CHAPTER X. RAIN OF KING WILLIAM. From the date of the Treaty of Limerick, William was acknowledged by all but the extreme Jacobites, at least de facto King of Ireland. The prevailing party in Ulster had long recognized him, and the only expression of the national will then possible accepted his title. Then the Treaty signed at Limerick on the 3rd of October, 1691. For three years Ireland had resisted his power. For twelve years longer she was to bear the yoke of his government. Though the history of William's twelve years reign in Ireland is a history of prescription, the King himself is answerable only as a consenting party to such prescription. He was neither by temper nor policy a persecutor. His allies were Spain, Austria and Rome. He had thousands of Catholics in his own army, and he gave his confidence as freely to brave and capable men of one creed as of another. But the oligarchy, calling itself the Protestant ascendancy, which had grown so powerful under Cromwell and Charles II, backed as they once again were by all the religious intolerance of England, proved too strong for William's good intentions. He was, moreover, preoccupied with the grand plans of the European coalition in which Ireland, without an army, was no longer an element of calculation. He abandoned, therefore, not without an occasional grumbling protest, the vanquished Catholics to the mercy of that oligarchy, whose history, during the eighteenth century, formed so prominent a feature of the history of the kingdom. The civil articles of Limerick, which Sarsfield vainly hoped might prove the Magna Carta of his co-religionists, were thirteen in number. Still one guaranteed to members of that denomination, remaining in the kingdom, such privileges in the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the law of Ireland, or as they enjoyed in the reign of Charles II. This article further provided that their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavor to procure the said Roman Catholics such for the security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance on account of their said religion. Article II guaranteed pardon and protection to all who had served King James, on taking the oath of allegiance prescribed in Article IX as follows. I, A.B., do solemnly promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties. King William and Queen Mary, so help me God. Articles III, IV, V, and VI extended the provisions of Articles I and II to merchants and other classes of men. Article VII permits every nobleman and gentleman compromised in the said Articles to carry side arms and keep a gun in their houses. Article VIII gives the right of removing goods and chattels without search. Article IX is as follows. The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit to their Majesties Government shall be the oath of foresaid and no other. Article X guarantees that no person or persons who shall at any time hereafter break these Articles, or any of them, shall thereby make or cause any other person or persons to forfeit or lose the benefit of them. Articles XI and XII relate to the ratification of the Articles within eight months or sooner. Article XIII refers to the deaths of Colonel John Brown, commissary of the Irish Army to several Protestants, and arranges for their satisfaction. These Articles were signed before Limerick at the well-known Treaty Stone on the Clairside of the Shannon by Lords Grevenmore, Generals McKay, Talmish, and DeGinkel, and the Lords' Justices Porter and Coiningspy, for King William, and by Sarsfield, Earl of Lucan, Viscount Galmoy, Sir Toby Butler, and Colonel's Purcell, Cusack, Dillon, and Brown for the Irish. On the 24th of February following, Royal Letters Patent, confirmatory of the Treaty, were issued from Westminster, in the name of the King and Queen, whereby they declared that, we do for us, our heirs and successors, as far as in us lies, ratify and confirm the same and every clause, matter, and thing therein contained, and as to such parts thereof, for which an act of Parliament shall be found to be necessary, we shall recommend the same be made good by Parliament, and shall give our royal consent to any bill or bills that shall be passed by our two Houses of Parliament to that purpose. And whereas it appears unto us that it was agreed between the parties to the said articles, that after the words Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, Mayo, or any of them, in the second of the said articles, which words having been casually omitted by the writer of the articles, the words following, Viz, and all such as are under protection in the said counties, should be inserted, and be part of the said omission, was not discovered till after the said articles were signed, but was taken notice of before the second town was surrendered, and that our said Justices and Generals, or one of them, did promise that the said clause should be made good, it being within the intention of the capitulation, and inserted in the foul draft thereof. Our further will and pleasure is, and we do hereby ratify and confirm the said omitted words, Viz, and all such as are under their protection in the said counties, hereby for us, our heirs and successors, ordaining and declaring that all and every person and persons therein concerned shall and may have, receive, and enjoy the benefit thereof, in such and the same manner as if the said words had been inserted in their proper place in the said second article, any omission, defect, or mistake in the said second article, in any wise notwithstanding. Provided always, and our will and pleasure is, that these our letters patent shall be enrolled in our court of chancery, in our said kingdom of Ireland, within the space of one year next ensuing. But the ascendancy party were not to be restrained by the faith of treaties, or the obligations of the sovereign. The Sunday following the return of the Lord's Justices from Limerick, shopping, Bishop of Mieth, preached before them at Christ's Church, on the crime of keeping faith with papists. The grand jury of Cork, urged on by Cox, the recorder of Kinsle, one of the historians of those times, returned in their inquest that the restoration of the Earl of Clancardy's estates would be dangerous to the Protestant interest. Though both William and George I interested themselves warmly for that noble family, the hatred of the new oligarchy proved too strong for the clemency of kings, and the broad acres of the disinherited McCarthy's remained to enrich an alien and bigoted aristocracy. In 1692, when the Irish parliament met, a few Catholic peers and a very few Catholic commoners took their seats. One of the first acts of the victorious majority was to frame an oath in direct contravention to the oath prescribed by the Ninth Civil Article of the Treaty to be taken by members of both houses. This oath solemnly and explicitly denied that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is any transubstantiation of the elements, and as solemnly affirmed that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are damnable and idolatrous. As a matter of course, the Catholic peers and commoners retired from both houses rather than take any such oath, and thus the Irish parliament assumed in 1692 that exclusively Protestant character which it continued to maintain till its extinction in 1800. The Lord Justice Sidney, acting in the spirit of his original instructions, made some show of resistance to the prescriptive spirit thus exhibited. But to teach him how they regarded his interference a very small supply was voted, and the assertion of the absolute control of the commons over all supplies, a sound doctrine when rightly interpreted, was vehemently asserted. Sidney had the satisfaction of proroguing and lecturing the house, but they had the satisfaction soon after of seeing him recalled through their influence in England, and a more congenial viceroy in the person of Lord Capel sent over. About the same time that ancient engine of oppression, a commission to inquire into a state's forfeited, was established, and in a short time decreed that one million sixty thousand seven hundred ninety-two acres were sheeted to the crown. This was almost the last fragment of the patrimony of the Catholic inhabitants. When King William died, there did not remain in Catholic hands one sixth part of what their grandfathers held, even after the passage of the act of settlement. In 1695, Lord Capel opened the second Irish Parliament, summoned by King William, in a speech in which he assured his delighted auditors that the king was intent upon a firm settlement of Ireland upon a Protestant interest. Large supplies were once voted to his majesty, and the House of Commons then proceeded to the appointment of a committee to consider what penal laws were already enforced against the Catholics, not for the purpose of repealing them, but in order to add to their number. The principal penal laws then in existence were, one, an act subjecting all who upheld the jurisdiction of the Sea of Rome to the penalties of a primmonier, and ordering the oath of supremacy to be a qualification for office of every kind, for holy orders, and for a degree in the university. Two, an act for the uniformity of common prayer, imposing a fine of a shilling on all who should absent themselves from places of worship of the established church on Sundays. Three, an act allowing the Chancellor to name a guardian to the child of a Catholic. Four, an act to prevent Catholics from becoming private tutors and families without license from the ordinaries of their several parishes and taking the oath of supremacy. To these the new Parliament added, one, an act to deprive Catholics of the means of educating their children at home or abroad and to render them incapable of being guardians of their own or any other person's children. Two, an act to disarm the Catholics, and three, another to banish all the Catholic priests and prelates. Having thus violated the treaty, they gravely brought in a bill to confirm the articles of Limerick. The very title of the bill, says Dr. Cook Taylor, contains evidence of its injustice. It is styled a bill for the confirmation of articles, not THE articles, made at the surrender of Limerick, and the preamble shows that the little word THOUGH was not accidentally omitted. It runs thus, that the said articles, or so much of them as may consist with the safety and welfare of your majesty's subjects in these kingdoms, may be confirmed, etc. The parts that appeared to these legislators inconsistent with the safety and welfare of his majesty's subjects were the first article, which provided for the security of the Catholics from all disturbances on account of their religion. Those parts of the second article which confirmed the Catholic gentry of Limerick, Clare, Cork, Kerry, and Mayo in the possession of their estates, and allowed all Catholics to exercise their trades and professions without obstruction, the fourth article which extended the benefit of the peace to certain Irish officers then abroad, the seventh article which allowed the Catholic gentry to ride armed, the ninth article which provides that the oath of allegiance shall be the only oath required from Catholics, and one or two others of minor importance. All of these are omitted in the bill for the confirmation of articles made at the surrender of Limerick. The commons passed the bill without much difficulty. The House of Lords, however, contained some few of the ancient nobility and some prelates who refused to acknowledge the dogma that no faith should be kept with papus as an article of their creed. The bill was strenuously resisted, and when it was at length carried, a strong protest against it was signed by Lords London Derry, Tyrone, and Duncannon, the barons of Ossary, Limerick, Killaloe, Kerry, Houth, Kingston, and Straban, and to their eternal honour, be it said, the Protestant bishops of Kildare, Elphin, Derry, Clonfort, and Killala. The only other political incidents of this rain, important Ireland, were the speech from the Throne in answer to an address of the English Houses, in which William promised to discourage the woollen and encourage the linen manufacturer in Ireland, and the publication of the famous argument for legislative independence, the case of Ireland stated. The author of this tract, the bright precursor of the glorious succession of men who, often defeated or abandoned by their colleagues, finally triumphed in 1782, was William Mullano, member for the University of Dublin. Mullano's book appeared in 1698, with a short, respectful, but manly dedication to King William. Speaking of his own motives in writing it, he says, I am not at all concerned in wool or the wool trade. I am no ways interested in forfeitures or grants. I am not at all concerned whether the bishop or the society of Derry recover the lands they can test about. Such were the domestic politics of Ireland at that day, but Mullano raised other and nobler issues when he advanced these six propositions, which lie supported with incontestable ability. 1. How Ireland became a kingdom annexed to the Crown of England. And here we shall at large give a faithful narrative of the first expedition of the Britons into this country, and King Henry II's arrival here, such as our best historians give us. 2. We shall inquire whether this expedition and the English settlement that afterwards followed thereon can properly be called a conquest, or whether any victories obtained by the English in succeeding ages in this kingdom upon any rebellion may be called a conquest thereof. 3. Granting that it were a conquest, we shall inquire what title a conquest gives. 4. We shall inquire what concessions have been from time to time made to Ireland to take off what even the most rigorous asserters of a conqueror's title do pretend to. And herein we shall show by what degrees the English form of government and the English statute laws came to be received among us, and this shall appear to be holy by the consent of the people and the Parliament of Ireland. 5. We shall inquire into the precedents and opinions of the learned in laws relating to this manner with observations thereon. 6. We shall consider the reasons and arguments that may be further offered on one side and other, and we shall draw some general conclusions from the whole. The English Parliament took alarm at these bold doctrines seldom heard across the channel since the days of Patrick Darcy and the Catholic Confederacy. They ordered the book to be burned by the hands of the common hangman, as of dangerous tendency to the crown and people of England, by denying the power of the King and Parliament of England to bind the kingdom and people of Ireland, and the subordination and dependence that Ireland had and ought to have upon England, as being united and annexed to the imperial crown of England. They voted unaddressed to the King in the same tone, and received an answer from his Majesty, assuring them that he would enforce the laws securing the dependence of Ireland on the imperial crown of Great Britain. But William's days were already numbered. On the 8th of March, 1702, when little more than fifty years of age, he died from the effects of a fall from his horse. His reign over Ireland is synonymous to the minds of that people, of disaster, prescription and spoilation, of violated faith and broken compacts. But these wrongs were done in his name rather than by his orders, often without his knowledge and sometimes against his will. Rigid as that will was, it was forced to bend to the antipopery storm which swept over the British islands after the abdication of King James, but the vices and follies of his times ought no more to be laid to the personal count of William than of James or Louis against whom he fought. CHAPTER X. THE RAIN OF QUEEN ANNE The reign of Queen Anne occupies twelve years, 1702 to 1714. The new sovereign, daughter of James by his first marriage, inherited the legacy of William's wars, arising out of the European coalition. Her diplomatists and her troops, under the leadership of Marlborough, continued throughout her reign to combat against France, in Spain, Germany and the Netherlands, the Treaty of Utrecht being signed only the year before Her Majesty's disease. In domestic politics the main occurrences were the struggle of the Whigs and the Tories, immortalized for us in the pages of Swift, Steele, Addison and Bowlingbroke, the limitation of the succession to the descendants of the electress Sophia in the line of Hanover and the abortive Jacobite movement on the Queen's death which drove Ormond and Atterbury into exile. In Ireland this is the reign par excellence of the Penal Code. From the very beginning of the Queen's reign an insatiate spirit of prescription dictated the councils of the Irish oligarchy. On the arrival of the second and last Duke of Ormond in 1703 as Lord Lieutenant, the commons waited on him in a body, with a bill for discouraging the further growth of Popery to which the Duke, having signified his entire concurrence, it was accordingly introduced and became law. The following are among the most remarkable clauses of this act. The third clause provides that if the son of an estated papus shall conform to the established religion, the father shall be incapacitated from selling or mortgaging his estate, or disposing of any portion of it by a will. The fourth clause prohibits a papus from being the guardian of his own child, and orders that if at any time the child, though ever so young, pretends to be a Protestant, it shall be taken from its own father and placed under the guardianship of the nearest Protestant relation. The sixth clause renders papus incapable of purchasing any manners, tenements, hereditiments, or any rents or profits arising out of the same, or of holding any lease of lives or other lease whatever for any term exceeding thirty-one years. And with respect even to such limited leases it further enacts that if a papus should hold a farm producing a profit of greater than one-third of the amount of the rent his right to such should immediately cease and pass over entirely to the first Protestant who should discover the rate of profit. The seventh clause prohibits papus from succeeding to the properties or estates of their Protestant relations. By the tenth clause the estate of a papus, not having a Protestant heir, is ordered to be gabbled or divided in equal shares between all his children. The sixteenth and twenty-fourth clauses impose the oath of abjuration and the sacramental test as a qualification for office and for voting at elections. The twenty-third clause deprives the Catholics of limerick and gallway of the protection secured them by the Articles of the Treaty of Limerick. The twenty-fifth clause vests in her majesty all avowd-sons possessed by papists. Certain Catholic barristers living under protection, not yet excluded from the practice of their profession, petition to be heard at the Bar of the House of Commons. Accordingly, Mr. Malone, the ancestor of three generations of scholars and orders, Sir Stephen Rice, one of the most spotless characters of the age, formerly Chief Justice under King James, and Sir Theobald Butler were heard against the bill. The argument of Butler, who stood at the very head of his profession, to us almost in its entirety, and commands our admiration by its solidity and dignity. Never was national cause more worthily pleaded. Never was the folly of religious persecution more forcibly exhibited. Alluding to the monstrous fourth clause of the bill, the great advocate exclaimed, It is natural for the father to love the child, but we all know that children are but too apt and subject, without any such liberty as this bill gives, to slight and neglect their duty to their parents. And surely such an act as this will not be an instrument of restraint, but rather encourage them more to it. It is but too common with the son, who has a prospect of an estate, when once he arrives at the age of one and twenty, to think the father too long in the way between him and it, and how much more will he be subject to it, when by this act he shall have liberty, before he comes to that age, to compel and force my estate from me, without asking my leave, or being liable to account with me for it, or out of his share thereof, to a moiety of the debts, portions, or other encumbrances, with which the estate might have been charged before the passing of this act. Is this not against the laws of God and man? Against the rules of reason and justice, by which all men ought to be governed? Is this not the only way in the world to make children become undutiful, and to bring the gray head of the parent to the grave with grief and tears? It would be hard from any man, but from a son, a child, the fruit of my body, whom I have nursed in my bosom, and tendered more dearly than my own life, to become my plunderer, to rob me of my estate, to cut my throat, and to take away my bread, is much more grievous than from any other, and enough to make the most flinty hearts bleed to think on it. And yet this will be the case if this bill pass into law, which I hope this honourable assembly will not think of, when they shall more seriously consider, and have weighed these manners. For God's sake, gentlemen, will you consider whether this is, according to the golden rule, to do as you would be done unto? And if not, surely you will not, nay you cannot, without being liable to be charged with the most manifest injustice imaginable, take from us our birthrights, and invest them with others before our faces. When Butler and Malone had closed, Sir Stephen Rice was heard, not in his character of counsel, but as one of the petitioners affected by the act. But neither the effecting position of that great jurist, who from the rank of chief baron had descended to the outer bar, nor the purity of his life, nor the strength of his argument, had any effect upon the oligarchy who heard him. He was answered by quibbles and cavels, unworthy of record, and was finally informed that any rights which Papus pretended to be taken from them by the bill was in their power to remedy, by conforming, which in prudence they ought to do, and that they had none to blame but themselves. Next day the bill passed into law. The remnant of the clergy were next attacked. On the 17th of March, 1705, the Irish commons resolved that informing against Papus was an honourable service to the government, and that all magistrates and others who failed to put the penal laws into execution were betrayers of the liberties of the kingdom. But even these resolutions, rewards, and inducements were insufficient to satisfy the spirit of persecution. A further act was passed in 1709, imposing additional penalties. The first clause declares that no Papist shall be capable of holding an annuity for life. The third provides that the child of a Papist, on conforming, shall at once receive an annuity from his father, and that the Chancellor shall compel the father to discover, upon oath, the full value of his estate, real and personal, and thereupon make an order for the support of such conforming child or children, and for securing such a share of the property, after the father's death, as the court shall think fit. The 14th and 15th clauses secure jointures to Popus' wives who shall conform. The 16th prohibits a Papist from teaching, even as assistant to a Protestant master. The 18th gives a salary of thirty pounds per annum to Popus' priests who shall conform. The 20th provides rewards for the discovery of Popus' prelates, priests, and teachers, according to the following whimsical scale. For discovering an archbishop, bishop, vicar general, or other person exercising any foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction, fifty pounds. For discovering each regular clergyman, and each secular clergyman, not registered, twenty pounds. And for discovering each Popus' schoolmaster, or usher, ten pounds. The twenty-first clause empowers two justices to summon before them any Papist over eighteen years of age, and interrogate him when and where he last heard Mass said, and the names of the persons present, and likewise touching the resonance of any Popus' priest or schoolmaster, and if he refused to give testimony, subjects him to a fine of twenty pounds, or imprisonment for twelve months. Several other penal laws were enacted by the same parliament, of which we can only notice one. It excluded Catholics from the office of sheriff, and from grand juries, and enacts that, in trials upon any statute for strengthening the Protestant interest, the plaintiff might challenge a juror for being a Papist, which challenge the judge was to allow. By a royal proclamation of the same year, all registered priests were to take the oath of abjuration before the twenty-fifth of March, seventeen-ten, under penalty of premonier. Under this proclamation, and the tariff of rewards just cited, there grew up a class of men, infamous and detestable, known by the nickname of priest-hunters. One of the most successful of these traffickers in blood was a Portuguese Jew, named Garcia, settled at Dublin. He was very skillful at disguises. He sometimes put on the mean of a priest, for he affected to be one, and thus worming himself into the good graces of some confiding Catholic, got a clue to the whereabouts of the clergy. In seventeen-eighteen, Garcia succeeded in arresting seven unregistered priests, for whose detection he had a sum equal to two or three thousand dollars of American money. To such an excess was this trade carried that a reaction set in, and a Catholic Bishop of Ossary, who lived at the time these acts were still enforced, records that the priest-catcher's occupation became exceedingly odious both to Protestants and Catholics, and that himself had seen ruffians of this calling assailed with a shower of stones, flung by both Catholics and Protestants. But this creditable reaction only became general under George II, twenty years after the passage of the act of Queen Anne. We shall have to mention some monstrous additions made to the Code during the first George's reign, and some attempts to repair and perfect its diabolical machinery, even so late as George III. But the great body of the Penal Law received its chief accessions from the oligarchical Irish Parliament under Queen Anne. Hitherto we have often had to point out how with all its constitutional defects, with the law of poinings, obliging heads of bills to be first sent to England, fettering its freedom of initiative, how notwithstanding all defects the Irish Parliament had asserted, at many critical periods, its own in the people's with an energy worthy of admiration. But the collective bigots of this reign were wholly unworthy of the name of a Parliament. They permitted the woolen trade to be sacrificed without a struggle. They allowed the bold propositions of Mullenew, one of their own number, to be condemned and reprobated without a protest. The knotted lash of Jonathan Swift was never more worthily applied than to the Legion Club, which he has consigned to such an unenviable immortality. Swift's inspiration may have been mingled with bitter disappointment and personal revenge, but whatever motives animated him, his fearless use of his great abilities must always make him the first political, as he was certainly the first literary character of Ireland at that day. In a country so bare and naked as he found it, with a bigotry so rampant and united before him, it needed no ordinary courage and capacity to evoke anything like public opinion or public spirit. Let us be just to that most unhappy man of genius. Let us proclaim that Irish nationality bleeding at every poor and in danger of perishing by the wayside found shelter on the breast of Swift, and took new heart from the example of that bold churchman, before whom the Parliament, the bench of bishops, and the viceroy trembled. CHAPTER XII. A popular history of Ireland, Book X. Read for LibriVox.org into the public domain. CHAPTER XII. The Irish soldiers abroad during the reigns of William and Anne. The close of the Second Reign from the Siege of Limerick imposes the duty of casting our eyes over the map of Europe, in quest of those gallant exiles whom we have seen, in tens of thousands, submitting to the hard necessity of expatriation. Many of the Miath and Lentster Irish, under their native commanders, the Kavanaugh's and Nugents, carried their swords into the service of William's ally, the Emperor of Austria, and distinguished themselves in all the campaigns of Prince Eugene. Spain attracted to her standards the Irish of the Northwest, the O'Donnells, the O'Reilly's, and O'Garras, whose regiments, during more than one reign, continued to be known by flames of Ulster origin. In 1707 the Great Battle of Almanza, which decided the Spanish succession, was determined by Omahaone's foot and Fitz James's Irish horse. The next year Spain had five Irish regiments in her regular army, three a foot and two of dragoons, under the command of Lacy, Lawless, Wogan, O'Reilly, and O'Gara. But it was in France that the Irish served in the greatest number, and made the most impressive history for themselves and their descendants. The recruiting agents of France had long been in the habit of crossing the narrow seas, and bringing back the stalwart sons of the Western Island to serve their ambitious kings, in every corner of the continent. An Irish troop of horse served, in 1652, under Turin, against the Great Condé. In the campaigns of 1673, 1674, and 1675, under Turin, two or three Irish regiments were in every engagement along the Rhine. At Altenheim, their commander, Count Hamilton, was created a major general of France. In 1690 these old regiments, with the six new ones sent over by James, were formed into a brigade, and from 1690 to 1693 they went through the campaigns of Savoy and Italy, under Marshal Katanat, against Prince Eugene. Justice McCarthy, Lord Mountcashel, who commanded them, died at bereges of wounds received at Stafardo. At Marsiglia, they routed in 1693 the Allies, killing Duke Schomburg, son to the Huguenot General who fell at the Boyne. The new, or Sarsfield's, brigade was employed under Luxembourg, against King William, in Flanders, in 1692 and 1693. At Namur and Ingen, they were greatly distinguished, and William more than once sustained heavy loss at their hands. Sarsfield, their brigadier, for these services, was made Marichel de Camp. At Landon, on the 29th of July 93, France again triumphed to the cry, Remember Limerick. Sarsfield, leading on the fierce pursuers, fell mortally wounded. Pressing his hand upon the wound, he took it away dripping with blood and only said, Oh, that this was for Ireland. In the War of the Spanish Succession, the remnants of both brigades, consolidated into one, served under their favorite leader, the Marshal Duke of Barrick, through nearly all his campaigns in Belgium, Spain, and Germany. The Third Lord Clare, afterwards Field Marshal Count Thoman, was by the Duke's side at Phillipsburg in 1733, when he received his death wound from the explosion of a mine. These exiled Clare O'Brien's commanded for three generations their famous family regimen of dragoons. The first who followed King James abroad died of wounds received at the Battle of Ramilies. The Third, with better fortune, outlived for nearly thirty years the glorious day of Fontenoy. The Irish cavalry regiments in the service of France were Sheldon's, Galmoys, Clare's, and Kilmallot's. The infantry were known as the regiments of Dublin, Charlemont, Limerick, and Athelone. There were two other infantry regiments, known as Lutrell's and Dorington's, and a regiment of Irish marines, of whom the grand prior Fitz James was Colonel. During the latter years of Louis XIV, there could not have been less, at any one time, than from twenty thousand to thirty thousand Irish in his armies, and during the succeeding century, authentic documents exist to prove that four hundred and fifty thousand natives of Ireland died in the military service of France. In the dreary reigns of William, Anne, and the first two Georges, the pride and courage of the disarmed and disinherited population abiding at home drew new life and vigor from the exploits of their exiled brethren. The channel smuggler and the vagrant ballad singer kept alive their fame for the lower class of the population, while the memoirs of Marlborough and Eugene, issuing from the Dublin press, communicated authentic accounts of their actions to the more prejudiced or better educated. The blows they struck at Landon, at Cromona, and at Almanza, were sensibly felt by every British statesman, when, in the bitterness of defeat, an English king cursed the laws that deprived him of such subjects, the doom of the penal code was pronounced. The high character of the famous captains of these brigades was not confined to the field of battle. At Paris, Vienna, and Madrid, their wit and courtesy raised them to the favour of princes, over the jealousy of all their rivals. Important civil and diplomatic offices were entrusted to them, embassies of peace and war, the government of provinces, and the highest administrative offices of the state. While their kinsmen in Ireland were declared incapable of filling the humblest public employments, or of exercising the commonest franchise, they met British ambassadors abroad as equals, and checked or countermined the imperial policy of Great Britain. It was impossible that such a contrast of situation should not attract the attention of all thinking men. It was impossible that such reputation should shine before all Europe, without reacting powerfully on the fallen fortunes of Ireland. End of A Popular History of Ireland, book 10. Read by Cibela Denton in Carrollton, Georgia, in February 2009. For more free audiobooks or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org.


Without any further ado, you guys are live and you're hot. Have a good time, gentlemen. All right, cool. So in what I think about objective morality, the topic, I guess, objective morality, I think that we see a pattern in moral progress, that the changes in morality across time and culture seems to be the same as time goes on. As we gain in the amount of resources we have and the amount of intellectual acuity we have, that there is a specific pattern that occurs across cultures. And I think that we're going to see the same pattern across different species once they get to the same intellectual level. And if we ever discover aliens, we'll see the same pattern in them. And once we get AIs, we'll see the same pattern in them. And if we do see this consistent pattern across different intellectual species of life, then that's good reason to believe that there's this pattern is caused by something greater than just evolution, especially if we see it in the AIs, which aren't evolutionary. And if we see it in other planets and other species, that's a good indication that it's more than just human society. And if it's greater than human society and evolution, then I think it's a good indicator that it's probably something more, even though we don't know what that something is yet. I guess broadly speaking, my biggest issue when you talk about any kind of objective moral, am I talking to them or am I talking to you? Me. Because I can talk quietly like this, or I can project my voice to the whole hall like this. Project, we don't have any speakers. So typically when I talk about morality or objective morality, usually my big problem comes when we try to establish any kind of moral fact. The problem is that we can observe a set of behaviors or phenomenon, and some people like to say, well look, that's morality. But if I take a certain behavior, and I get two people to watch it, and they have a disagreement on the morality, there is absolutely no way for them to resolve that dispute without trying to reference some external text or something else. Whereas if we try to resolve any other type of qualia or sensory experience, like is the dog soft or not? Is this the color red or blue? We have either sensory organs or we can employ some faculty to figure out if there is some underlying fact of the matter here. It's tempting when we see patterns to say that because this pattern exists, there's some guiding hand behind the pattern. I think that as humans, one of our greatest evolutionary advantages is our ability to recognize patterns and then utilize these, whether it's they're making tools or surviving the wilderness or whatever. But just because a pattern has been seen doesn't mean that there's a guiding hand behind this pattern. This is one of the most common arguments used frequently by theistic people to cite the existence of a higher power, for instance. Well, if there's a pattern, it must be some divine revelation. Like if you see a puddle of water, you assume that the water is a certain shape because it is and not just because that's the shape of the pothole. I think that you can see patterns of development across human history, but that could just be our ability to satisfy our basic desires has gotten better as technology has increased. I don't think that it necessarily points to some sort of objective moral guiding hand. I still don't see any evidence of that versus just a group of species that are developing a way that can satisfy their preferences better. If we did see in other planets and other things that didn't evolve through evolution, do you think that would increase the amount of evidence for it being something more than just a societal development? Not necessarily, I don't think so. As long as there are other plausible explanations that can be observed, it's hard to jump and say there must be an unobservable, untastable, unempirical guiding hand behind all of it. All right, I wouldn't say that. I would say that it will be empirical. I think mine does make testable predictions in the goal that it will be a force of nature like gravity or it is literally a field that we can measure. So I wouldn't say it's unempirical, but saying that there are other things that could potentially explain it don't seem to be a counter evidence to the fact that it could be caused by this. Like if you make a novel prediction that whatever will send a spaceship around at this distance to go to the moon or whatever, that could also be explained by the fact that we're in the matrix, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it's evidence that the world is round and we actually go to space. So the fact that it could be explained by other hypotheses wouldn't be a deterrent from it being positive evidence for a hypothesis that was able to make predictions that others weren't. No, I think that that's absolutely true, but we could surmise a million hypotheses about literally everything. Something that you said specifically is that it will be measurable how. So when we bring up gravity as an example, I can establish a system where there are no moral agents, there's no thinking conscious creatures, but I can still measure the effects of gravity that matter will have on other matter. How can I measure the morality of a system rather than just asking like subjectively what an individual feels about what they're seeing in front of them? I would say the same way as you do gravity. I'd say it's literally a field like gravity. It's just we just can't measure it yet. We don't have the right tools, we don't have the right developed ability to yet, but I think we will in the future. So I'd say we can literally measure it as a field exactly as we do in any of the other fields of physics. Okay, that could be possible, but then you, so if the argument is essentially there exists this thing, but we have no way to measure it, but hopefully in the future we'll develop tools to measure it. There's no, so it doesn't exist in this reality yet. It's either extra reality or immaterial, or it's part of this reality, but we can't even measure it yet. I don't know how, I don't have no idea how I'm supposed to grapple with that idea. There's like nothing for me to grab onto there. Well if it was this field, presumably, and that would explain why it would affect every different species across the universe essentially. And so if there was this pattern that was universal across species, that is not something we would expect if it was purely societal or purely evolutionary because those would have a greater expected diversity. And so if you can plot out this very specific line going in this very specific direction that all of the different species are experiencing more progress in the same way that seems to, it would be more indicative of this unknown force affecting all of the different species rather than just happening by chance for them to come about to this conclusion through evolutionary means. So I think usually a hypothesis for an unknown force will arise when we encounter measurements in a system that we can't explain. So my understanding is as of right now, we have no idea what dark matter is or what it might be made out of or any of the properties of dark matter, but dark matter is hypothesized to exist because we can't explain why gravities aren't like flying apart at hyperspeeds. When it comes to the morality thing, I don't see there being any parts of behavior on the planet where it's like, here's a phenomenon, we've observed it, but we have no explanation for this. We need to bring in some supernatural or some immaterial force to explain why the things are happening the way they are. I totally agree, I think that if we had proof or if a necessity to add in something extra, there'd be far greater evidence for it. That's why I said in the future, I think, if we discover this pattern to hold through other species when they evolve and through other aliens when we discover them and if AI's discover these, which I believe will happen, that would be stronger evidence for this to be the case rather than just what we have now. Obviously, if we had an empirical way to demonstrate it now, I'd have a Nobel Prize, but this, in my hypothesis, this is something we're going to discover in the future and if that happened, would that be sufficient evidence for you to be more inclined to believe this? Yeah, but I mean, what we're starting at right now, so we have zero empirical measurements. We don't have the tools to measure it. We don't have any strong evidence, period. We don't have a necessity to use morality to explain anything. All we've observed are some patterns that can be explained through other processes that maybe one day will be subsumed by morality, but we just have nothing for that yet. Yeah, but this is the same how everything in science starts. We see a phenomenon like, oh, that looks like we could explain this by Zeus or whatever, whatever we think of at the time and then someone makes a prediction that, oh, in the future, here's something else we'll discover if my hypothesis is right and that's how all science progresses. So yes, I agree, we don't have any strong evidence, never claimed we did, but I do think here is a good way that I expect and seems reasonable to expect to the future that we will see this. Sure, so people use the like, everything in science starts this way, but for every one truly scientific theory or theory that ends up being validated, there are a million that are completely and totally bunk. So, I mean, it might be in the future if we have some way to measure this or some way to gather empirical data on it, it might be true, but it only exists as literally just a hypothesis right now. There's no way to test it or do anything else about it, I guess. Yeah, for sure. So it is just a hypothesis at this point, but I do, the reason I'm presenting this as making these testable predictions, that's a way to differentiate it from other, all those other infinitely many hypotheses, I'm claiming if I'm right, here's things we would expect to see in the future. And these are very unexpected predictions given current sociological basis of evolution of based morality. Yeah, but don't you feel like the problem with the, the problem is there are no testable predictions here and it feels like if there, if something were to regress in some way, it feels like you'd have another explanation for it. So for instance, if we look at a woman's right having abortion in the United States, that's something that has gone one way and is now being challenged and has potentially moving the other way in the United States, as that is, does that go counter then to your system? Does that, if you have like a, a Bayesian probability of it happening, are you now aiming that downwards? Maybe there's less a chance that they're being an objective morality or? So I would say that there's a pattern of a whole bunch of different things and anything going in the opposite direction would be evidence against the hypothesis. And so if there was enough counter examples to the contrary, then yes, that would be defeaters for the model. Okay. Well, I don't really have anything empirical or anything to grapple with. I mean, it's an interesting thought experiment, but it just, it only exists in hypothesis of the moment with no way to test it or no way to, so I don't, yeah. Do we do Q and A or what? Well, yeah, so there's a few more questions though. So if we did find other species that followed the exact same patterns throughout their entire evolutionary histories on other planets, including AIs that didn't devolve, why would you not consider that strong evidence of this case, even without any empirical proof of this field? It seems to be the case that things, at least the way that it works genetically on our planet, genes wanna propagate, and so they will develop systems that ensure their survival so that they can propagate, basically, or reproduce, I guess is what we're saying. If that is the case, then I would expect that as these systems become more complicated and more complex over time, they're gonna develop more sophisticated ways of ensuring their propagation. And I don't think that you need any kind of like extra moral fact or extra immaterial thing to explain that guiding hand. It'd be like saying that markets are guided by God because Adam Smith talks about the invisible hand of the market ensuring competition lowers prices for people. I don't think, just because you'll get these kind of, these emergent properties from systems doesn't necessarily mean there has to be like a guiding immaterial thing moving those systems in a direction. Right, I'd agree, but I'd say that if this same pattern exists in things that are not biological, like silicone-based life or computer's AIs that are designed and they come upon the same kind of conclusion, that would indicate that it must be more than just evolutionary in that sense, right? Or evolution could work the same way across the entire galaxy now, or universe. Well, I mean, things that literally didn't evolve, AIs, no evolution. Things that literally didn't evolve. It's hard to imagine something that doesn't evolve from something else, but I mean, I guess it's possible, yeah. Much the same that if I were to discover on another planet a million light years away, that they worshiped a being that died and came back three days later called Jesus Christ, I'd be like, okay, well, holy shit, maybe the Jesus thing is real. Yeah, that's possible, yeah. Yeah, for sure, I'd say that would definitely count as evidence of Jesus. If we did discover on every different planet, they all believed in Jesus or something. So I'd say that the same thing would apply in morality, that if there is this consistent pattern in things that are both evolved and not evolved, human societal and whatever other alien and AIs species there are, I think this would definitely be something we should take seriously as a real potential. Perhaps, so, okay, so let's, so, I'll push you on the sun. How do you measure moral progress? What do you think is moral progress? A pattern in the same direction. So whether or not you call it progress or not isn't important, what matters is, is there a consistent pattern to the way in which the moral inclinations change? And if there is a consistent pattern in that, whether you call it a progress or a regress, doesn't matter. What matters is, is like, if you see a bunch of rocks pointed in the sand, whether you call it up or down, who cares, there's still a specific pattern in the sand. So, how do we, what does the pattern look like? For me, I define it as any involuntary position of will as a moral or the extreme would be like, it would be, a perfect world would be one where there's, it's impossible to force anyone to do anything they don't consent to. And so that would be the direction that I'm thinking is going in, based on my model. What, why does that have to be morality? Doesn't have to be, it's just the conclusion of what I see as the pattern in moral progress. So I see things changing like LGBTQ rights, women's rights, voters' rights, animal rights. It seems like, as we gain in technology and intellectual acuity, it seems that our scope of freedoms increases, that we want people to have more freedom to do what they want to do without being forced to do things that aren't. Sure, but what do you point to, to say that like, this is an example of progress? Like, what if I say, well, I'm measuring more progress by the average weight of a person? And I say that our society is progressing because we weigh more and more. Like, what's to say that your measurement of progress is better or worse than my measurement of progress? The place that I'm going to this is that, on an ethics or an epistemic level, when I'm trying to get you to, it seems like you're invoking normativity to kind of prove normativity. So I'm asking you like, how do you know that moral progress is happening? And you're giving me a discreet set of things like, well, these people are gaining more liberation or these people have more choices or these people have less involuntary things based towards, I'm just saying, well, why do you value what is like a voluntary and involuntary action? It seems like to even have that value, you already have to invoke some level of ethics to get there. And that level of ethics, I just don't know where that comes from. By level of ethics, you mean like moral intuitions. Yeah, I definitely feel like we have intuitions towards some things being moral and some things not being moral. And those would be like the phenomenon of morality. And is there a pattern in this phenomenon that we use the word morality to refer to? I would say yes. And then that would be those feelings we have towards those specific things. Does that have a pattern? And if yes, then we're gonna call that moral progress because we use the term morality to refer to that set of phenomenon as opposed to other sets of phenomenon. Sure, so then one big issue that I have at the beginning of this, how do you observe a moral fact? Usually these conversations boil down to some level of intuition. My earlier problem with two people disagreeing on a moral fact is there's no way to resolve that disagreement. So if you have two people with juxtaposed moral intuitions, how do you solve for that? So say we have two men and they both wanna get married. Now it seems like in your intuition, we have less of an imposition of involuntary action, right? So they're able to get married, but a religious person or another type of person might look at those two people and say, well, this is immorality, like society's just sending it to chaos, we are not being boiled to our bodies, we're not acting, the function of a man is not to follow the form of a man being, like with another man that this doesn't work this way. How do you resolve the disagreement between these two people who look at one as moral progress and another as a moral regression? Yeah, so two ways, one would be epistemically, we would look at essentially if we had access to all the different alien species, we could look at theirs and say, so this species has progressed to this point technologically and intellectually, what do they do? And this one has progressed to this point, what do they do? And if the pattern holds in one direction, we could find out who's right and who's wrong. And then if we get to the point where we can actually measure this field, we could literally just check the field and say, well, what is it indicating? But until then I would compare it to the evidence since he doesn't follow the pattern and the evidence, which one corresponds best to the pattern. Yeah, but again, we're kind of begging the question with the pattern, that's my issue, is how do we justify that that pattern is an example of moral progress, I guess. Invoking a hypothetical alien species is hard because we have no alien species to look at. Invoking the existence of a tool to measure morality is hard because we can't measure morality. And then even going by technological progress is, I think, almost begging the question because you're already assuming that technological progress is a good thing. So for instance, I don't know. I wouldn't say it was a good thing, I wouldn't say it's just a pattern in the phenomenon. So as our technological ability increases, so does our feelings of morality, our scope of morality. So the technology there is just something I would expect to cause these feelings to change.  But I lived in Nebraska for 30 years. I know there's a lot of people that live in rural areas that would compare themselves to technologically sophisticated city related areas and they would not see moral progress there. A lot of them actually would say there's a lot of moral decay that happens there. That the lives that people live in cities are more isolated, there's more moral decay, there's more isolation from one another. So even if you could point to that, let's say a hypothetical alien species existed where there was a lot of technological progress and then they acted in certain ways and we would call these ways like indicative of their moral system. Other people might not even look at that as moral progress. To go all the way back again, it feels like in order to say, I believe in morality because it follows some pattern. The question is always gonna be, well how do you define that pattern? That's where the interesting question is, not like if we have a pattern, is it going in one way, but rather what is the pattern we're looking for? And I don't know why we would point to one pattern, such as some sort of progress in technology or longevity or whatever, first another pattern that might be how faithful are we to our friends and families, how much do we believe in God or Jesus or any other type of pattern that people might, I guess, hold themselves against. Well I would say that when you plot out all the different data points on a graph and you can assess the graph in many different ways, it will change like how straight the line is or how much it corresponds to a particular direction rather than another. And so if it does, if there's one set of criteria that you put on the x-axis and one set on the y-axis, that makes it like a more straight line. That would be more indicative of that being the underline principle that it's following rather than one that makes it a much more jagged line where the p-values don't correspond to a straight line and it's a much more jagged thing. So I think if we can come off with different principles and different sets of criteria to put on like the x-axis and the y-axis and compare which one does it seem that promotes the best straightest line would give us an indication of which one is probably more correct than the others. Okay, I feel like we're gonna circle around on this a lot. So I agree that you can do that but it seems like all of the work that you're doing is in the following the data but the questions that we're having that are relevant to morality are preceding the graphing of the data and it's the choosing of the data. That's the hard part. So for instance, if you were to tell me I wanna measure moral progress using this and then you wanna graph it with this and you wanna graph, I'd say, okay, that's cool. Okay, I don't care about that. My question is how do you choose which points to plot? Like how do you choose what values you wanna measure? Because that's always going to be where the moral question lies. So for instance, somebody might say, well, I'm gonna plot it based on the average number of computers or cell phones that exist in a nation because I think the more you have of that the more technological you can answer. And then you can say, oh, well look, we're making a lot of progress. Somebody else might say, well, I wanna graph the average self-reported happiness level of a woman in society. And that's kind of gone up and down a little bit. Maybe somebody else says, I wanna graph it based on the number of people that have reported 80 to your depression. Well, that's gonna go down. Or maybe you wanna graph it based on the incidences of cancer. That's also gonna go down but that's because we're living longer. So all of these are complicated and the graphs and the charts are interesting but the normative questions are preceding the data. I think we wanna make it about the data but the problem is the question is actually which data are we choosing and why? Because different people are going to value different data. I don't see that as a problem because in ethics, in morality, we do have a pretty collective understanding of what morality refers to. Like killing a baby is immoral. Killing a baby for fun is immoral. We can label a certain set of actions as morally significant and a certain set of other actions as not morally significant, picking up a rock or whatever. And so there isn't really much ambiguity there where it's a difficulty in establishing what we think of as moral phenomenon. The difficulty is in corresponding to show that those feelings are more than just feelings. So I think that which phenomenon we should label is determined by our intuitions. Like we have a sense of what is moral. And the question is, is that more than just evolutionary byproducts? Is it doesn't correspond to something more? And so determining which data points we're assessing is really easy, our intuitions do that for us. The question is, is it more than that? So I don't really find the difficulty in delineating certain actions as being morally significant and others as not. So I agree with this, that we seem to have strong intuitions towards certain actions. But this is, so I kind of attack Sam Harris because he makes similar arguments to this. But the problem is that every time Sam Harris will invoke, like, oh, well, this is how we know what is good or bad. It's always usually like a really obvious example of like, should we throw acid in a person's face? Should we stab somebody in the back with a knife? Obviously these are no. But in that case, I would say that our moral intuitions are probably relatively unchanged from 10,000 years ago.  But I think that when the moral questions become more complicated, I think that relying on those basic intuitions becomes much more challenging. So you brought up killing babies as an example, and I can point to the huge divide we have in the US over whether or not we should be pro or anti-abortion. As like, this is like a, I don't know how we can just make an observation to determine using moral fact what the right or wrong answer is here. It seems like we have to bring in a whole bunch of outside stuff that we can't just observe. It's gonna be more immaterial in nature, I guess. I'm not sure what you mean there, because it's like if we can determine at what point consciousness exists, we can probably end the debate, I would assume. Like if we can determine there is a soul that goes into it at this point, and it's literally a conscious being, then that would end the debate, whether it's one way or the other. I don't know if that's true or not. If even if you told a religious person a baby is not conscious, because I think a religious person would agree, there is no consciousness at day two. The parts just aren't there for it. Why isn't that the whole argument that like literally a soul goes into the conception? Well, a soul and a consciousness are two separate things. Well, I'm using those synonymously, so if a soul was conscious. Sure, if there was someone to make sure a soul. But the problem is, is it seems to be the case, and now I know you said in the future this may change, and if it does, that would be awesome, because it would make these kinds of debates pointless, which would be cool. But it seems to be that there are some things that we reach for to establish morality that come out of the observable and out of the like 100% provable. So when we look at like a soul entering a body, it seems to be the case that if souls exist, they're immaterial, we have no way to measure them, we have no way to perceive them. So how do we make an argument over whether or not it should or shouldn't be respected? If we could one day in the future, no, because your question, your statement was, is that there wasn't some fact we could look at to know one way or the other. If we could know that this is the point it becomes conscious, whether that's a soul-based consciousness or a chemical-based consciousness, there is this fact that it's presumably knowable about the universe that could tell us one way or the other that would presumably end the debate regardless of whether or not we can know it now. Yeah, I agree, but it seems like a lot of the conversation from your point basically revolves around if one day we develop a tool and if that tool is able to measure a system that we are assuming exists now, then it will justify everything I'm saying. That may be true, but until we have a way to measure that field or that tool is developed, it's only like a thought. I'm going earlier than I'm saying if we can discover other species and see the same pattern in other species, that is sufficient enough for my point. Obviously if we could prove it empirically, that would be, there'd be no point of debate. Sure, but then also on the flip side, I could say what if we observed another species and they live a radically different life? That would be a counterpoint, like you mentioned earlier. Yeah, but we both have equal evidence for either of these things existing so it seems there's no point in hypothesizing about either existence, no? I think that would apply with anything in science. You make a prediction and then it goes the wrong way then obviously that's evidence against the hypothesis. Yeah, but typically the whole point of my understanding is that a general hypothesis is usually something that it arises from two things. Either one, you have a contradiction in a current model or an unexplainable phenomenon in a current model, or two, you're trying to develop an explanation for something that you currently don't have an explanation for, which I guess is the kind of sentence number one. So right now we don't need to bring in moral fact to explain anything I think in human existence or in our existence. And two, I don't think we have a contradiction in any of our models anywhere that is showing like, oh god, we can't explain this behavior, we must need morality. So it seems like assuming or trying to generate hypotheses for moral fact in the universe when we have no reason to assume it exists or even that we needed to exist, it seems kind of strange I guess. Well I would disagree there, I would say that if we did see this pattern across different species, that's something that would be highly unexpected. That would be a thing that we wouldn't expect given our current understanding and so if we did see that it would be very strange and we wouldn't need to add something to explain it. Okay, yeah, true, if we see things that are unexplained in the future we would need to explain them, I agree. Any other questions? No, that's it. Okay. Do we do like a Q and A thing or what? Yeah, sounds good. Hi. Hey. Do you want to come up so you can like speak into the mic so we can get you on the camera? Okay. I'm not very sure how I'm supposed to do this. Just hold it like that. Okay, can you just stand back here or? Okay. Would you like to sit on my lap? Okay, so, so TJ, were you basically, I guess were you basically arguing on behalf of like religion or like I guess like kind of curious like, I guess like what was your main point for the morality? So my main point for morality is that there seems to be a pattern. What do you need a mic to? Yeah, can I borrow your mic? Yeah, so I'm an atheist. So I don't believe in the God at all, but I do believe there is objective morality. Most philosophers are atheists and they also believe in objective morality. So my goal is to show why this is a reasonable belief system. Like we can say, yeah, there's this pattern here and we think this pattern extends far beyond the human element. And so this is a reasonable thing to believe even if you don't believe in a God. So I believe in objective morality as an atheist and I want to show why that's completely reasonable. Okay. All right. That just was my own question. Cool. I have a lot of stuff here. Any other questions? Okay, cool.


RAI, I was diagnosed with autism at the age of 3 because I wasn't responding to my own name. And one of the things that was kind of picked up in nursery was that the teacher would say would address the class and I would not respond to it due to me not recognising myself as the rest of the class. But I'm Adam, I'm not class. Mae ddweud yn ysgol yn ystod o gweld. Mae'n ddweud o wneud. Mae'r dweud ystod o gweld yn ystod o'r ddweud. Dylwn i'r ddweud yn ystod. Dwi'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud yr olaf wrth fynd. Dwi'n ddweud o ysgol, dyma sydd wedi'i ei fod yn ei ddwylo'r cyd-aerf. Oedd ysgol yn eu ddweud o'r ddweud. Byddai'n ddechrau. Cysyllt y ffordd yw… If I even dared to speak about my interests with people my own age, I would just be mocked for it.


So you want to ace your software engineering interview where you reach the right video? Let me explain this video is brought to you by digital academy You're no more source to learning programming fast and get to that six-figure freelance salary you desire our courses include our SQL project course our freelance Kickstarter our pipeline course and our interview programming course and much much more So if you haven't already go ahead and click the link below to get to our free Seven-step freelance guide so that we can help take your career to the next level. I'll see you guys in the course All right guys, let's jump right into the problem with interviewing and software engineers trying to get a job a lot of you guys drop the ball in the interview for multiple reasons You're nervous or you're not prepared You got a lot of things going on and I want to help you guys really get this under control Put yourself in position so that you can showcase your skills and really get in front of the interview or interviewer With a lot of value with a lot of confidence. Don't be as nervous and kind of give you guys some tips Five tips on how to do this guys So what I need you guys to do is to share your experience below in the comments on You know what have been your experience so far? What are you struggling with when it comes to the interview so that we can have a conversation below? So go ahead and do that comment below on what you are struggling with when it comes to Software engineering or development interview so that we can start a conversation below on that being said guys The takeaway from this video is Preparation preparation you're gonna always have a certain level of nervousness when you're going into a new situation That's gonna that's the nature of the piece But to reduce that nervousness is Preparation, you know a lot of you guys come to a situation haven't prepared Don't know what to say don't know anything about the company is a lot of things that you can do To really put yourself in a more confident position You don't do that. So the nervousness is high you worried about so many different things that you know You really put yourself in a position to drop the ball in interview We want to bring that down to the point where we keep the nervousness at a minimum So once you get in there you start to Answer questions you see that they like you everything good that nervousness just goes away and it just becomes a conversation And that's why I tell you guys The key thing in an interview guys, I don't like the word interview because it seems like You're coming to them good gracious Accept me when it should be a back and forth, you know, I'm interviewing you guys just as much as you interview me So I like the proposal route I want them to see me as a solution to their problems And we're just having general discussions to make sure that hey, we're a good fit the money's right The culture's right the actual Skillset and can I solve their problems?   So I got some I got some tips here. I wanted to go over. I got five here I want to make sure I cover that and go through that guys if you haven't already Go ahead and sign up for my free seven-step guide. I can't cover everything in this video But we cover things in detail there And if you already signed up for my free seven-step guide go So check out my premium courses and my career toolkit That's gonna allow you to really put yourself in a position to win links below to everything guys So go ahead and check that out. So like I was saying before guys When you go into an interview one of the things that keeps you guys nervous is Not necessarily knowing anything about cold you are not confident in your coding skills And you just maybe feel like hey, I'm a self-taught developer Maybe my skills are not up to par to what they need. What do I do? They're gonna ask me a question I don't know what to do. How do I handle that? Well, there's gonna be always questions You don't have a answer force for as far as just directly Experience with that particular program language or that piece of software but what you can do though is Know what piece of software they use or have a general idea of what that software is and compare that to something you've done in the past The equivalent the cross-reference the translation to let them know that hey Even though I don't have experience with that particular piece of software that particular programming language I can still Do that because I've done it over here. It's just if you know one two three over here in English You're gonna know one two three over here Spanish You just got to make the translation and you're right there within a couple of Times of learning that so you got to do that when it comes to programming guys That's gonna be the key here You want to do that as far as just the programming language number two knowledge of the company and industry This is one where you guys really dropped ball at because you come in just knowing that hey They just need a software developer. I just need to know the programming skills and all that stuff Which that's a huge part of it But in 2021 going forward to really stand out. You need to have at least a general understanding of the industry What are the major components? What are the major softwares? How do they do business? Who are the key players in the industry? What are the common problems whether they come in tech stacks?  You can just go over some of the things Maybe have a website or something like that. Just sold some projects with primary Management system software that you've done in the past That answers all their questions if you have those projects on the table That can say hey, these are problems or projects. I completed are solved in the past This is how it's similar to what you have. I can do this for you That's where you want to be that's where it the interview shift to not being interviewed to a proposal Are we a good fit? Are you can I pay you enough money to get in? Because I know you are the person for my company from a technical perspective Let's get all the Intangible stuff out of way now as far as just company culture the money all that good stuff That's where you want to be and that's where I try to get you guys to go when it comes to my seven-step guide and my Toolkit guys links are below for both Because a lot of people focus on the technology to what you should but you got to allocate some time also with Industry their tech stack the technology some of the problems that they use put all of the get into a nice solution and say here I can do this for you. You don't have to worry about it. Just pay me lots of money So guys, what's your what's your opinion comment below? Do you agree with me comment below? Do you get this agree with me comment below? Let's start a conversation below. Like I said below Earlier guys like subscribe to the content if you have additional questions comment below I'll put a link to my seven-step guide here So go ahead and check that out and I'll see you guys in the next video. Peace


Reactions have continued to troll the subsidy removal statement made by President Bollot Tunibu in his inaugural speech with the sudden return of queues in fuel station in Benissiti, the Adostate capital. As majority of the filling stations are selling above the approved pump price of 189 Naira per litre, some others were shut down. Nigeria, except that the case we have taken to Trabuna is decided as it should be, and then as a matter of fact, the suffering has just begun. First subsidy as a matter, it's a policy matter of government, and it's not what you come to the open to talk about. But the incoming president had mentioned that the implication is what you find a grammar. What was his expectation when he was making that statement? What did he think? So today we are already queuing. So it explains what we have to see the next four years, or less something drastically apple. 502. Yes, Mr. President may have announced that subsidy is gone. But not for people who already have products to be selling for us less than 24 hours. 502. That is inhumanity to human. And we are condemning it. Wait as fast now. May I wait? They control four. May I just buy? For Okora? At the Okora site. May I just buy? I said may I just turn around? Before Tunubujo announced. The filling stations just lock up just now. Now they say not be here when we buy for business, not the job lock up, because they say Tunubujo announced. Sosidy. In remote sosidy. Now they make the job they hide them. 500. 500. Hello. Hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


When someone asks you how you are, what do you say? Do you brush off your emotions and simply say, I'm fine? It may feel difficult to talk to others about what you're going through because you're tired, nervous, or don't know quite how to explain what you're feeling. Maybe you'd feel like others wouldn't understand you, or that you'd feel like a burden, but really the best release could be talking to a loved one or a counselor about what you're going through. They're there to support you and listen, and expressing what's really going on beneath the surface may let you release these emotions and feel a bit better. In this video, we want you to know that it's okay to say, I'm not fine when you're feeling low. For some, it may be hard to recognize they feel this way. So to help you recognize what you're feeling, here are seven signs you're not actually fine. If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out to a mental health professional. Let's begin. Number one, you withdraw from most situations and isolate. Do you often find yourself going to your room when you feel an onset of sadness, or perhaps lately you've isolated yourself from your family or friends? And not because of quarantine. Isolation can be a sign something more is going on with your mental health. While it's good to distance yourself from unnecessary conflicts and take a breather every once in a while, too much isolation could be a warning sign of depression. Withdrawing from fun activities and not socializing with family and friends can possibly lead to loneliness and overthinking. If you find yourself wanting to be alone too often and think it may be leading to something more serious, just try calling a friend up to chat on the phone or plan an activity with your family. Or go for a walk to get outside of your room. If the problem persists, you may want to talk to a counselor or therapist to discuss the issue. Number two, you sleep too much or not enough. How much sleep do you get? Do you often sleep in for far too many unhealthy hours? Or do you hardly get any sleep? Have you been suffering from insomnia? This could be a sign that there may be some emotional distress going on in your life that may prevent you from getting a healthy amount of sleep. According to Charles Goodstein, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at NYU Medical Center, if you have recurring disturbances of sleep more than once or twice a week and there are no physical reasons your doctor can identify, your problem may be linked to a psychological problem. Most commonly, anxiety or depression. If you can't get enough sleep and think it may be due to the current state of your mental health, talking to a counselor or therapist can help. Number three, you don't enjoy happy events, even the big ones.  Maybe you feel depressed or nervous or maybe you feel nothing at all. You don't know what you're feeling because there doesn't seem to be a strong emotion. You may feel a bit happy but you notice your emotions during these big events don't seem as strong as others. You feel a fraction of the feelings others seem to feel when you experience the same accomplishments or celebrations. You just don't feel like your old self anymore. This can be a sign that you're experiencing emotional numbness, depression or that you're emotionally unwell. Number four, you often have suicidal thoughts that can come out of nowhere. Have you been experiencing suicidal thoughts? Suicidal thoughts can reveal that you're experiencing more pain than you can deal with in the current moment but suicide is permanent and these moments don't last forever. Suicide is never the answer and there are resources out there. There are people there who want to help you and want to listen. If you're experiencing suicidal thoughts it's important to seek help and let a counselor or loved one know that you're feeling this way. They can help you on your path to feeling better by providing you with the resources you may need to get through this difficult time. We've linked several resources and hotlines in the description box below. Number five, you tell yourself you're fine, even when you're not. Do you often tell yourself, I'm fine, I'm fine, even when you're not fine. Do you ignore any negative or conflicting feelings? Suppressing emotions may seem like a quick fix to a big problem but it could actually lead to further distress in the future even over something seemingly unimportant. Let's say you suppress the anger you have over a relationship ending or a stressful routine at work. If you don't deal with the problems that can affect you in the long run, something as small as forgetting to buy the milk on your grocery list can lead to an explosive fight that will cover more than just your grocery shopping. What's worse is denying these feelings to those who ask how you are and most importantly denying them to yourself. Instead of self-denial, take a breath. Relax and try to go through the problems you're facing in a comfortable space. Feel the feelings as they happen rather than later. This doesn't mean you should let it consume you but these emotions are valid and should have time in your day to be sorted through and resolved. Number six, you don't like who you are and let your insecurities get the best of you. Everyone has insecurities. It's a normal part of being human but if you're constantly thinking of your flaws and how others might judge you it can be the beginning of a very unhealthy habit. Even if you want to change yourself for the better and improve yourself you shouldn't beat yourself up over it. It's a great goal to try to improve yourself in many ways but telling yourself that these goals are the only thing that can make you happy is a recipe for disaster because even if you do accomplish the goals you're striving for the added weight and importance you place on them can make the great feeling of achievement of accomplishing your goals not all you thought it would be in your mind. We tend to build things up in our heads and that's the reality we tend to strive for but maybe the life in your head isn't all you thought it would be. When you finally reach the mountaintop and take a look at your long-awaited fista there's always a time when you'll have to start the long trek back down because not every moment will feel as high as the mountaintops and that's normal. The point is to keep moving forward on your path, on your journey. Look at me making metaphors. And number seven. You aren't living your life. You're surviving. Every situation is different but if you find yourself just getting through your day at work just getting through to the weekend just making it to the end of the week. Congratulations. You're surviving. That can take a lot of work for some. It's important to keep going and make the best of every situation but if making it to the weekend is all you look forward to maybe it's time to reevaluate. Not everyone loves their work or school and it's normal to wish for the weekend but try to ask yourself what you really want to do. Whether it's a lifelong dream you can work towards achieving or taking up a new hobby like playing the guitar try taking the steps to add some life into... well, your life. Take a dance class. Reconnect with old friends.  Add some spice to your life's recipe book and begin to enjoy what it is that keeps you going. We can't only run on tofu. There I go with the metaphors again. If you don't take time to enjoy the moments in your life and live in the moment it may pass you by. As a wise fictional teenager once said life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while you could miss it. It was very spular for you youngsters. So do you have any of these signs? If you do it's best to seek out help from a mental health professional as mentioned. We've linked some resources in the description box below to help you on your journey to feeling mentally healthy and great again. Feel free to express your thoughts in the comments below and share any helpful coping tips. Know that it truly does get better. Many people who've experienced suicidal thoughts and survived have felt thankful that they're alive later on. With some hope, time and help from others you can go back to feeling more than fine. You soon may be feeling great. We hope you enjoyed this video and if you did don't forget to click the like button and share it with a friend or someone who might need it. Subscribe to Zyke2Go and hit the notification bell icon for more content like this. And as always, thanks for watching.


Hello, I am Dr. Ranjan Shetty, Head Cardiology at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. This year, World Heart Day, we want to focus on COVID and heart disease and as all of you are aware, we are in midst of pandemic and this pandemic does affect heart. So, it's very important for heart patient to be careful. They have to be as careful as others or if not little more careful. They have to always be wearing masks, maintaining social distancing and make sure they don't get disease. People with moderate or severe COVID disease, even if they don't have any cardiac symptoms to start with, they could manifest with heart related symptoms. So, what we advise most patients who have recovered from COVID is to be little careful and look for any symptom of cardiac, you know, any chest pain, any palpitation. And if there is any such symptom, meet your doctor and get one ECG and ECO done. It's important that people are careful, you know, they don't exercise too much. We want them to start with mild to moderate exercise and gradually recover. Typically, everything settles after 4 to 6 weeks, so they have to be little careful. During this time from Manipal Hospital, we do have some post COVID packages for patients, so they could avail these packages where we monitor them with some 24 hour ECG and some blood test. Post COVID people need to be careful also about blood clots. The clots could occur in the leg and they could come to lung. So, most patients post COVID, we do advise them some sort of blood thinner to prevent it. But it's not, you know, people should not panic. It's just about being little more careful. With this, I want to wish all of you a very happy World Heart Day. Please take care of your heart, both for COVID and non-COVID reasons.


I keep thinking that I'm never gonna get better. Anxious people seem to think that this particular thought is special and requires some sort of special coaching or instruction to get through. It's not special. It's just an anxious thought like any other. It's one full of doubt. It might be one spawned from frustration or struggle in your recovery, which is normal and natural and to be expected. But just because you think that you might never get better doesn't mean that that thought has any sort of validity to it. You might be struggling today. That's okay. We all struggle in recovery. But the best way to handle the thought that you might never get better is to recognize that it is a thought. You are just thinking again about something that's really important to you. So it feels really urgent and special. But then get up and take some action toward recovery. It doesn't matter how small that action is. And it doesn't even matter if you hit it out of the park. You might stumble a little bit. But the best way to respond to the thought that you'll never get better is to do the best you can to get better and let it play out as you go.  It's not helping you in any way.


Hello everyone, my name is Thiago Hayes, and today I would like to demonstrate some of the most popular functionalities of our best-in-class ultra-low-power accelerometer, the LIS-2DW12. The LIS-2DW12 is one of the most flexible accelerometers in the market, featuring two different noise options and five different power modes that can dynamically be programmed. The device can reach ultra-low-power consumption values close to 350 nm and still be active sensing motion. Some of the most popular functionalities in accelerometers are tap, double-tap, wake-up detection, free fall, orientation sense, activity and inactivity detection. This video will actually demonstrate some of these functionalities that can be embedded directly into our accelerometer. The LIS-2DW12 can also be a good fit for a wide range of applications covering handheld and wearable devices, gesture recognition, impact recognition, display and device orientation, button replacement through tap and double-tap, and of course, due to its ultra-low-power consumption, be a good fit for many different IoT applications. One of the most powerful evaluation tools that we have is the STVAL MKI109V3, also called the Professional MEMS tool. The Profi MEMS allows you to connect through a D24Ping socket a wide range of adapter boards featuring all the available ST sensors, and in this case I have listed here the LIS-2DW12 adapter board, the STVAL MKI179V1. Once the desired adapter board is connected to the Profi MEMS, you can utilize a graphical user interface called the UNICO, that is a dedicated software that gives you access to each register setting of the sensor of choice. The UNICO GUI is one of the key elements part of our development ecosystem for sensor evaluation. On top of being able to control the device register settings, UNICO also allows a developer to configure all the smart functions of our sensors, including interrupts, pedometer, finite state machines, and also the machine learning core on our high-end IMUs. It is also a very powerful tool that allows you to perform data logging and data visualization with just a couple of clicks. The UNICO GUI is available on Windows, Mac and Linux, and can be downloaded directly from st.com. For this demo, we are also going to rely on the STM32 power shield. This evaluation board allows accurate power consumption measurements of external sensors. In this case, we are using the ultra-low power consumption measurements provided by this platform. As you can see, you can supply the target board from 3.3V down to 1.8V, and the dynamic current consumption that you can measure is from 100nm all the way to 50mA. And at the same time, as static current measurements, the range is from 1nm all the way to 200mA, and the accuracy of this board is approximately 2%. In this case, we are also going to use it in stand-alone mode, which is going to allow us to visualize the current consumption measurements directly on the LCD display available on the top of the board. As a starting point, let's start by measuring the ultra-low power modes of the LIS-2DW12. When opening UNICO, it's time to connect the COM port with the PROPHY MEMS. Once the connection is established, we are now able to configure the sensor that is on top of the board. As you can see, the device is currently in power-down mode, and let's take a look at the current consumption of the device when in this stage. When looking at the power shield, in power-down mode, the accelerometer is actually consuming 33nm of current consumption. And as per the LIS-2DW12 datasheet, the typical value for the power-down current consumption is 50nm. Now let's take a look at the ultra-low power mode capability of the LIS-2DW12. We are going to open up UNICO back again and take a look at the different operational modes. In this case, we are switching from power-down mode to low power sampling at 1.6 Hz. As you can see, I will enable the bar graph so we can actually visualize the sensor data flowing through the PC. And under that condition, we are actually having an ultra-low current consumption capability of the device itself. Let's take a look at it. We are talking about close to 380nm of current consumption, being extremely power-effective for any IoT application. Now that we went through the ultra-low power capabilities of the LIS-2DW12, let's talk about one of the most popular smart features of this accelerometer, the activity slash inactivity detection. The way this mode works is by allowing the user to configure both a threshold and a duration parameter that would represent a wake-up signal. Whenever these conditions are met, the device will wake up and operate at the desired operational mode as per the control registers configuration. In this demo, we are using 100 Hz as a reference. It's important to highlight that this interrupt also includes the inactivity flag, which means that after a while, without any interaction of the host microcontroller, the accelerometer will automatically go back to its low power state. In this case, a ODR sampling rate of 12.5 Hz. And this plays a key role of bringing intelligent power savings capabilities to any battery-powered product using our accelerometer. Now let's take a look at the device register settings that we are going to use for this demo. We are going to turn on the accelerometer and configure the output data rate to 100 Hz, with a full scale of plus or minus 2G. We will also set the duration for both inactivity and wake-up detection together with the relevant threshold that will define the activity or inactivity state as explained on the previous slide. To make this demo even more visual, I'm also going to route the sleep state of the device to the interrupt pin 2. This means that the pin signal will be held high whenever the device is in sleep mode. Just like the first demo, let's open up Unico GUI and connect the professional MEMS tool to the PC. The sensor is already configured with the register settings I listed on the previous slide. And we'll start in sleep mode. Note the interrupt 2 signal is held high. From there, if I apply some motion into the sensor, you see the interrupt pin going low and the output data rate going faster than the 12.5 Hz. In this case, 100 Hz. After a while, the sensor node will automatically detect that there is no motion and raise the interrupt pin 2 back again, as you can see on the left-hand side of this slide. So doing it once more, we'll apply motion, interrupt pin 2, go low and then after a while, you leave the board sitting and the device will enter in ultra-low power mode or sleep mode as well. This is a very important feature for any battery power device. In talking about power, let's take a look at the current consumption of the device under those conditions. With the STM32 power shield connected, we can actually see that the device is in ultra-low power mode with an average of 930 nanoamps of current consumption. And note that the interrupt pin 2 LED is turned on. Now, if I start moving the device, the device will enter the faster ODR with a current consumption of about 5 microamps. So this is the 100 Hz current consumption of the LIS2DW12. After a while, the interrupt 2 pin will go high again and the device will automatically enter the ultra-low power mode that we just saw. The last demo that I wanted to show you today is the 6D orientation detection that is also one of the most popular smart features of our accelerometers. The goal here is to generate an interrupt whenever the device switches from one orientation to the other. Note that you can actually know the orientation of the device by reading the status register of the 6D interrupt. Some of the common use cases for the device orientation are screen rotation on mobile devices, smart speakers and soundbars that can be mounted in different orientations and also for tampering purposes in smart industry applications. For this example, the configurations that we are going to use will be the following. 12.5 Hz sampling rate with the device in low power mode, the full scale at 2G, and we will also enable the 6D orientation interrupts. Note that it is also possible to configure the 6D orientation threshold, meaning the different angles that would actually trigger switching the absolute orientation of the device. And last but not the least, we are also routing the 6D interrupt in this case to the interrupt one pin. Let's open up Unico GUI again and connect our board once more. In this case, I'm going to show you the absolute orientation of the accelerometer by using the T-POT demo. As you can see, I'm collecting sensor data and as soon as I start moving my sensor node, you can actually see the interrupt being generated on interrupt line one every time I change the device orientation. You can also notice the chart with the different acceleration values from x, y and z axis and also the T-POT orientation drawing to allow you a better visualization. And finally, but definitely not the least, let's look at the current consumption of the LIS2DW12 when running the 6D orientation detection. As expected, the current consumption of the device is about 900 nanoamps, still being able to detect the device orientation but being extremely power effective when doing so. And with that, I thank you very much for your time and attention, and for more information, please visit us at st.com slash sensors.


Thanks to it. I'm Muthu. I want to talk about some recent effort in zero-knowledge standardization This is an open initiative between the industry and academia to standardize zero knowledge This community needs no introduction on zero knowledge We are seeing more and more recent progress in both the theory and also concrete implementations of zero knowledge with the advent of cryptocurrencies and blockchain more and more people are Even both in and outside our community are recognizing the use of zero knowledge and its Applications to make business and government processes more efficient and transparent There's clearly a need for standardization to facilitate interoperability and as well as creating benchmarks This is a slide I borrowed from Shafi, which basically gives a timeline on how it took to get RSA standardized We took about 27 years, but you know there were like crucial points and events in this Sorry In this timeline that actually Helped in this standardization. I think we are at this juncture for zero knowledge and I think it's Good I Think it's both an opportunity and a duty for us to make this happen I want to talk about like a first effort in this direction. These were our steering committee members We our first event that was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts in May this year Following sort of a template that you know We borrowed from the homomorphic standardization event that some of you would have seen shy during talk during the The break I'm not going to talk more about this more details are available on our web page on what happened During this event we had a follow-up session in Zecon and Montreal where we had a more detailed discussion on interoperability We formed a Google group to get more To get more participation from people I want to skip these slides Given my time, please go come and check out our whitepapers at our web page ZK proof org and following events. We want more people to participate in this process. Thank you