's going to Martin. We got to 99 here. That's Moose Scoron. Scoron, I should say. And that is Legends for the Yankees. That's going to Martin. We have John Hesley. That is to 49 for Kansas City. Kansas City also going to Martin. We have Cole Wynn for Texas to 49. We have a Zach McKinstree for the Dodgers to 25. Dodger's going to David. And then we got Josh Donaldson for Minnesota, a Mac that marks to 49. All right, halfway through, guys. Still another four boxes to go. Next one, we got a Conor Siebold for Boston to 25. We have a Jason Ayward for Chicago. Cub's going to Jeremy at a 25. We got a Jander at RPA. Nice three color patch, 40 of 40. Is that his jersey number? We'll eat the 101 maybe. And we got a three of six, Angel Zerpa. For Kansas City. Oh, there for Martin in Kansas City. And Brian de la Cruz to 10. That's an ice-ten ripper. That's like a little jersey number at U of A 101. And we got a Whitmaryfield. Thank you, always got to have a Whitmaryfield. All right, three more to go. Oh, is that Miami star? Totally forgot. Aaron, you did. Either that or Whitmaryfield just loves money. I gotta assume Whitmaryfield is not getting paid a lot. So that's probably why they love him. He's like, how much to sign you're an autograph? Just give me 25 cents an autograph. All right, we got Yasmine Grandal to 99. That's for the White Sox, Jake. And then we got Carlos Carrero for Minnesota. You gotta figure someone's licensing our autographs gotta be worth. Somebody will probably sign for like five, $10 an autograph, right? You would assume so. McCormick to 99 for Houston. Nathan with the Houston Astros. We have Isaac Berniz to 99 for Tampa Bay. TB, it's going to Martin. Josh Lowe to 99, another one for RPA for Tampa Bay. And Charlie Blackman for Colorado, five out of 25. All right, two more boxes, guys. So after this, guys, Merlin was the only thing sold out. Looks like I got some orders to go through. I think the next break after Merlin is probably going to be that Jaspie hip parade. As it is officially sold out now, but we just need to sell out that last filler. It looks like another person grabbed a spot in that team random and so did spots in that hobby filler. So we'll probably do at least another hobby jumbo tonight. At least one of each. And maybe do another Immaculate or two. Immaculate was down a nine the last time I checked. The Mac is at nine still. All right, how about a one of eight Jake Burger? Nice little button and autograph. Nice one there for the White Sox. Jake with that one. Jake to Jake. We have a Deichmann, 10 out of 10. And how about a Spencer Strider, two of two brand logo hats. New era logo right there. And of course that is player warm game used material. Out of seven reminded me like a first off the line. Looked like a purple. Jackson Coar. Kansas City having a good break Martin with that one. Andres Munoz, 2.99 for Seattle. Why am I blanking out on those R&Bs? Two is Martin. I mean, I guess out of all these cores we only have like three of them. Whoa, majestic tag. Riley Green for Detroit. And Detroit is not a random number block. That's going straight to Jaspie. All right guys, so last box. That was the last part there. Tony Gonzo for the Dodgers out of 25. Doyers going to David. Josh Lowe, 2.99. One of one, how about a little Nike Swoosh and autograph Colton Welker. That's going for Colorado, going to Walter. Nice, there's our first one of one. I don't think I pulled any one of ones in the first couple. Nice little Nike Swoosh, uno, uno. Nice. Like he will do to 25. Detroit going to Jaspie. We have a Rodolfo Castro. Man, a little bit of a teaser there for Pittsburgh. It's going to Martin. Very nice signature I must say though. Let's see how many times he's gonna do that before he gets tired of it. And last one is a redemption. It is clearly immaculate signatures. Let's look for clearly immaculate signatures. Card number 31. All rise, Aaron Judge to end off the break. So that should be out of 49. And that's going to go to the Yankees and Martin.  All right, last box was pretty nice. A little one on one, and a little Aaron Judge to end it off there. Appreciate it guys. Next one guys is down to nine. I remember I can run a number block the last nine if you guys want. If not, let's trim down some teams. I'll give it a little bit of time. Appreciate it guys. Jaspie'scasebricks.com.


Hello, I'm Oliver Perra and this is the third part of my introduction to mediation and moderation. So in presentations one and two I've talked about mediation, but I had also introduced moderation saying that moderator is a variable that qualifies the association between a predictor and an outcome. This means is that the strength of the association or even the sign of the association between the predictor and outcome changes depending on the values of the moderator. Here I present a fictional example. Social capital refers to personal relationships, social networks, support, trust, etc. Social capital may be higher or lower and here the relation between being exposed to traumatic events and the onset of major depressive disorder may depend on the availability of social capital so that people that are exposed to traumatic events may be less likely to develop major depression if they have a higher level of social capital. So the arrow that links exposure to traumatic events and major depression will be weaker for people that have higher social capital. This is an example of moderation where the strength of the association between say an exposure like exposure to traumatic events and an outcome depends on a third variable, the moderator in this case at the level of social capital. People that are familiar with factorial ANOVA have already done with test of moderation. In fact the interactions between predictors in a factorial ANOVA are testing moderation of the facts of a predictor on an outcome. In fact mathematically factorial ANOVA is identical to the regression procedures I will illustrate. But the advantage of using regression methods or procedures in describing and testing moderation models is that these regression approaches are more general and flexible and allow to include text and represent moderation by different type of variables. So I'll start with a standard regression model where the value of an outcome Y for individual I is the result of an intercept A which represents the predicted value of Y when the other variables are equal to zero. Then we have a parameter B1 that represents the change in Y associated with a one unit change in predictor X and a parameter B2 that represents the predicted change in Y associated with a one unit increase in variable mode. Then we have an arrow time EY which represents the variation in the Y scores that is not accounted by the predictors. This variation is supposed to be normally distributed around mean zero and the variance we estimate. Here since I'm considering the predicted values of Y in this example I've just put here. I'm not representing the error variance in the estimation. In this simple example X takes two values one and five and mode takes two values one and two. And using the equation above we can calculate the predicted values of Y for each row. And if we plot these predicted values put in X on their horizontal axis and the outcome Y on the vertical axis and use different lines for the different values of mode we can see that these lines are always going to be parallel. This is because the effects of the predictors are independent. Any change in Y associated with one unit of X is not dependent on the values of mode. No matter what the values of mode and one unit change in X will result in a change in Y that is equivalent to the coefficient B1 in this case 0.05 points. And on the other hand the changes in Y associated with increasing values of mode are not dependent on X. If however we assume that the effect of X on Y depends on the values of the moderator mode we have to add a term that represents changes in Y for different combinations of X and mode. Thus we assume that there is a third coefficient B3 that represents how much the values of Y will vary as a function of different combinations of X and mode. The different combinations of X and mode are obtained by multiplying the values of the two variables and see the terms that I have highlighted in red in the equation here. So now when we estimate the predicted values of Y for different individuals' values of X and mode in the rows we will see that these vary depending on the combinations of these different predictors. And in fact we plotted those values, those predicted values. So again we have on the horizontal axis the values of X on the vertical axis the value of Y and we have two lines representing the different values of the moderating variable mode. We can see that those lines are no longer parallel but the way in which the two lines diverge or converge depends on the sign and value of the coefficient B3 that represents the combination of the different values of the two predictors. Here I have used a data set that was used by Michael Raff and statistical rethinking a book that I highly recommend and you can follow this example in the material provided with this module. The data here represents information on countries log of GDP gross domestic product per capita in the year 2000. These are from different continents whereas the variable ruggedness is an index of the topographic diversity of the landscape. In most countries higher level of ruggedness is associated with lower GDP most likely because transport is more challenging or expensive in rugged terrain and these can hinder access to markets. However the association between ruggedness and GDP is positive in African countries and as I said you can follow the example using the R script in the online material. Here the log of the GDP is standardized so that the variable in the data set represents the ratio of the log GDP so a country with value one has GDP equal to the world average. Ruggedness is also standardized so that it varies from zero a completely flat country to one the most rugged. Having loaded a data set I created a dummy variable to indicate if a country is in Africa or not and I also create an interaction term that represents the different combination of values of the predictor ruggedness and the other covariate that done it for countries being in Africa. I don't run the regression as you can see here in the ray shaded area the outcome standardized log of GDP is regressed on ruggedness the dummy for African country and the interaction and you can see the results where the coefficient for the interaction is significantly different from zero. So we said that supposed moderation effect is not negligible. How to interpret these parameters and remember the question for this model so the coefficient for the interaction is approximately 0.29 which represents the change in the outcome associated with different combination of the predictor X ruggedness and the moderator being in Africa. So this represents the change in the slope of the line that links predictor and outcome for values of the moderator. So since in this case we only have two values of the moderator this means that the line linked in ruggedness and GDP will tilt 0.29 units higher with increasing values of ruggedness for African countries. However, the interpretation of this parameter cannot be made separately from the other parameters. We are talking about contextual effects here and indeed saying that the slope of the association between ruggedness and GDP is higher for African countries than countries in other continents. That's not mean much if we do not consider this with the other effects. The other effects in fact tell us that ruggedness is negatively associated with GDP. So more rugged countries tend to have lower GDP and African countries tend to have lower GDP. So in this context, in the context of the other effects, the coefficient B3 indicates that African countries for across African countries the reduction of 0.15 units in GDP associated with increasing ruggedness is countered by as much as 0.29. So it's even reversed to an extent for African countries. The best way to explain and represent these interruption effects, the effects of moderation are by plotting the effects in graphs like this one. And this figure represented a scatterplot where each point represents a boundary. So you can see in the graph that on the horizontal axis there is the standardized ripeness from 0 to 1 and in the vertical axis is the outcome, the standardized log of GDP. So the points here represent different countries and the blue points are the countries that are not in Africa, so European, Asian and so on. And the red points are the African countries. In this graph, I also use lines that represent the regressions of log of GDP on ruggedness for African and non-African countries. The shaded areas around the lines also represent 90% confident intervals of the predicted values. So using a graph like that, it illustrates effectively the effects that I was trying to explain by words in the previous slide. You can see that for non-European countries, increasing ruggedness associated with lower GDP, but the opposite relation is observed across African countries where increased ruggedness is actually associated with increasing GDP. And we can interpret this result in working historical reasons and the legacy of colonialism. More African countries were more difficult to reach and this probably protected them against the exploitation of the resources by colonial powers and also from the slave trade that had the impact on the wealth of these countries. In the examples and the exercises provided with this module, you can also see how to create similar graphs. So I refer to those. Since moderation describes situations in which associations between two variables are different across the values of a third variable, you may wonder, would it be not sensible to split the participants in different groups and check how those associations differ across these groups. In the examples I've made before, would it be okay to investigate the association between ruggedness and GDP in African countries first and then in non-African countries? Well, it would be a bad idea to split samples in this way. Firstly, because other parameters in the modules like variances are not dependent on the moderators and by splitting the samples, we would have more inaccuracy and error in estimation of these other parameters. And also if we split the sample between African and non-African countries, we would effectively assume that the variance of this outcome differ among these two groups, but there is nothing to justify this assumption. Another reason why it wouldn't be a good idea to split samples is that we may want to compare models that include moderation effects against models that treat all covariates as having independent effects. And to run these comparisons, we need to estimate the models on the same data. And here I put an example of how to run a ratio test between the two models I've described before. So by using the same sample, we can also run these comparisons between models. Here I'm providing an example of moderation where the moderator is a continuous variable unlike the previous example. So here I'm using data from a previous example used in previous presentations where I'm looking at the maths course of adolescence in grade 12. And here I am supposing that the association between maths course in grade 8 and maths course in grade 8, it's moderated by readings course in grade 8. Again, this example is provided, the syntax to run this example is provided and examples are touched with this module. And here the graph shows a scatterplot where the horizontal axis represents grade 8 maths course and the vertical 1 grade 12 maths course. Since the moderator here reading scores is continuous, the easiest way to represent the interaction is to select some meaningful values in the distribution of the moderator and plot the predicted scores for these values. And in this graph, I've used a packet in our code interactions which automatically selected the values of the moderator that corresponded to one standard deviation below the mean, the mean of the moderator and the one standard deviation above the mean. And these designs basically represent the association between maths course for the adolescence average or below average in reading scores. The shaded areas again represent the confidence intervals of these predictions. And this shows that the association between maths course tends to be stronger for adolescence with worse reading scores. But this example also provides a chance to illustrate a property of moderation models, which is the symmetry. We may say that reading scores are moderating the strength of the association between maths scores, so that this association depends on the reading scores. However, in the same way, we may say that grade 8 maths course are moderating the association between grade 8 reading and grade 12 maths results. From a statistical point of view and mathematical point of view, the two possibilities are equivalent. There is nothing in the equation that I represent here that says that grade 8 reading scores is the moderator. The interpretation of one construct as a mediator does not come from the model or the analysis, in fact, but it comes from designing studies that give support to this causal interpretation, as well as our substantive knowledge about the issues that can give support to our interpretation of a variable as being a moderator. So the point is once again that the statistical models cannot tell us everything we need to know, and the correct interpretation of the results necessitates further reflection and correlation of information in different sources. When running a moderation model, the test of moderation can tell us that the interaction term is significant, so the strength or the sign of the association between a predictor and the outcome depends on the values of a third variable. However, it is not always evidence at which values of the moderator does the association between predictor x and outcome y becomes significantly stronger. And here, for example, I use data from the 1977 census in the USA and this data will be built into R. This data report information on income, illiteracy, moderate and percentages of people with high school degrees by state. And the model here, the level of income is a function, it's supposed to be a function of high school, grade, illiteracy, moderate and an interaction between illiteracy and moderate. And the interaction is significant and I plot the predictions of this interaction using the package interactions. This shows that the association between illiteracy and income goes from positive to negative with increased moderate. And you can also see that when moderate is average association between illiteracy and income seems very weak. And so we may want to probe the interaction. By probing, we can test if these logs that are represented here are significantly different from zero. That is, if the association between predictor and different from zero at different, at these different values of the moderating variable. And here I report the syntax and the outputs that are provided by this option in the interaction's package. And you can see that none of these logs is significantly different from zero. All the slope appears to become larger and negative with increasing values of moderate. We could change its values of the moderator to include points that correspond to two standard deviation units higher in moderate or two standard deviation units lower than the mean in moderate. And check if the values of the slope are significantly different from zero. But another option is to use the Johnson Neiman model. And this provides an estimation of the points in which the slope that links predictor and outcome are significantly different across the distribution of the moderator. That is where in the distribution of the moderator does the association between income and illiteracy. When this example is significant, significantly different from zero. And the output of this method and the graph shows that when murder rate is a higher than 11.74, the association between predictor and outcome is significantly different from zero. In this case, it's negative. So the interpretation of the interaction will be that the association between state income and illiteracy is not significant except in cases where murder rate is higher than 11.74, whereby illiteracy predicts lower income. But I also wanted to highlight that you need care when using this type of analysis and particularly the graphs because you can see for example the graph is showing that the model is suggesting that if murder rate was negative, the slope will become positive, significantly positive. But these values are never observed and indeed they are not even possible. There isn't a negative murder rate. So the model applies its computation, but we need to think and interpret them and make sense of them. The model is just lovely sheet using the map to present something, but we need to be careful when we are interpreting it. To conclude, I also wanted to mention that it's possible to combine mediation and moderation into more complex models. For example, models of murder rate mediation are models whereby mediation of an effect of an independent or variable or a predictor is supposed to be moderated by a fourth variable. So the mediation of the effect of an independent variable on an outcome may be stronger in some context or depending on some variables than in other contexts. So the mediation effect may be moderated by another variable. And another approach that is becoming increasingly popular and can also be implemented with packages in R is the causal mediation analysis. I refer particularly to work by Ime and others, but it's a general approach for the definition, identification and estimation of causal mediation effects that doesn't refer to specific statistical models. And it's therefore quite flexible in accommodating different types of relationships between variables, both parametric and non-parametric models and different types of mediators and outcomes. So it's becoming more popular and it's based on a counterfactual model of causal inference. So it provides a nice way also to define the causal links between different variables in a model. And I refer to some references if you want to learn more about this approach. Thank you for your attention and I refer to the material provided with this module again where you will find the examples I have used in the presentations as well as exercises that will guide you in applying some simple mediation and moderation models to data. And also will show you and allow you to practice creating some of the big figures that I've presented and developed this presentation. So thank you very much. Bye.


The study evaluated the influence of hybridizing jute and carbon fibers on the mechanical properties and water absorption behavior of polyester composites, revealing that jute-fiber composites have lower mechanical properties and higher water absorption rate compared to carbon-fiber composites. However, the combined effect enhanced the mechanical properties and reduced moisture absorption rate while having good interfacial bonding with polyester, as confirmed through scanning electron microscopy. The mechanism of fracture in mechanical tested samples was observed through scanning electron microscopic images, and all composites developed in the work followed Fickian behavior of water absorption. This article was authored by P. Ravi Kumar, G. Rajesh Kumar, Jaganathan Prakash Maran, and others.


Hey everyone, I am here with Randy and he illustrates a very important concept of some people actually do better when they bring in more carbs, more grains, and it's even God forbid gluten into their diet and this is a pretty cathartic maneuver we just made for Randy that was very helpful and so I asked him if he'd be willing to share a story because I know that there are other people who will benefit from hearing this. So Randy thanks for taking a moment to talk with us. You're welcome. And you know there's a little bit of backstory I don't want to give too much of the way I'd like you to kind of tell people your experience but a couple of the things that I just want to lay the foundation with are you came in with some pre-existing gastrointestinal symptoms that you were struggling with but really the main manifestations were being underweight, fatigue, insomnia, some rashing and some back pain and you were trying to optimize your gut health to improve these things which makes a lot of sense and obviously is something I think is a little supported but when we had our first visit I had a sense that you were eating too restrictive of a diet and you actually needed to increase your carb intake, increase your grain intake and even flirt with some gluten-containing grains and see how you would do. And there's one other important piece of context here which is I think some improvements needed to be gained with your gut health so that you could tolerate carbs because you were a bit carb intolerant and this kind of led you to a lower carb diet which had a little bit of utility but you were kind of stuck in this low carb land and you were becoming fatigued and underweight and when we helped to improve your gut health that opened the door for you to be able to eat more carbs and now after eating more carbs it's fairly market improvement in only a few weeks after upping your carbs upping your grains and even having some gluten so that's the relevant context I wanted to lay but please, please tell us a little bit about your experience and what you've noticed. So like you said for the past three or four years I've been on a paleo diet, very low carb, for the past year or so I've been pretty much in the ketogenic zone, 50 to 20 carbs per day. Within the past just five weeks I've tried increasing my carb intake by adding in things like potatoes, rice, spelt, oatmeal, and wheat and the benefits I've seen is I've went from having no energy at all, from having difficulty walking up a flight of stairs on days to now having greatly improved energy, strength has greatly improved. I picked up 10 pounds which is the first time in the past five or six years I've seen the scale moving the right direction for me and the rash almost completely improved. The chills I was having completely diminished so I've seen a lot of success with just changing my carbohydrate intake. And you were saying also that your wife is happy because you have more energy and you also are able to power wash the deck which is you know from being barely able to walk upstairs now being able to power wash a deck and only three to four weeks time this is pretty remarkable. Right she's happy with my new found health also. I've stained the back deck, pressure washed the house and most importantly I can play with my eight-year-old son now I can almost keep up with him. Yeah never probably fully be able to keep up but we'll try right. Right. So that's fantastic I'm of course elated to hear that you're feeling better and I really wanted to capture this because in light of the recent video that we published about the prevalence of non-siliac gluten sensitivity wherein we showcased how yes it is a legitimate condition but the prevalence is probably lower than most people have been led to believe likely somewhere between 0.6 to roughly 6% of the US population. Some people had a hard time with that and wanted to you know counter me with reasons why no one should ever have any gluten and it's interesting that I'm in this position of having to defend eating gluten where I'm actually a proponent of everyone at least trying gluten-free diet but the other aspect of this conversation that I think pollutes some people is cases just like your own range where people were really making themselves ill because their metabolism needed more of a carbon take. Now is it the gluten that's helping you? No and it's the carbon take but one of the things that will make your carbon take easier is allowing you to have some gluten and certainly I'm guessing at certain social functions or if you're on the go you can't always procure a gluten-free carb source and so it's nice to have the leeway to be able to eat some gluten and so I think at very least just understanding that some people can eat grains and gluten and actually become healthier in the process and Randy is just a shining example of that. Randy as we kind of wrap this thought up here are there any other observations or items that you'd like to leave people with? I can definitely contest that it's that you know I'm one of those that avoided gluten for years and after adding it back in one of the positive aspects is I can now you know eat at restaurants along with my family and friends and have that improve social aspect of my life also. Absolutely absolutely and again to be clear for people if you have eliminated gluten and then reintroduced it and you clearly subjectively identified that you have a problem with it then I would recommend and I think anyone reasonably would agree to avoid gluten to the level of your intolerance but that oftentimes is left out and we cite just the evidence showing that gluten is bad and then we conflate that to the whole population. In your case Randy we didn't have to do mitochondrial testing, adrenal testing, hormone testing, any of that. All we needed to do was identify one of the pillars of health which is your diet, optimize for that and now you're almost keeping up with your eight-year-old, your power wash in the deck, the Mrs. is happy so happy wife happy life and everything seems to be moving in the direction. Yeah absolutely. Awesome well thank you again for getting ready for the time I think this video will hopefully help a lot of people congratulations on feeling so much better and again just just thank you for the openness to share this with people. Thank you Dr. Rishabh. My pleasure.