So the Clausius-Clapeyron equation tells us the details of the pressure-temperature behavior, how the pressure changes with temperature along these coexistence lines that involve the gas phase on a pressure-temperature phase diagram. So, for example, sticking with our example of water, we know water boils at 100 degrees C in one atmosphere, so that's this point on the phase coexistence line, the liquid-gas coexistence line, that allows us to answer questions about how much the boiling point would change as we change the pressure or, equivalently, how much the pressure will change if we modify the temperature. So, to see how that works, let's work an example. Let's suppose, again, sticking with water, we're talking about boiling of water, vaporization of water. I'll tell you that the heat of vaporization of water near its normal boiling point is about 41 kilojoules per mole, cost me 41 kilojoules of enthalpy to vaporize one mole of water at the normal boiling point. And we know, normally, when the pressure is one atmosphere, give a couple of sig figs here, so when the pressure is 1.00 atmospheres, the boiling point is 373 Kelvin. Let's suppose, we go to somewhere where the pressure is lower, like the top of a mountain. The mountain, tall mountain closest to me is Mount Mitchell. The elevation at the top of Mount Mitchell is a little bit above 6,600 feet, or in metric units, that's a little over, what is that? I think that's 2,040 meters, roughly. So, let's say I'm going to camp near the top of Mount Mitchell, where the pressure, atmospheric pressure is reduced because I'm at a little bit of altitude, atmospheric pressure is reduced down to only 0.78 atmospheres. So, I'm giving you that number, but we could, in fact, have calculated that number itself. Remember, from the Boltzmann distribution, the population of molecules in the air at some altitude h is related to the Boltzmann factor e to the minus energy, Mgh divided by kT. But I've done that work for you. I've told you that the barometric pressure at the top of Mount Mitchell is 0.78 atmospheres, and I would like to know at what temperature water boils. I'm going to boil myself some macaroni and cheese at the top of Mount Mitchell. What temperature will that water boil under that reduced pressure? In other words, at this somewhat reduced pressure, the boiling point is going to be lower as well. How much will that boiling point be lower? The Clausius-Clapeyron equation tells us how to calculate that. So, I'm looking for what's called these T1 and P1. I'm looking for T2. So, if I rearrange this equation to solve for T2, I'll have to do that in a couple of steps. I'll say that quantity in parentheses 1 over T2 minus 1 over T1 is equal to minus r over the heat of vaporization multiplied by log of P2 over P1. I can then add 1 over T1 to both sides. So, over here, I'll just write 1 over T1. On this side, I'll just add 1 over T1 and subtract those two. And then the number I'm looking for T2 is the reciprocal of this. So, I have to write the reciprocal of everything on the right side, r over heat of vaporization with a negative sign, log P2 over P1 plus 1 over T1. I'll take in the reciprocal, so 1 over that quantity in parentheses. So, we can plug numbers in doing that somewhat carefully to make sure we treat the units correctly. The gas constant, I'll use that in units of joules per mole Kelvin. I'll divide that by heat of vaporization, which I've given you as 41 kilojoules per mole. To cancel the joules here, I'll write it now as 41,000 joules per mole. That looks good. Joules per mole is going to cancel. I multiply that by the natural log of P2 over P1, the lower pressure divided by the higher pressure. In this case, so 0.78 atmospheres divided by the original pressure of one atmosphere. Add that to 1 over this temperature, 373, and take 1 over all of that. So, units look good. Joules cancel. 1 over moles cancel. These atmospheres cancel. I've got a 1 over Kelvin adding to a 1 over Kelvin, and when I take the reciprocal, that's going to end up in units of Kelvin, which is good. And when I do the arithmetic, that works out to be 366 Kelvin. So, what does that mean? 366 Kelvin is 7 degrees cooler than the initial temperature of 373 Kelvin, so the boiling point has reduced a bit. It's been reduced from 100 degrees Celsius to 93 degrees Celsius when I boil water at 0.78 atmospheres rather than 1 atmosphere. So, we are able to calculate how much the boiling point has been reduced when I'm in an environment with lower atmospheric pressure. We can do that, of course, not only up here near the boiling point. We can do it at colder temperatures as well. We don't typically call it boiling when the water changes from the liquid phase to the gaseous phase at a colder temperature. We normally just call that evaporation. If I put a glass of water out in the room, much of the water will evaporate over time. We call that evaporation. The terminology we there use there is in the boiling point. If I do, if I put a glass of water out at room temperature, let's say 25 Celsius, we talk about the vapor pressure of water. So, at room temperature, the vapor pressure of water is about 24 Torr. So, that's roughly a 30th of an atmosphere or so, 3% of an atmosphere in units of atmospheres, but the in equilibrium, liquid and gas are in equilibrium at room temperature. The gas will have a pressure of 24 Torr or 0.03 atmospheres or so. So, we can ask a similar question not about how the temperature changes, but what if I have a glass of water in equilibrium with 24 Torr of water vapor at room temperature, and then let's say I'm doing this outdoors, and overnight the temperature drops to something fairly chilly, 10 degrees Celsius, about 50 degrees Fahrenheit or so. So, if the temperature drops from 25 Celsius to 10 Celsius, what's going to happen to the vapor pressure, it's also going to drop, and we can ask how much the pressure would drop. So, we'll work another example just to illustrate that we can solve for pressures instead of solving for temperatures, pointing out also that the terminology differs when we're talking about vapor pressures, rather than boiling points. So, the question I've set up is if I've got temperature 1 is equal to 25 Celsius or 298 Kelvin, the vapor pressure is 24 Torr at a lower temperature of 10 Celsius, 283 Kelvin, that's not T1, that's T2. What would be the vapor pressure under those conditions? And we also need still to know the enthalpy of vaporization for water. That's actually not the same as it is over here. The enthalpy of vaporization, it cost me 41 kilojoules per mole to boil water up near its boiling point. It cost me a little bit more. It cost me about 44 kilojoules per mole to evaporate water down near room temperature. So, we'll talk in the next video actually about why that is, why the enthalpy of vaporization is different at different temperatures. But for now, we'll just take that as a number that we've looked up or been given 44 kilojoules per mole to evaporate water at 298 Kelvin in this vicinity. So, we have everything we need now to solve for P2. If I rearrange this equation, the form I'd rather use it in is the form I get by exponentiating both sides of this equation. P2 is equal to P1 times the exponential of minus enthalpy of vaporization over R 1 over T2 minus 1 over T1. So, now everything I know is over here on the right side. If we plug numbers in to see how the units work out, P1, we were given it in units of tour. I've got an exponential up in the exponent of that exponential. I've got an enthalpy of vaporization, 44 kilojoules per mole or 44,000 joules per mole divided by the gas constant, 8.314 joules per mole Kelvin. Multiply that by 1 over T2. So, 1 over 283 minus 1 over T1. And again, just to double check the units, those are going to work the same as before. Joules per mole, cancel. This 1 over Kelvin outside the parentheses, sorry, 1 over 1 over Kelvin outside the parentheses will perfectly cancel the 1 over Kelvin inside the parentheses. This is the 1 over Kelvin in the numerator. This is the 1 over Kelvin in the denominator. So, the units in the exponent all go away, which is good. That's what they should do. And now this arithmetic works out to be 24 tour times e to the sum negative number. So, it's going to reduce 24 tour down to with the number of sig figs we deserve, 9 tour. So, physically speaking, what that tells us about the real world is if water is in equilibrium with its vapor at 24 tour, at room temperature, when the temperature drops down to 10 degrees Celsius, the vapor pressure of water drops as well to only 10 tour. So, that's why, for example, dew forms on the grass overnight when it gets cold is if there was 24 tour of water vapor in the air during the day. When the temperature was in the 70s Fahrenheit, when the temperature drops to 50 degrees overnight, only 10 tours worth of that water vapor can stay in the air. The rest of it has to condense down into the liquid phase. So, the Clausius-Clapeyron equation can allow us to do calculations. Both of these are the same thing. They're just telling us how P1 and T1 change to P2 and T2 as we slide along this coexistence curve. We can phrase that in terms of how the boiling point changes if I drop the pressure or equivalently if I were to increase the pressure or we could phrase it in terms of how the vapor pressure changes as I increase or decrease the temperature. So, we can do that for boiling points, vapor pressures, we can do it for increases or decreases, we could do it for substances other than water as long as we know the heats of vaporization. So, the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is quite useful for this type of calculation, but remember we can only use it for the phase coexistence lines that involve the gas phase.


It heats you up. It's great for a cold breakfast. No, for a warm breakfast. Hi, I'm Uweish. Welcome here to my kitchen in Mexico City. Today we're going to be cooking birria. Birria is a regional dish of Mexico that is cooked in many different states like Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Jalisco. Today we're going to make two versions of birria. One, simple birria that basically it's a clear white broth of beef that you can add your own salsa to your taste and then on the side the birria tacos. And in the ultimate version, I'm going to make you a really special preparation that is called quesa birria. Like the name says, it's a quesadilla slash wheat birria tacos. So for the simple birria, first we need to cook the meat with some herbs. So we have the beef that we have two types of cut, the aguja that has a little bit of fat, that's why I like it, and the maciza that is as you can see pretty lean. Let's put the meat in the pressure pot. Let's add our aromatic leaves. We have the bay leaf, thyme, and margarine. Black pepper. We're going to add a piece of onion. We're going to add a clove of garlic. Let's add some water. It's going to be cooked together at least one hour. So we're going to make the salsa for the simple birria. We're going to use three types of chiles. Guajillo that is much more of an earthy, dry flavor. Pazilla that it tastes very similar to a prune, and also ancho that it adds actually a little bit more of sweetness. You have to clean them. So I always use my scissors to take the stem out, take all the seeds out, and also the veins, because if not they're going to be a little bit spicy. So I added the boiling water to the chiles, garlic, and onion, and I'm going to put this in the stove to cook. So the chiles for the salsa have been boiling around 10 to 15 minutes. And now we're going to put everything in the blender and blend it. We have our meat that has been boiled. It's now super soft and we have also the broth. So what we have to do with the meat is take it out and we have to chop it. Sometimes people do it with forks like this and then you can just finish it with your knife. Now we're going to finish with the sides that we have to use for our simple birria, which are onion, limes, some cilantro, oregano, and the salsa that we already made. To finish the birria and the tacos we have to put to both the same things. So when you add the salsa you have to stir it up. Now as you can see we have red birria. This is how traditionally it's done in most of the markets in Mexico and then to prepare your tacos just put some meat and then you add the same thing to your tacos. All right now we have ready our simple birria soup and tacos so we're going to taste them. So this is a more simple recipe but it still has a lot of flavor and spice. If you have never made birria before this is a great recipe to start with. Now we're going to do the most difficult birria version. For this recipe we're going to use guajillo chiles, pasilla, but also another chile that it's called morita. This one it's a bit more smoky flavor and a little bit more spicy so we're going to only add a few. So we're going to roast the chiles, pasilla, guajillo, and morita. Here it can get a little bit tricky because how do you know that this that it's already black is roasted by the smell? So I'm going to use my comal to roast all of this. It has to be already warm so when you put them you're going to immediately feel the smell and you have to turn them quickly. So we're going to roast the avocado leaf, bay leaf, allspice, clove, cumin, and cinnamon. Be very careful with now burning your spices or leaves. So now we have everything the chiles and the spices roasted so we're going to add some warm water to soak it up and make it softer when we start to make to blend the adobo. So while the chiles are soaking we're going to make the radish salsa. So we're going to chop our radishes very small squares and now we're going to blend habanero lime juice and vinegar and that's what we're going to soak in the radishes also overnight. For the habanero I like to leave the seeds in because the idea is that this salsa it's spicy. You want to smell it? It has to smell strong. All right now we're going to blend everything to make our adobo and marinate the meat. We're going to take all the chiles and spices and let's add some oregano and some white vinegar. Now we're going to put the meat here just make sure that all the meat gets covered. The best thing to do is to marinate the meat at least overnight. If you don't have enough time you can just leave it rest a little bit like we did right now and just add the meat with the adobo to the pressure pot and you have to cook this for an hour. So now we're going to roast the tomatoes, the onion and the garlic because that's what we're going to add to our ultimate birria when our meat is ready. Directly roast into the comal no oil nothing. In Mexican food we never take the burnt parts out that's what we want we want that flavor this is not French food okay so now we have the meat that it's already marinated and cooked so we're going to take that out. I want to show you how super soft it is it's just falls apart all right look at that color super beautiful the roasted tomatoes onions garlic we're going to blend that we're going to mix this and this is our ultimate birria consomme. We want that the consomme it's super smooth let's strain it and to this we're going to add the adobo that we already have and now we're going to bring this into the fire all right so now we're going to make our quesadillas we're going to use corn tortillas we're going to use stringy cheese or quesillo so quesillo it's super easy to shred just like this. Over here we're going to put first the cheese so it creates a crispy cheese layer so now we grab our tortilla and we dunk it in the hot consomme so with that it gives it a really nice red color and we put that over our cheese then we flip it that looks good then when you add the meat you have to fold it and just let it cook over there on both sides all right so we made three quesadillas and now we're going to add the final touch that it's the onion, cilantro, lime and the spicy radish pico. As you can see it's much more complex than the other one it requires more time but the litany it worth it. The good part about marinating the meat is that it's also packed with flavor that everything also came to the consomme I really wish that I can see your faces when you try these guys because this is an amazing recipe. The broth is super rich but doesn't feel heavy so it's just packed with flavor. I really want to know which one is your favorite version so please leave that in the comments I want to know if you like better the simple birria or the ultimate birria version. Thank you so much for watching today's video and if you enjoyed it remember to subscribe to The Spruce It's channel for more content like this


Hey guys, it's Liana and I'm here today to talk about The Witcher series by Andrey Sapkowski. Yeah, it's a lot of books. And I've read them all, but not kind of all in one go. I read these in 2018. And then this year, I read Tower of Swallows in 2019. And I finished it this year and then I just finished Lady of the Lake. And this is a lot of freaking books. So I don't think I need to hold them up. You know what we're talking about. I have not read Season of Storm. That's the only one that I haven't read. That one came out very recently and it takes place before even The Last Wish. It's like a pre-pre-prequel. So I will get to that at some point, but I regard this as kind of like the official Witcher series as it was until very recently. So yeah, what did I think of it? I have extremely mixed feelings about it.   Go for it. That's what you all like to do. I thought it started out really strong. And then the ending is where I started to feel mixed about it. Overall, I would say that I think it's a good series. Overall, I would say that I do not regret reading it at all. And I do recommend the series to people like without reservations, I recommend it. But in terms of enjoyment of the reading experience and in terms of the strength of the writing, I feel like it tapered off towards the end. I was really into it. I really loved The Last Wish and the sort of destiny. I loved Blood of Elves. I love Time of Contempt. I love Baptism of Fire. And then Tariff Swallows, I was pretty bored. And then Lady of the League, I was just kind of scratching my head a lot. And not because, honestly, I was confused and not, I don't mean I was confused. Like I didn't understand it. I just kind of didn't understand why I was being told things. When I was being told them, in the order I was being told them, or like why it was important to know them at all. Like I understood what was going on. I was just like, why are you telling me this? I don't get why, not that I don't get it. It's a really long series and there's a lot to it. So I, this video can't, wouldn't even be spoilery if I wanted it to be because like to go into spoilers for this, what is five core books and then the two prequel kind of novella bind up type short stories situation because that's kind of if you don't know anything about Witcher series, the official kind of saga starts with Blood of Elves, then it's Time of Contempt, then it's Baptism of Fire, then Tara Swallows and the Lady of the Lake. So those are like the five core books, but you're supposed to read The Last Wish and The Sword of Destiny before Blood of Elves. So I've read all of those and I've heard people complain that The Last Wish and The Sword of Destiny feels disjointed because it's kind of more a series of vignettes and short stories kind of introducing you to the concept of what a Witcher is and introducing you to the world of the Witcher and kind of the various characters that come into play at some point, the places and the politics. It's kind of an introduction into the world without having really an overarching plot and I didn't mind that at all. I enjoyed it because I really liked the world and I really like Geralt's character and I was into it. It had a lot of dark humor in it and I didn't mind that it was seen kind of directionless because it was kind of monster of the weak type set up which it was fine with. And then the core books that take you on this saga that do have an overarching plot that begins with Blood of Elves. At first I was into it. At first this core story had my attention and interest and you still had the kind of monster of the weak type situations here and there, but I really loved getting to know the characters more. I to this day, when I talk about this series with people, when I try to convince them to read it or I talk about what I loved best about it, one of the things that I loved best about it was Geralt with Little Ciri, the rough and gruff and over the hill warrior witcher raising a little precocious princess.  I love it so so much. Yeah, so there was a lot of things about the series but other than that too that I liked. There's so many female characters featured prominently in the story as significant political movers and shakers as some of them are conniving, some of them are benevolent, some of them are kind, like there's a as great a variety in the representations of females as there is of males which is refreshing and fantasy in particular especially a Polish fantasy written in the 90s. If anyone if I was gonna give anyone a pass or kind of not representing females all that well, I would probably give something written in the 90s in Poland to pass but I didn't need to give this a pass because women are strongly featured, heavily featured prominently and frequently featured in this series. They are significant. They're not just like in there to have a token female.  Again, they're not all the same. There's a huge diversity, it's not like they're all schemers or all anything. They're complicated and varied just like male characters which is a good job. Again, a lot that I like about this series, I really enjoy the juxtaposition of Geralt with Dandelion. That's funny just like I mean it's funny in the show but it's different in the books because Geralt is different in the books and I didn't really mean to make this a video comparing the book to the show but now that the show is out I can't not do that. Geralt to me is not like a hot guy like he is on the show because he's played by Henry Cavill and Henry Cavill don't get me wrong he is fine and he looks great as Geralt. Sure but it doesn't look like Geralt to me. To me the person who should have played Geralt to be the way that I pictured Geralt would be Carl Urban. If you're not familiar with Carl Urban he's the actor, he's one of the lead actors in The Boys which is the Amazon show and he's also Bones in the the movie versions of Star Trek by JJ Abrams. He's also in Lord of the Rings the actor who plays Elmer so he's been in some other stuff you may have seen him. He particularly his character in The Boys you just put a white wig on that give him a sword instead of a gun. That's Geralt, that's how I pictured him. Kind of gruff and a little bit uncouth and just more grizzled really really grizzled. Henry Cavill yeah they grizzle him up a little bit but he's still too pretty like he's really really pretty you know what I mean. That's kind of one of the things that I loved about this book series too is that Geralt's character he isn't a star-eyed heroic noble knight figure like you get in a lot of heroic traditional fantasy he's also not which you find in Abercrombie where in Abercrombie books everybody is just kind of like a shit human who has like no moral compass whatsoever.  That can make him appear to have no moral compass when you don't agree with his decisions or you don't get why he's making the decisions he's making but it's not like he is heartless his just his position on things is his own position on things and he's not naive and he's not idealistic but he does have a sense of right and wrong that his own sense of right and wrong and he kind of lives by that and he's not gonna patiently explain it to you he's not going to respect your position on things he's not that kind of guy either so I just I found Geralt's character to be a lot more layered and interesting than he seems to be on the show so far and his character the fact that he you know he does sleep with a lot of women in the books there's a lot of sex in the books surprisingly a lot of sex in the books but it's not like a romance novel type of sex and it's not like Abercrombie sex either because there's sex in Abercrombie books and he just suggests as grim dark and like yikes as all the battle and the blood and the violence. The sex in the Witcher books is sometimes romantic sometimes not sometimes extremely like idealized and magical and sometimes kind of because you felt like it so so Geralt does sleep with a lot of women in the book or in the books plural and I feel like I've heard people complain that they don't like that about the portrayal of his character where like all the women are just like falling over themselves to sleep with him because that's not really how it came across to me it just came across to me as a lot of powerful people who all have urges and needs and Geralt is you know a virile man and he's there and these women it's not like they're lusting after him only but you know he's interesting and he's exciting and he's physically powerful so why the fuck not it didn't strike me as like these all these damsels who are just like so like wetting their panties over Geralt it was more like other strong female characters seeing this strong male character and you know why not it felt pretty balanced and equal to me I didn't feel like it was sexist I guess it's what I'm trying to say it didn't feel sexist because the women were also sleeping around with dudes other than Geralt it's not like he's the only one getting laid around here so yeah all of the complicated interesting characters and there's a lot of like complicated interesting politics and and world building the way the magic comes into it the way that this is getting into a little bit something spoilery so I guess warning but there is kind of almost like a his dark materials parallel universes type thing that kind of comes into it which is kind of when it started to lose me but I still think it's a cool concept but I don't know that to me I don't know that Andrei Sapkowski knew exactly what he wanted to do with that as a concept as a it seemed to me that it was thrown in there as like a isn't that interesting just on its own and it is but like what's the point of that because it does kind of begin to cross over and bleed over and into making you ask questions about what universe this is taking place in or not taking place in which again as a concept yeah cool but I don't think enough was done with it to justify having it in there except I don't know if that's fair to say y'all probably already shitting on me in the comments were saying that but whatever that's how I felt about it a lot of people don't like yennefer and I don't get why gerald is so into yennefer specifically however I never have a problem with that like people complain about name of the wind and say they don't get like foots into denna and people complain about the gentleman bastard series and say they don't get why Locke is so into sabbath I don't care I'm not the one that's into those women it's just important to the character and so if it's believable to me that gerald is into yennefer I don't have to love yennefer he loves yennefer so it's a story about him not about me so I don't have to think she's amazing I don't have to be in love with her it's significant to Geralt's character that he's in love with yennefer and it defines a lot of his choices and it doesn't have to make sense to me love doesn't make sense so yeah so I don't have a problem with that like I don't I don't see what's so great about her but I don't need to see what's so great about her so I don't care if that makes sense it's it doesn't bother me that Geralt's in love with yennefer like great that's who he's in love with fine Yennefer's character is again a layered and interesting and complicated character which again I think Andrew Sapkowski handles women fairly well in this series not flawlessly but fairly well and series character I liked a lot at first but the story stopped being about Geralt right around Tower of Swallows and Lady of the League and became kind of entirely about Ciri and Ciri is important of course she's important and I I want her to be prominently featured in the story and she was prominently featured to begin with it was always clear that she was linked with Geralt the child surprise linked by destiny blah blah like we know this but it got to the point where towards the end of the series I was like why is Geralt even here why even have him at all why call this the winter series because he's hardly in it and I guess that's kind of my issue with it I was like then I felt a little bit cheated in terms of the naming of the series I was like why aren't why don't you call this like the Chronicles of Princess Cirilla or something because it's more about her than it is about Geralt Geralt's just like also there and in the way that it keeps being forced down our throats that they are linked by destiny and how important Geralt and Ciri are like in terms of fate and destiny I by the end I was like I yeah they ended up being tied but not in a way that really it didn't live up to all the build up because the books all from the beginning are building up this this destiny this fate that they're all marching towards where Geralt and Ciri are inextricably linked and it's just like at the end I was like are they linked they were around each other a lot and they ended up doing stuff that affected the other but so by the end of the books I was starting to miss Geralt I was like where the fuck is Geralt I thought this was the Witcher series where is the fucking Witcher and I it's not like I didn't want Ciri in it I didn't want it to be like 80% Geralt with like Ciri also there but it turned into 80% Ciri with like Geralt also there I wanted it to be more even it could be if it's the Witcher series and it's about Geralt which is apparently what it's supposed to be according to how it's named and how it's sold and how it's pitched um maybe make it 60 Geralt and like 40 Ciri you know like where is the Witcher so overall I enjoyed the series overall is a good read overall it's doing some really interesting things with magic and real building and politics and there were times again towards the later books where it wasn't even about Ciri it was not about Geralt or Ciri we would off-road into like other parts of the world where it's just like suddenly giving me a bunch of politics and history lessons on other parts of the world which is significant to what's generally going on and into the diplomatic and political and battle decisions that are taking place in the world that affect Geralt and Ciri it was just kind of so much off-roading into not our main characters that it made me feel quite detached and even the way that it's told even when we are talking about Geralt and Ciri the narration could feel quite detached at times so that I guess was somewhat of a criticism but for the most part that didn't bother me really only started to bother me in the later books when I kind of lost the feeling of being connected to this story and being connected to these characters and the way that I felt very connected and really interested and very invested I was very into it in the beginning into Geralt's character into Ciri's character into seeing how they were linked into seeing where all this is going into the politics into the history but it's just kind of like a bit like with George R R Martin's books which is kind of again how I feel about them and feel free to shoot on me for this too I feel really connected to George R R Martin's characters in the beginning books but then by the time we get to like Feast for Crows and Dance with Dragons it's just like so all over the place that I'm just like who am I following anymore do I care where are my main characters that's and then the again without spoilers the way that the series ends is it's the best word it's a bit underwhelming again and that's more because of how the series itself keeps building if the series didn't so frequently talk about fate and destiny and where all this is leading then it wouldn't matter to me because again I love Abercrombie and Abercrombie books he seems to take a perverse pleasure in ending things in a way that you're just like what that's how it ends what the fuck I love Abercrombie books so it's not a problem for me but if a book's gonna keep telling me that destiny and fate and destiny and fate are like such a big fucking deal and that this is the witcher series and destiny and fate and then by the last book I'm just like sorry what destiny what fate where's the fucking witcher so again overall I think it's very interesting and unique and pretty exceptional series honestly there's a lot of stuff that Andrew Sapkowski has done here that is incredible like Tolkien level complexity to world building like Dordar and Martin level of complexity of family trees and lineages and interweaving of destiny and whatever like it's a lot there and overall I'm impressed and in the beginning books was also very much enjoying it it seemed to me to kind of get away from him and you can even kind of see that when you look at the books and you look at how fucking long Lady of the Lake is this compared to the earlier books it just started to feel like he had too many threads and too many ideas that he hadn't had time to explore yet and needed to like get in there to the point where I was like you've lost the plot can we get back to the main plot so yeah it was stuff like that where it's just like you are spending so much time on this other stuff now that you've you're kind of losing me and you need to get back to the main story which is again how I feel about feast for crows and dance with dragons with song of ice and fire I'm pointing this way because that's where my song of ice and fire books are behind me so again to sum up overall I think there's a lot to like here and I am very impressed with the the characters he's written the prose he's written a lot of good humor honestly there's a lot of really you know kind of dark gallows humor in here which is my taste and I really like it a lot of interesting weaving in of other folklore and fairy tales and familiar concepts and kind of taking familiar concepts and turning them on their head he does a lot of like subversion of traditional depictions of fantastical and fantasy and and fairy tale type characters and creatures having something like a vampire and then doing things with it that are unexpected and that subvert your expectations for what a vampire is supposed to be in a story or taking traditional fairy tales like getting in the beast and kind of flipping them on their head and making turning them into a grim dark adventure for girls like there's a lot in there in this series that I really really like that I'm really impressed by and that's why I continue to recommend this series but by the end it gets a bit long and it gets a little bit kind of wrapped up in itself too much and I think it could be tightened a bit because he's also publishing all these other kind of offshoot novellas and things like that so I feel like if there's this there are I can see why some of the things that are being kind of told like mixed in to like Tower of Swallows and Lady of the Lake where we've suddenly left both Geralt and Ciri and Yennefer and we're not with any of our main characters anymore and we're learning about some other part of this world and some other history about this world I see why you kind of feel like the readers need to know about this I just feel like there are more organic ways to deliver this information without having to completely take us out of the main story for history lesson is kind of how it feels like I just feel like it could be tightened up a bit and if you wanted to have all that extra content where we're actually seeing these events and actually being told about these events you could release a companion book I've said this I've criticized other books and said that an author should probably have done that and I have been called a dumb female and many worse things for saying that but that's how I feel and I think that's what would improve the books for me other people think these are perfect the way they are so whatever let me know in the comments down below if you've read the Witcher series if you have just watched the show and we're thinking about picking up the books if you have just played the games and we're thinking about picking up the books I have never played the games I did watch the show I watched the show after having read everything apart from Lady of the Lake and then read Lady of the Lake so my image of this world and these characters was formed well before the show came out which is why I wanted to in the show I could enjoy the show for itself but the show isn't really anything like I pictured not the character is not the setting not really any of it so the show is fun and I enjoy the show but the show to me is almost nothing to do with the Witcher books because it's so different anyway yeah let me know your thoughts in the comments down below I post videos on Saturdays sometimes Wednesdays so like and subscribe and I'll see you when I see you bye


Hey in this video I want to answer the question so someone asked me does the number of adsets in the testing phase affect the campaign? So he's asking how many adsets should I put per campaign? So for example if I was on an ABO adset budget optimization like how many adsets should I put out? Okay this depends on how much budget you have in the first place and how how willing are you that uh how much like cash flow can you put down on initial investment to test stuff okay so for example if I have a campaign and I have five adsets what do you think the campaign budget should be? Okay for me right I will do anywhere from $80 to $100 per day per adset so if I have a campaign five adsets I'll do a $500 campaign does that make sense? The reason why I need to do so is because I usually only after three full days of optimization do I make a decision? So if if there's anything less that's being spent on that I won't even touch it because I need like consistent real data to come back I can't make decisions on like short term premature data if that makes sense to you okay so if the number uh the question is the number of adsets does it affect the campaign uh no it doesn't but you might want to put at least $80 to $100 per per day per adset level okay if you have not if you don't you can't start on that budget right you can start definitely with like $20 to $50 per day per adset $20 to $50 per day per adset yes okay so hopefully this gives you a perspective of what it is but um like just keep in mind like the budget right is just a catalyst for you to see results and data come back so it doesn't matter how much it is but definitely if you're trying to do like a $5 to $10 per day it's going to be very very slow you can do that definitely it's just going to be slow okay um like you want to reiterate fast so that you can quickly like get the messaging proper and scale so generally I don't do that okay so um just conclude one more time depends on your budget but I personally generally put $80 to $100 per adset per day okay if you have any other questions questions please put them down in the comment section below I will answer them uh and create content and create videos around that so I can help you guys answer your questions and stuff all right uh see you in the next one


Okay, so today we're going to talk about two different readings, and I'm going to try to stitch them together for you in a way that makes sense And they're a little bit disparate from each other. One is this guy, Alistair McIntyre, who started talking in the last class He's a virtue ethicist Still alive, teaches at Notre Dame, teaches undergraduate classes by choice The other guy we're going to read is a famous 20th century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, and we're going to look at his existentialism as a humanism And there's some common themes that tie them together. McIntyre actually talks a little bit about Sartre in that reading I'm not presuming that you understand at this point how they fit together, but hopefully by the end of this you know And I want to start out with this This is kind of a good distinction to think about Today we're going to talk a lot about two different moral theories One of which we call relativism, the other one we call the motivism They're both very prevalent in our culture and in our educational culture We want to get away from them They're sort of the end of ethics. If we buy into them We may as well just end the class here and say everybody, you know, gets whatever grade they get And when we're finished there's no point in studying anything. If relativism is true, our motivism is true then There's not much point in ethics The reason why we're going to look at Sartre is he has spouses of kind of a motivism You can see a motivism and relativism at work in our culture by looking at this distinction When we get into discussions about moral issues Things that people consider to be right or wrong, good or bad, how we should order our lives or our goods or our societies or relationships There's a huge difference between asserting that something is the case And then asserting that something is the case because and then giving some sort of reason or explanation or justification A lot of times this this slips out of people's minds. So think about all these controversial issues that, you know, we like to find hundreds of them Think about daytime talk shows I'm sure some of you have been indulged every once in a while in watching some people get into an argument It's probably a moral argument. You should do this.  That's probably not your experience in everyday life, I hope, not if you are getting into brawls But you've probably gotten some heated exchanges about moral issues When you go home at Thanksgiving or Christmas or Easter or whatever There's certain issues that in polite conversation you're supposed to avoid at the dinner table You know, what are they? Sex is one of them. Politics, religion. But yeah, well it's interesting because usually people always say politics and religion And then the other two that vary because we like things in threes, right? Are either sex or money Now if you think about these, why are these such hot books? Well is always tied in with all sorts of things How you earn your money, whether you've got enough money, whether other people should have that money or not What you spend it on, what you shouldn't spend it on, these are the things that people get worked up about Consumption and purchasing are not value-neutral things, as we say Sex? Well, you know, there's There's all sorts of ways in which you might be able to screw up your life or enhance it, depending on what you do You know, in the realm of attraction dating and sexuality And people have some pretty strongly held beliefs about that, right? And we also have some pretty strong drives That often bring us into competition with each other or run us into societal norms Make us want to, you know, choose this rather than that Politics, what is politics about? It's about who has power, who gets to decide important things Who should rule? And then religion, you know, why do people get so worked up about religion? Well, you know, if there is a God Sartre, for example, says there isn't And we're not going to go very deep into any of these sort of theological issues But if there is a God and God's what, you know, people who believe in God Make him or it or whatever out to be is a source of all value and goodness Well, that would really reorient things, wouldn't it? And if there isn't a God, well, that would really reorient things as well People often have very deep emotional investments in these These issues and so what happens when they get into discussions? If they're being reasonable, if they're being rational They're acting like What human beings could do they would say I think this is the case They make a claim and then they'd say because and then they would give some sort of Justification or some sort of reason I think that you shouldn't spend your money on candy because it'll rot your teeth. It's kind of a trivial example I think you shouldn't spend your money on candy because I think you should put it towards a Marist education A little less trivial example. Those are moral claims I'm giving you a reason That's different than just saying I don't think you should spend your money on candy or I think capital punishment is okay Or I think capital punishment is wrong or people who believe in capital punishment are Barbarians with a medieval mentality or people who don't believe in capital punishment are weaklings Coddle criminals and Victimized the victims once again, you notice those are all just assertions that they're not saying anything because they're not getting a reason and What happens when we get into discussions about these? These issues It turns into you guys are familiar with this from experience This side says this this side says this and they just shouted at each other Pretty common experience right in our society common experience in every society, but successful societies Teach their members how to get to the because how to reason with each other Doesn't mean we'll actually convince each other But if you can give reasons why you think something is the case you're going further than just yelling and shouting unfortunately our culture Often tells us that the key thing is just to express ourselves express your point of view Make your opinion count Your opinion is really only going to count if somebody else could find it reasonable And that's where the because comes in so What happens often times in our society this is where relativism and animotivism is the focus on this rather than moving beyond to try to find some sort of reason some sort of Common ground by which we could work these things out Relativism says that there are no actual objective moral values or norms or Things like theories that would hold for everybody they hold only for Particular individuals or for cultures or societies or groups that are relatively so when you hear somebody say something like well That's true for me, but it's not true for you That's an example of relativism if they really mean yeah Um Why is it an example of relativism and not just an example of being relative? There's a difference between being relative you can say that something appears to be true from my perspective That's being relative right, but if you're saying well something is true for me, but not true for you The word true The way we actually use that word means that it applies to more than just One thing one perspective you can say something appears true from a perspective. That's not really a big deal for instance Let's say we take a sort of silly moral claim. I used this example in the last class I Would guess that you would think that drunk Now I'm not actually saying To me it seems that drowning puppies could be a perfectly justifiable thing if you have too many puppies You know, I mean it's been done for a long time In a lot of areas you put them in a bag and throw them in the river And then you don't have any puppy problem, you know, and they're out of their misery They would otherwise make a star or something like that. And you know, some people just like to drown puppies too Now do we want to say that you know, that's true for me It's not true for you For you, it's true that drowning puppies is bad for me Drowning puppies is good. They're both equally true. They're both equally valid That's not the same thing as saying I have that. I mean, you know Let's say I do it's one thing to say I have this Or it appears this way to me from my perspective And appears that way to you from your perspective, it's a whole nother thing to say they're both equally true One is it's a good point one is saying think things are relative to points of view and other is Stating that they're both equally true is relative to this. Yes Maybe there's nothing that's that's true because nothing is true for many Universal The trouble is is it puts everything on the same level so it becomes very difficult to say then How anybody could in fact be wrong so if you want to be able to say condemn the Nazis If you want to say that what they did was wrong say Holocaust You can't be a relative Because if you're a relativist you have to say well, it was it was right for them wouldn't be right for me Or for our society, but it was right for their society because that was their Their set of norms if you want to be able to make judgments about whether things You can't afford to be a Much more basic way somebody wants to be a better use this example If you want to be a relativist, let me know because then I can give you the F right away And then when you come to me and you say I don't think that's fair dr. Sadler I can say well, of course, you don't think it's fair and it's not fair to you It's fair to me. That's the way I understand fair Then suddenly you're not a relativist any more right because when it comes down to it most of us are not This guy Allen blue wrote this book the closing of the American mind years and years ago All college undergraduates are infected with relativism. I don't think that's actually the case I think that our society pushes it a lot and our educational institutions will often push it because we're afraid of making judgments Because if we make judgments, then then we're being judgmental, right? It's not nice to be judgmental One of you want to be labeled as judgmental, right? Well, correct Also providing enough for being a relativist a year being judgmental That's an internal problem with Right. I'm here to actually say it's okay for you to be judgmental just Have some reasons why you're making the judgment Try you know giving some some justification for why you're saying this is right or this is wrong as a matter of fact I would say you have to be judgmental if not You're you're you know, you're going to let a lot of things slide that shouldn't slide Very often people talk in a relativistic way when they want to manipulate Or they want to avoid criticism oftentimes it can be good to undergo criticism So that's relativism a motivism which is what Macintay talks a bit more about and he actually this is one of his major books after virtue He begins this and I'll put some references to this and I look for you. I'm not going to require you to read it He talks about a motivism as being sort of the the general moral theory governing our Culture today more than a little bit different than relativism Motivism will also put a stop to ethics, but it'll do for they'll do so in a different way for a different reason The emotivist can say people will give reasons and It might not just be those reasons might just not be well But ultimately those reasons are just sort of window What the emotivist is committed to is saying something like this What moral judgments moral values ways in which we order goods our lives Relationships what those boil down to is just our subjective preferences so If I say drawing puppies is bad It's not because drawing puppies really is bad And that's part of the way the world is or anything like that. It's just I feel bad about And I feel good in saying let's not drown puppies That makes me feel like a good person And there are people out there who make their moral claims and make their moral decisions basically on the basis of Wanting to feel good about themselves or not feel bad about themselves Maybe to feel morally superior to other people or to avoid shame or something like that There are people out there who take their sides and take their stances and it's basically the equivalent of as one of the Proponents of the emotivist theory said basically like saying yay, you know not drowning puppies.  I guess just to get good at tricking each other So you learn a little con so you can bring that out to make people feel a certain way learn a little play-doh do the same thing If that's the case then then we may as well end this semester here right so relativism and emotivism Not saying there aren't any people out there to hold these theories They would prevent you from doing any real study in ethics. They would prevent you from actual growth So MacIntyre is going to take off from this MacIntyre let's do a little recap from MacIntyre said He said that plain persons, so that's you That's also me and so far as I live a life outside of the confines of this classroom and my Academic life All of us live out some sort of moral theory Some people actually are right some people are just using value to judgments and moral language to manipulate people Right to coerce them into doing things Does that mean that everybody is no, but but that's one possible And our society often Steers us towards that our culture whether we like it or not does in fact steer us towards a motivism In part by discouraging us from actually giving good reasons You know when somebody if you've been told since you were a kid Your opinion is good because it's your opinion and you should act on your feelings You are probably gonna end up at least that early on becoming an emotivist, right? If you don't have anything else telling you no, you should make a decision on other and When MacIntyre talks about this he talks about this in terms of this guy John Paul Sartre who we're gonna talk a little bit more about towards the end of class One of the readings for today, not everybody's an emotivist though, right? When you guys make moral decisions, and he's made a lot of moral decisions in your life What other bases might you have made them on? Now you probably didn't think of it in terms of utilitarianism Did anyone when they were deciding you know what they needed to do in their last crisis? Say what would Jeremy Bentham say? Well, none of you did that Probably not gonna do that later on But now you know it's utilitarianism What utilitarianism is If we want to put it in a nutshell The approach that it takes Is to say well, you know when we make moral decisions Decisions that really count things about right and wrong good and bad The best thing to do Or the right thing to do is that which will benefit the majority of the people or the greatest number and harm the least amount So you can do like a cost-benefit analysis You're gonna do some sort of action and it will affect your community or your family You look at how it's gonna affect all the different members and you try to pick the thing that will do the most good at least harm Now that means that You can't just do whatever pleases you, right? Because oftentimes doing what will produce the most benefit of the least harm for most people Is that always the thing that pleases you the most? And you think that they're adjourned and you'd like to tell them that But they're friends with a lot of people that you care about If you were to indulge yourself in what you'd like to do you'd like to really call that person a lot of names Maybe kind of emphatically phrased, you know, and you try to put them in the box that they deserve to be That's what you feel but you realize if I do that That would feel good to me And and yeah, of course that would hurt that other person, but they're adjourned They got a comment, but it would hurt all these other people. And so what do you do? By your lip and you don't say what do you think? Take a deep breath No, you don't When I was your age, I said too actually But I had to learn from experience utilitarian say well, you know, let's see how it works out for the Majority so you can't just indulge Whatever it is if you want to do that. That's a different moral theory. That's a different way of orienting your life Person who has a utilitarian Moral theory is going to act differently than somebody who's just following their desires, aren't they? Now the utilitarian Is not committed to saying that anything is truly right or wrong one of the things about this is You know, if it worked if it would work out good over all for the majority of the people you can do some bad things Like let's say We could enslave just five percent of the population And they'll have no rights whatsoever And we can make them work like dogs and we can do anything that we want to them And that's going to make after the rest of our lives so much better If you really had a trade-off like that the utilitarian would say yeah, that sounds okay Now another way you might go is Some people would say no you can't do slavery is wrong Just is wrong Maybe we could come up with some argument for it, but we're not going to go there Right, you don't enslave That would be a sort of duty You have a duty not to treat people in a certain way. You have a duty to treat people in certain ways Now you might be able to provide some sort of you know reason for this or you might just say Well, we just have our duties and I know what they are and I'm going to do them even if it kills me Or even if it goes against my desires and inclinations or even if it doesn't benefit the the majority Like here's one example We've used this sort of thing Over and over again in philosophy What if you could go back in time and kill Hitler? Should you do so? Would that be a good thing to do or a bad thing to do because you'd be killing a human being right? Yeah, how does it the reason forget by the way any sort of worries about Went back in time and altered history than what I exist. Don't don't worry about that, right? Because because that gets complicated, but we're gonna say that I can't answer your question because it was gonna go So let's let's think about this one person it's wrong to kill me, right? What if this guy hit their dad?  No, but he was he was the guy at the top and and given the you know the Nazi Ideology if you would have taken out the top guy things could have fallen apart actually So maybe you could have prevented say the Holocaust let's just say just the Holocaust itself and we don't worry about you know the Jehovah's Witnesses and gypsies or any other people Just just the Jews that were killed six million people So one guy one life as opposed to six million If you're a utilitarian, that's enough, right? I think most people here would do it I would actually myself. I'm not a I'm not a band colleges. I'm actually not a utilitarian Well, then you would have to weigh duties against each other right yeah, so maybe you could come up with a good consciential logical reason But one of the problems is you can say well you have a duty to protect life, you know, that's the life Mass murderer I'm bringing this up not to try to solve this here, but just so you can see So we got three main moral theories in play right now that are kind of common stances In our society and you don't see people coming out and saying well Conses X Y Z so therefore I'm going to do this, but you do see a lot of people that are very duty-free right, and you do see a lot of people that are sort of cost-benefit analysis and then you do see a lot of people who really They may talk about morality, but it's just sort of a mask for their own Desires preferences feelings that sort of thing Matt in there talks about these as Options that you may recognize yourself already in or to recognize other people He also talks about another one As being what we're going to call virtue ethics uses Aristotle as Example here. It says the plain person. That's you again Is a proto-aristatelian meaning you don't realize it yet But unless you're fitting into one of these More likely in line with at least on the start with virtue ethics Virtue ethics understood in an Aristotelian way. It's part of the reason why we're going to study this guy Aristotle Now Matt entire raise up another thing that's very important Moral theories are really cute What else is really cute? What's a narrative?  Well, that's one particular kind of use the word story. That's That's a good synonym for narrative movies are narratives When you do a report like let's say somebody here was international business You do a report on say what took place November 2011 to Stock market you produce a lot of data, but you put it together in some sort of coherent story You're making a narrative We have narratives of all sorts of things cartoons are Bugs Bunny tricks you somebody Sam. That's a classic narrative somebody tells a story on Jerry Springer about how they were cheated on by Whoever, you know, that's a narrative When we reconstruct where all the money went to in 2008 that's a narrative now all these are stories And we live through this right because what is your life like? Well, it has a beginning Can have an end sooner or later here hopefully much later in sooner because all of you are very young I wish you very long productive lives And a whole bunch of stuff is going to happen in the middle, right? Is it all just a bunch of random incidents Sounded fury signifying nothing No, there's there's connections, right Matheter is interested in two kinds of narratives. He's interested In this piece he's interested in narratives of Progress He's also interested in What we can call It's kind of interesting There are a lot of cultural narratives out there that See the world in these terms like At one time human beings We're all very good and then something came along and screwed us up We've just been getting worse and worse and that's why we're a bunch of heartless bastards That's a narrative of war Or you know, we started out as just you know, basically one step up from from apes and We've actually developed society and agriculture and laws and our laws were pretty inhumane for a long time They've been getting more and more humane and our society's been getting better and better and we're all becoming Really good people Story more progress both these are probably false Narratives can be true false Things jive with the way things actually are You can do this for individual people too. Can't you some people their lives Start off pretty good and then they screw it up and they keep screwing it up when they screw it up more and more and more Stories of addiction Heroine gets it's pretty much over until you get Doesn't have to be addiction though it could be all sorts of other things People make faithful choices one second people make faithful choices that put them on a path Which then it becomes harder to get yourself away from once you have a trajectory set Takes choice right to make yourself go a different way Or you know on the other hand people sometimes come to themselves and say That's a lot better than where I am I want to be there What do I have to do to get there and that's that's a narrative of a moral progress and For the Aristotelian view we don't start out All the way at the bottom. We don't start out all the way the top Start out somewhere in the middle and We have to you know, slowly build step by step by step. There's no single decision That solves everything or fixes everything It's a bunch of different things along the way and we're going to come back to this theme of progress When it comes to moral progress or decline isn't it kind of like the idea that if you keep doing it bad behavior The more you do it the more it becomes your norm and you don't realize that it's bad. Yes. Yes, exactly the what we call the vicious person person who's developing bad Habits not only develops habits of doing things badly. They develop a different mentality different mindset I want to make a sort of change of gears now and go and talk about this guy John Paul Sartre The reading that I had you guys look at is this existentialism Like I said Sartre important 20th century philosopher French guy if you want to see how his philosophy actually plays out in lives there there is a Narrative that you could read he wrote a book he wrote a set of books called paths to freedom I think he's translated as the first one was called the age of reason and his characters in there sort of exemplify his philosophy We're not very sympathetic characters So we were really attracted to start reading them I turned you off I know it certainly did for me because I went through a Sartre face If you also look at his life, he was not a particularly good guy. He I'll tell you just one tip He had a another philosopher Simone de Beauvoir who was also pretty, you know pretty important philosopher in her own right beautiful one really Sartre himself was quite ugly He actually had eyes going off in different directions And he cheated on Multiple times as a matter of fact he even if I remember right Trying to get her to cheat on him. So he wouldn't feel bad as bad about him cheating on her So it gives you an idea This guy has lived out Now he would have said well, you know philosophers life and his his philosophy are two different things But maybe they are connected now Sartre's Starts out talking about God not existing and the reason why he's interested in that He thinks if there is a God then we have a human nature Because you know God would have created us God would have made us all a certain way So what would make us, you know all a certain way we're going to talk more about that over the course of the semester What would be our essence we would say maybe it's something like Rationality or some sort of potentials that we would all develop together Sartre doesn't think that we have anything like that. He says Existence where you are right now what you come into the world with precedes essence so you have your Feelings preferences your situation that you're thrown into Your background, and it doesn't it's not the same as everybody else's It makes you you and then you decide what you're going to make of it Great theme in the Sartre is decision That's where he's a motorist I'm going to read you a little bit from from this. This is on page three of them one that I put together for you When we say now he's in use of gender specific language when we say that man chooses himself We do mean that every one of us must choose himself By that we also mean that in choosing for himself. He chooses for all men We're in effect of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be There is not one which is not creative at the same time of an image of man such as he believes he Wanted me to choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen We make a choice you you're unless you're totally crazy You're choosing what you think is better, right? Sartre is saying the very act of choosing makes it better. So Why be Virtue ethicist or a day ontologist or a utilitarian Ultimately for somebody like Sartre because you chose it.  That's what you choose to be I think that's you know probably a bad way to be I think all of us would say That's what you chose For you That's good You're gonna have a hard time making a case to other people, but that's okay because you're choosing if you cheat on your spouse And then suddenly revise your views about cheating so that cheating really isn't a bad thing You can choose that. I had so many friends when I was in graduate school that were Revised their views about sexual morality It became inconvenient for them. I remember being quite kind of struck by that On the other hand if you choose to devote your life to serving the poor The only reason why that has any value is because you chose it Doesn't have any value in and of itself Sartre says this is Sartre's Emotionalism you see what that does to moral judgments, right? Sartre thinks that he's liberating people by sayings, but he's really just sort of pulling the rug out If the only reason why you up to this point I guess most of you have chosen to be good people more or less Up to this point if the only reason why you have chosen to be good people up to this point It's because you've chosen it and you can't give any other grounds It doesn't really have much value doesn't it or maybe it's just your emotions Emotions maybe you just like being a good person And if you didn't you'd be a bad person Perfectly fine with that That's where this goes to Now Sartre goes a little bit farther than this very often philosophers can't be reduced just to an ism And one of the things that Sartre is saying here that's kind of interesting Let's say you adopt his point of view.  You don't really have a choice you have to do that for other people They may not accept what you say You know so for instance when when Charles Manson says killing people's a great thing we don't say yeah Okay, Charles Manson said so so I think you know along along with that now right we say he's nuts But he's actually not just deciding for himself. He's deciding for humanity in general if you decide to be Totally ruthless you're saying everybody should be like that if you decide that we should in fact serve those who are more vulnerable than ourselves Take care of them. You're saying everybody should be like that. That's a good thing That goes along with the structure of human action So whether you like it or not the story that is your life Is not just a story for you It's a story of how you're trying to make sense out of how a person wants to be This goes back to Macintay's point about none of you. I think none of you have actually like sat down and said What is the basic human good? How shall I achieve it? Let me never do that on the weekend No, maybe you will this week probably Do you have thought to yourself? What am I? What do I need to do in order to get that what do I have to do to put myself on that track? Am I making progress towards that or am I actually going away from that? And sometimes you actually Pass through a plateau you say wow, I thought this was really good, but there's something even better Beyond that that I need to change my my priorities That would be moral progress Sarp's it's kind of stuck Virtue ethics would take us further than that So this is the last thing I'm going to talk about with these points of view Once you've got it you got it Utilitarianism is pretty straightforward as a theory You know you end up doing something like a cost-benefit analysis you can get better at doing it You can get worse at doing it, but once you've got the basic principles down, that's it, right? You can recognize the basic principles same thing with with Cons stuff even though it is difficult once you've got it down that you know you're done Now it's just a matter of application With virtue ethics, this is one of the points McIntyre is trying to make to you in this piece There's a there's a back and forth between the moral theory and the narrative You never fully understand the moral theory until you've lived it out When it comes to virtue You often don't fully understand your narrative that you're living until you can get a vantage point later on like you know Think about what you thought was important to you in high school You guys are now three years into college at least one of these four years. Have your priorities changed? Have your evaluations of what was important to be thinking about and spending your time on is that probably radically changed, right? Your narrative is changed You've gotten a better grasp when you went back home for like Maybe not the first time he went back home, but a couple times after that You got you mentioned some of the people who didn't go to college at high school. You said I don't have as much in common with these people They were still in the same narrative The way it works is in the narrative of your life If you're making more progress things get clearer and clearer and clearer to you as you go on on the other hand If you make the wrong choices There are some choices that you can make That place you had a cat where you can see less and less quickly where you develop something So the example that I'm going to leave you with think about wealth, why do we want money if we're going? There's there's reasons, you know, there's some crazy reasons like some people like to roll around That's a weird thing right why do normal people want money you need it Okay, that's a great piece to provide for your family. It's a means and In this part of it at least your family is the ends right and Which is the higher value money or your family and the life that you can have the family is the higher value And so if you have your priorities, right you know think about a sort of Common problem that comes up in the course of people's lives. Do you take the job that's going to require You to spend very little time with your family, but it's going to generate a lot more wealth Or do you make the sacrifice and do without something that's going to spend the time with your family? That's a fateful decision that places you have there's one path here. There's another path here, right and If you decide that wealth is the most important thing Which is what you know sir would say if you make that decision you are in fact deciding to wealth and family And you're not just saying wealth and family for me. You're saying wealth and family for everybody That's a spousing moral theory If you make the decision that something that's just a purely Instrumental wealth is the good and you center your life around that You will develop a kind of moral blindness to other values And so after a while it'd be difficult for you to see what it's doing to your family And you've all seen narratives in which this takes place, right? Maybe you've lived out part of those narratives Or your friends You've all seen all sorts of Hollywood cultural productions, right because that's a real life moral decision That has to be made and notice when people are making this they don't always frame it in terms of How should I how should I arrange this they they're on the spot may have to decide do I take this job? Which is gonna have these consequences, or do I stick with this job? Think to themselves in terms of concrete. They don't say often times my family they say my kids so-and-so my kids so-and-so my Husband your wife, you know, they think in terms of real concrete actual Goods and values And they think in terms of real dollars. Do I take the $100,000 job or stick with the That's the way narratives work I'm gonna give you in I learn an assignment that has you do some reflection on your own Life and whether it's been a narrative largely more progress so far or a narrative of oral decline So let's look for that in I learn under assignments, and I'll see all of you on Tuesday And the next class will be a bit more Interactive discussion. It's good good participation. Well, this is my next student. Yes And all the assignments not only will be posted in the island, but you'll post your work in the island as well


Where's my water? What did you do with it? I didn't touch your water. Where's my water? I didn't touch your water. Oh I found it.   Yeah, my name Melamo. Me amo el Corbin. Me llamo es Ricardo. Welcome and bienvenue. Welcome. Come on in. They were so sympathetic to follow our official Twitter account. The content here is freaking juicy. So put on a bib Today we are reacting to a little uh ad. Oh, how little is it? It's one of those little tiny ones that walks in and says hello. Hi, I'm your pad. This is called man enough Shaving stereotypes right on from Gillette. Excellent. Wait a minute man enough shaving stereotypes Gillette India So I think there's a little uh Something they gave me a little a little commercial with you Note is that where I should be reading? Yes, newt. By presenting the real life story of lute. Oh great I'm doing it silly and it's probably going to be very meaningful out.  Let's just get into it Uh And it's just a short little ad so cool It's a bit I've there are some ads It's an art form in and of itself what? Advertisers have to come up with and the people create them in such a I have seen ads where I have been captured Emotionally within the first 10 seconds. That is so hard. Yeah, so here we go.  I guess I stopped crying because I wanted to be like him tough and strong No matter how hard you take it No tears And so I had I had my pain like dad would want me to I did not want him to say my words That I'm weak I was being a man But this time he didn't ask me to wipe my tears off We both realized that showing what you really feel doesn't make you less of a man Raising a strong boy also meant telling him it was okay It was okay for boys to cry Men can cry Even soldiers can cry Great add great message. Yep In it uh that a lot of men need to hear Um a lot of men a lot of a lot of men need to hear that that Even though like you guys know i'm not i'm not an emotional person At all, but it's not because I don't feel like I can't You know, it's totally different. Yeah, it's the fact that the fact that you don't cry like the joke of making Corbin cry Yeah Is completely different. Yeah from men who refuse to cry because they consider it to be a weakness You're not that kind of a man. No, I don't I so I don't care what people think about me. Exactly. No, it's just It is I am so I'm really really grateful that I grew up with a man As an example for me my dad Who and not just my dad. This is actually An interesting ongoing conversation I've been having with indrani because I've shown her some of the films That I grew up with that shaped me into the man that I am was gonna gonna know you think And I hadn't really thought about it until I was talking about her About the films I saw and how those films Taught me what masculinity is Because the films that I saw were the same masculinity I saw on my dad, which was simultaneously incredibly strong alpha And emotionally available and vulnerable the quintessential example of that is rocky Rocky is a guy who will get in a street fight. He's a brawler. He's got guts He can snarl and he's completely unafraid to cry and be emotional and express his love and words and physical touch And a lot of my male role models growing up where my dad was that way Stallone and his films was that way Mel Gibson's brave heart was the both a lover and a fighter But there are millions of men not only in india everywhere all over the world here in the united states. It's huge Who will tell their sons? Men don't cry and that is bs guys, but there there is no crying in baseball. That's yeah, that is true That's true You know crying in baseball if you don't know referring to go watch the league of their own. Yeah No, but yeah, no, this was a fantastic message. I grew up with two fathers My father who's in the military and then my stepfather who's uh, not in the military Not relevant You know, he's not in the military, but uh, both, uh, have always been able to You know show their emotions and also be manly man my my stepfather. He's a very well-dressed Metro, I think you'd be called technically metrosexual In terms because he's just a well-dressed man. Right. He likes he loves shopping. He loves shoes He's that type of person, but he's also not afraid. He's a very he's a manly man He's not afraid to show his emotions. My dad. He's a manly man. He builds up. He's a military Yeah teaches people how to shoot specialized weapons It's like he's a manly man whenever it's just I never got that emotional side of me Which is one of the issues that I take when Because I agree that this is a message that I will teach my son that it's okay to cry Right, you're okay to show your emotions, but also I I've seen comments that said corbin.  Right. I could feel the emotion Yeah guys, corbin doesn't have a wall I mean he does the personal work as an actor He just doesn't get the connection into the biology of his eyeballs. No, it just doesn't go. I don't think I have tear ducts They might have been taken out of the earth or something I don't know but yeah, this is a great message I love that Gillette. I didn't know that they actually have a cause an organization about redefining Masculinity which I do know through Uh, obviously indrani and I talk about everything and that's one of the things her being someone who was born and raised and grew up in India That they're to this day still is A pervasive stereotype for a lot of indians like there are here in the united states that Men don't cry And that if a man cries he's showing he's weak and it's just a lie I've actually discovered and the other thing that helps this is being an actor Are have to be emotionally available so Being an artist It's it's just natural I've I've been around men that cry the natural response that I've seen for men crying is to hold each other and to talk and to hold hands And to just be expressive And but there are a lot of circles Where young men need to hear and see especially from their dads That crying is a human expression and it actually takes strength It takes more strength for a man to be vulnerable Than it does for them to hide what they're feeling. Absolutely way more strength. Absolutely It's easy to hide what you're feeling. It is very easy to hide There's nothing meritorious in it either Um, you know, I think it's changing. Well, I don't know about india, but me in the united states It's changing it is obviously with the newer generations of Redefining basically what what is manly and what is what is not manly Or also what is required of men and what is required of women And how you don't have to conform to whatever that is. No, do you remember when president obama After this, I don't remember which school shooting it was out of the five six thousand we've had in the past 15 years when he was commenting on the school shooting and One of the biggest people people commented on was the fact that he actually shed tears. Do you remember that? It was a big deal here in america because it was the first time Possibly ever that a president allowed himself To shed tears openly and in public and there were some people who said he was putting on a show which is a lie Um, there were certain networks that said he was weak because he was right that he was weak by I think you can guess what network that is. Yeah, and I think you can guess Our opinion that I thought it was a really beautiful moment and a signal for the change that has happened Of toxic masculinity Turning into toxic masculinity is a real thing. It is. It's not saying masculinity is toxic It is saying certain things about like if you require certain things of men Is a toxic thing. Yeah, like if you say men can't cry if you think men can only have to be tough They have to fight it's like if you think just manliness is the ultimate goal of the old school term of manliness That's toxic. Yes, not saying manliness all manliness is toxic I'm very proud of the fact that I know how to field dress a deer And I also know how to do a pirouette and land in a plie These field dress a deer euphemism


So we're here at the FreeScale booth and you are launching Cortex M7 product. Hi my name is Danny Bazlar, I'm one of the product marketers at FreeScale working on microcontrollers and I'm here to talk to you about the Kinetis V-Series which is a family for motor control and digital power conversion applications. You can see some of the demos running behind me these showcase our new ARM Cortex based solutions. Specifically we have a variety of different families available starting from entry-level low-end microcontrollers on the Kinetis KV1X family which support entry-level Brussels DC and PNSM motor control. And Cortex M0 class? And moving up into ARM Cortex M4 based families KV3X and KV4X for more advanced higher-performance motor control systems. What's the difference between 3X and 4X? The difference is in both the performance, memory options supported and indeed the peripherals specifically the analogue and timing capabilities which are critical for motor control applications I can show you in a moment but just before I do that you'll notice at the top right-hand side of the slide is the Kinetis KV5X which is a brand new Cortex M7 series family for motor control. You've just announced it now? No, we did indeed yes so it's not currently available but it has been announced this week in Bedard World. You can see here just if you zoom in the variety of performance of motor control analogue and timing peripherals that we option as well as some of the other features of these devices. It's a very scalable family in terms of the range of features and motor control applications that we can support and it's supported by a very detailed and comprehensive ecosystem from free scale and from party partners. So all this after our people have been doing with the Cortex M4, will it just work on M7? That would put over to M7, yes indeed. All right so what kind of products does it go into? Mainly industrial drive type applications but it can also be in consumer and motor control is an absolutely enormous area of development for digital microcontroller usage and it can be simple brushless DC motor control or advanced multi-motor systems where you have connectivity and security as well and very much part of the ongoing discussion around the IOT is an area where the KV5X in particular can play a part because it has not only the motor control features but also security with encryption and indeed an ethernet controller so you can connect motor control systems over a secure IOT enabled network. So there's demand in the industry, in the market for even more performance and this is why you release this one? There is indeed motor control as a particularly demanding application on the processor and we have a not just on the Cortex M4 the very latest ones but we also put our own IP around that to make sure that the CPU is lightly loaded as possible when doing the algorithm management so that we can attend to other parts of the application whether it's being running a connectivity interface or indeed a graphical user interface. Can you say a little bit more about this IP? How does it work? Well we have things, if you look here on the block diagram, here's your basic core features and you have your DSP capability on the M7. We also have some instruction and data cache which supports alleviates or removes some of the processing loads on the processor. So we take the latency application functions and there's also an internal module crossbar which allows your analog and timing features basically to manage themselves as one of these things. So you're talking 240 megahertz? We are. And when is it available? This product will be sampling in June or July of 2015 and then into production in approximately September this year. Alright, so looking forward to a whole bunch of new advanced features in Cortex-M at free scale.


While the recent stretch of nice weather has many people outside working on fall chores, but with dry conditions, sparse rain and high winds, the fire danger has been elevated. The Bemidji Fire Department wants to remind everyone to practice safety when burning any yard debris. If you plan to burn any yard waste, it's recommended to do so when winds are under 10 miles per hour. You're also required to get a burning permit. And of course, when it comes to any fire, it is recommended that you use common sense. Well, just keep in mind that with the recent frosts and hot dry weather, there has been an increased fire activity in the area. And just to remind people that they do need burning permits if they plan on burning any of their yard debris. Burning permits are available at your local fire department or through the Minnesota DNR. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.