Now we're ready finally to get to the framework, which is okay, you now know that the human mind can be ghostly and that intelligence is not the same as rationality and it's very difficult to think hard. How do you overcome these biases, the vividness, the various biases we've talked about? How do you overcome being a cognitive miser or how do you overcome the mind gaps or contaminated information? And so this is a system I developed over the years and it's based on hypothetical thinking which we just have explored a little bit, I've introduced you to you. And I found these old printouts I made, I've given the talks on this as well as using it in my classes all the time. And this is, I did it under the context, so I put it there, under the context of information pollution, the paranormal and teaching critical thinking. I guess I gave that talk somewhere to some group and I don't remember, but I did have my printout there so I thought I'd brought that with you just to show you the context of this particular version of it. By the way, I first used the term information pollution many years ago. I was asked to give at the graduation ceremonies at the University of Oregon, they, after the major ceremony with everyone, everyone, all the undergraduates who were graduate getting the degree all together, they split up by different departments and the honest group is an honest college at the university. They have their little tent and they have their little ceremony and each of the specialties have their own little ceremony. And I was asked to give a little talk, a talk to the honest group and they said, but it can't go more than 10 minutes or something like that. I'm used to going on forever, okay? And it's very hard to do something like that. So it dawned on me, I was, the internet was coming along and it was proliferating and it's pretty clear that there's a lot of information piling up. And then I did some research and I discovered that there had been a lot of theories and work on the accumulation of information in different fields. And I used the term information pollution because, and as the internet grows, it's going to get worse. The idea is that as more information accumulates in any field, a lot of it's good information that keeps growing, but that grows, I'll show you an example of that, that grows at a linear fashion, whereas the total amount of information grows as a queue. This means that as more information grows, it's hard and hard to define the good information because it's buried in the crap, right? And so that's, according to that term, and I was surprised that was, that time it was viral for that time. It got on the internet and people were attacking me. I had no idea why they were so upset by it. I was saying it was information pollution, but I was worried about it at that time and now it's even worse. The problem is, there's a lot of good information out there, no question about it, but how to find it? That's the most important thing. How do you get to the good information? That's related to this course as well. What we're talking about now is how do you find the good information among all the bad information? And we're being inundated with bad information, which means that contaminated mind wear is part of us all because we're being exposed to it all the time and that's a very serious problem because even if you don't believe the study, even if you're a good skeptic, you're always questioning things. We know that just being exposed to it. I don't know if you've ever heard the illusion of truth. These things go in fads in a way, but it's strong. It's been done over and over in the show that it works. Illusion of truth is simply a matter of that just being exposed to certain statements like global warming is a hoax. It just gets you exposed to that. Even though you consciously don't think it's so or something like that, that increases your belief that maybe it's so because it becomes a thing that gets into your memory the way memory works. It's not like a list or anything like that. It's a network of things and things, if you stimulate something in that network, they explode, it stimulates, it radiates out other things and so it turns out that simple repetition is like on TV and stuff like that, you watch the same things. My sister watches Fox Network all the time, all day long and I learn not to talk with her about politics or anything like that because it triggers certain things. She is sure that Obama was not one in the United States. She's sure he's a radical Islamist. She's sure that. How did she get that way? Well, if you have Fox Network on about half the day, it turns out that these people spend more time rather than attacking or promoting their conservative policies, demonizing the enemy. So by demonizing him and then demonizing him, if you're just hearing her all the time in the background because she's working at a computer and other things, you're getting that sinking in there, that's what the illusion of truth is all about. It doesn't increase the believability of all that stuff. So just simple exposure. One thing. One example. So now with this particular talk to these undergraduates, I would see some of the key issues in critical thinking. This is the way I saw it then. I've been giving you some of these issues, garbage in, garbage out. We need a systematic analysis of claims and that's what this framework's going to be. There's a principle of charity. I didn't mention it to you before, but principle of charity is not something that you're supposed to be nice to every one, but principle of charity comes in philosophy. The idea is that when you are attacking a claim by an opponent or something like that, you should try to reformulate your opponent's claim in the most strongest way possible before you try to destroy it, or attack it, in other words. So the idea is that, and that's what my framework's all about too, is you're actually giving the benefit of the doubt. You're going to frame that person's claim, a duty's claim as strong a case as it can be. Because I was, my first critique of power psychology was 1957. I was a skeptic ever since I was a kid, because as a kid I did my first magic show for money at age seven, and I think this is a great life, you know. And I went and read again, reading books in the library on magic and magicians, and I found there was a guy called Houdini. And Houdini was a great magician, but he also went around exposing spiritual smithies and stuff like that. And I assumed right from when I can consciously remember, I always assumed that being a magician I had to be a skeptic. I had to go around exposing mediums and stuff like that and fake psychics and so on. So right from my whole life I've never had the experiences that many of the people come to my toolbox, they have people who used to grew up as believers in something or other and gradually became disenchanted and come to my toolbox to find some other kinds of people that they can talk with now. But so as to principle charity it's very important. It's not that you've got to be nice to the other people, but the reason I bring up my first critique of parapsychology was 1957, was that up until then I was a skeptic, but I was then a young professor at Harvard University and the editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association, the most prestigious journal in that in the statistics area, asked me to come in the middle of a dispute to help settle it. There was a dispute where a soul in Bateman wrote a book called Law and Experience on Telepathy, which at that time was considered the greatest, strongest evidence you could have for telepathy. They had discovered two psychics, you might call them, soul and Mrs. Barr, I think it was, but who over a period of three or four years consistently scored very high, higher than any J.B. Ryan subjects on ESP tests and this is considered the best evidence you could possibly have parapsychologic work, but a man named Price, he was a chemist, wrote a 13 page review of that book, now in science. At that time science like it is today, it was a prestigious journal for the American Association for the Advancement of Science and it is one of the major prestigious journals like Nature and stuff like that in the world of science. And they never had that, at that time they usually had most of the book review went two pages, this one was given 13 pages and the point of the review was that Price decided that he went and looked over all J.B. Ryan's work as well as the work by Sol and Bateman and he said by any scientific standards these people have made their case over and over again successfully. The statistics are impeccable, the experimental design looks impossible, I mean there's no way of debating it, if, I mean they put that if in here, so if as described, if as I did write in their papers it really was done that way. So then he brought in David Hume, some of you've heard of him, how many know David Hume, he was a friend of yours, because, well David Hume wrote this very classic article on miracles and the idea of David Hume's article on miracles was that if a thousand people, maybe ten thousand people, maybe even a million people came up to you and told you that they were just witness to miracle, you'd have to say they're lying or deluding in some way because even a million people witnessing that miracle are testifying against the observations of more than a million people that have created modern science and the whole base of science, so that miracle would violate those other observations, so if you pit those observations against the observations, the cumulative observation of all science, it can't be true. That was Hume's idea that you have to decide that it may be when you think about what principle does this bring up that we talked about very early on in the lectures. Do you remember? Vividness, you remember vividness? Again, how even one case, one striking case can turn around people's decisions even against a whole batch of non-vivid, non-colorful statistical data, which is overwhelmingly would argue from one point of view, whereas this one concrete vivid story or case overrides that. Well, this would be another example of vividness where someone reporting on a miracle, but if you think about it statistically, the miracle is being put up against many, many observers, many, many times a number of observers who have witnessed something different that creates a whole race of science. So, anyways, when I, this guy, Price said, okay, these guys are all cheating. And he, in fact, in some of the experiments he was talking about, they had members of parliament were witnesses to it. So, yeah, so he had to involve them as well. And he was accusing an awful lot of people of being liars and cheats, and that created a few words you can imagine. And so the January 1956 issue of science was devoted, unusual, to rebuttals and back and forth. Ryan had something to say and so on. And it was that point that the editor, William Wallace, I think it was, or the editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association came to me and said, Ray, please, write something for our journal which will settle this whole issue once and for all.  You got all the attributes. You're the guy we need. I've never done anything like that before. So, okay, he talked me into it and I was young and, and, and walked into it. And unfortunately in my whole life and I was turned around by that and stuck with this. I read, what I did was I read the original data, Ryan's research, as well as this work by Solar Batement. And the first thing that struck me was horrible to me was that my friends, I had depended on second hand knowledge of, of my skepticism about parapsychology. My friends, Martin Gardner and other people like that, people I trust. But I discovered that they had missed that me in the world, what they were tagging, they were tagging parapsychology at its worst. There were some terrible experiments and they were, those ones were attacking. They weren't attacking it at its best. And again, the principal charity to me says, Hey, you gotta look at it at its best. If you're gonna tackle something, look at their best work, not their, not their worst work. That's not fair. Now either they didn't know it, I couldn't understand it or what. But I was surprised. That was the first thing I was surprised. Not that it didn't convince me, but I found it getting more sophisticated in your tagging there. There was a lot of things wrong with their data. And I spent my career working very hard to show the weaknesses in parapsychology. And that just doesn't hold up. And but I was really, really terrible shock to me to realize that my fellow skeptics, people I love and trust, I was misled by them. Because they were their examples that they were attacking were the simple the examples by people who really weren't the center of parapsychology. They were really serious parapsychologists and still are who have a good scientific degree. And most of them know their statistics better than their critics. So they are not. But you can criticize them. But you can't you got to criticize me got to be fair. Okay, that's the long side step from from what we're talking about. But that was the principle charity got me going on that. And then there was requirements for good tests for claim alternative explanation. I'm going to come back to that later, because that's very, very important. Another thing, that's why I brought up. Remember when I talked to I quoted Sherlock Holmes, remember? Okay, the idea that we don't, we focus on what actually did occur, and not about what could, what didn't occur is a standard thing we are focused on and this is important and perceptual as well as cognition, we focus on what did happen, what is there, not what didn't happen. And if you're going to really be able to evaluate claims or anything else, you got to really understand what could have happened, what didn't happen. And we'll come to that later. And the psychological reasons for believing you now have more than enough. I read it. Okay, we've gone that far. So inflation pollution, I'm going to get by that. Now, I want to talk about this pyramid model of growth just a little bit. I've already talked about the illusion truth. You all understand what that is. Okay. So this is I found a man named DeSola Price wrote a book many, many years ago, he was a historian of science, I think at Yale. But he specialized in the field and he pioneered it, which was what might call empirical history. It's actually doing history on the basis of data. History of science, he did, and as there's actually groups now that specialize, you analyze the change in number of publications in different fields over the years, and actually follow laws about it. And that's a proxy for how much information is growing, how it grows in any field. And so they actually use mathematical laws and stuff. And I've done a lot of work on that. And one of the things they found, and this is the pyramid, is that in any fields I mentioned before, if you think of a pyramid, the height of the pyramid represents the amount of good knowledge in any field at any time. But you see as the height increase, but the total knowledge is the volume of the cube. And what happens is that the total knowledge increases as the cube of the good knowledge. So by the time I say we get to a volume of 64, the amount of good information to bad information is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, which means going to be tougher and tougher to find. That's that's the issue there. I've already mentioned that. Now we come to my framework around time coming over here. And we're ready to go. Okay, so first of all, I put it around a series of six questions. I could make some more, too. But you want to ask questions like what is the issue or question? And that could come out several ways. But you really want to ask yourself what is the issue, what is being claimed here? What is the claim? And this is now we're going to get more specific and we're going to phrase it in a conditional format. That's where that comes in. What reasons are offered to support the claim? How strong is the support? That's the important thing. Okay, how strong is it? What would be adequate support? And what reasons might create false beliefs in the claim? Now, you've got a lot of you already got a lot of reasons for figuring that out. But each claim is different. We're going to look at, okay, so now we'll come to the conditional format. As I said, I simply put it's if H is going to be a hypothesis that something is true with the world, that's the hypothesis. Then if that's if that's true, the world, then something there should be some predictable consequence, which is P, we call it the predictable consequence. So I said, that's, that's what it originally and usually put that way. But then it came out that it's not as simple as that. There's things called initial conditions. And there are auxiliary conditions. So and not my stated here is that this is usually in terms of a background of a theory. T is going to be a theory, a description of a hypothetical system. By the way, this is all in a guide in your guide as well. H is the hypothesis that the claim, the claim that the theory is true. So the three, we don't think of the theory as true or false, not thinking that way. But the theory can generate claims and our hypotheses. And hypothesis is going to be a claim that something is true. That a consequence of the hypothesis is true. That's going to be testable. We're going to have initial conditions out of initial conditions for evaluating the claim. Okay. And we'll talk about the these two can be interchangeable to some extent, auxiliary conditions are conditions that must hold for the claim outcome to occur. And then P is predicted outcome given that the hypothesis is true. And initial auxiliary conditions are met. Now what this does though is gives a lot of loopholes. You gotta be careful. For example, I haven't yet yet to encounter a field parapsychological experiment, which has been has has has really made an impression on the parapsychologist because they believe an important auxiliary condition is that the conditions have to be right. I mean, initial condition. They have to be there is something they call Psi conducive conditions. Unfortunately, they don't know what Psi conducive conditions are until after they done the experiment and they don't get anything. Then they can say, okay, suit of Psi conducive conditions. This is an example of a non false survival theory. And this is where Papa maybe is relevant. But for their point of view, you know, Psi is very subtle thing. It's real. But it also, it only shows us off under certain conditions. And they never may specify the conditions in advance. Since they can't specify them in advance, they know that they must have been existing at the most of the initial conditions weren't fulfilled. How they know it? Because they didn't get the predictive results. Okay, so you know, so you can see how people get themselves, even the brightest people can get themselves into tremendous mess. And they don't like it when I point it out, but I understand that. I'm still good friends with some of them, at least where I'm talking. And by the way, we all can get caught up in this as well. It's not just parapsychologists. Okay, so let's go take an example of the key bending. I'll just give you an example of how you might go through this. So you might ask, what is the issue of question? Now we can say, can a key be bent without physical force by an unknown psychic power? Is that a good, that may be one possible, but the issue can be a lot of other things. Anyone else want to propose another issue that might be involved in there? There's no one correct issue, but you're trying to at least say some issue that's involved here, that question that's me. Psychic powers act on things? Psychic powers act on things? Okay, so that's a more general statement. So instead of key, can it be, and it's good that you can put it in a more general, it could be specifically asking a question about keys and sounds, or maybe asking a more general question about metal bending in general, psychic metal bending, the spoons, keys, other things, or maybe even baking an even more general statement, a belief that this is part of a, that there is something called psychokinesis where the mind can move objects of any kind, okay? So you can spell this out in a lot of different ways, but at least it's worthwhile trying to formulate a claim or reasonable claim that's being made here. Okay, so now let's put it into the hypothetical format of our thing. The theory here could be a description of a hypothetical system which metal can be bent by mental powers. Or it could be a more general thing, it could be a hypothetical system in which there is something called psychokinesis where the human mind can bend a move or somehow influence physical objects of any kind. So you can put it in a more general or you can make it more specific to be metal, or you can make it more specific to be just keys. Okay, hypothesis could be, see this theory is neither true nor false at the moment, I'm not saying that. It's just a basis for generally for driving some hypotheses that we could test. One hypothesis could be the theory is true with some individuals so that that raises the question that we can be saying that, okay, so let's leave it at that at the moment. So one initial condition is that we begin with an unbent key, that's a very simple thing, because you began with a bent key and then you found that the key is bent afterwards, you got nothing, right? So we may want to be sure that the key is unbent to begin with, so we got an unbent key. An auxiliary case could be the lead psychic strokes the key and truly wants it to bend. Or it could be that there are psych, that there's no skeptics around that can influence it. By the way, the idea that skeptics can badly influence it already presupposes, it's like begging a question, that the skeptics have psychic powers too, because they can interfere with the powers of the psychics, right? But they're never looking at it that way. But anyways, the lead psychic strokes the key and truly wants it to bend, so that could be an auxiliary condition that, unless it's stroke, you don't expect the prediction to work, right? So it has to be stroke. And then you hold it in your gallery as I try to make the call, okay? You could have it though, that the key can bend without anyone touching it, without even stroking it, that the key could bend by just a silkie. But let's put it that way. Okay, and to predict the outcome is that the key will be bent. So always look at this, the initial condition is that you have an unbent key and final condition will be, which is to predict the outcome, a bent key, okay? So that's what we're looking for. Okay, so a bent key was displayed when we did the thing, so our example was that we did what reasons are offered to support the claim, and I showed a key that was bent, okay? That after it was initialed and it wasn't bent before, but it wasn't bent a lot, but it was bent, right? Clearly. So that was the bent key. So that was the reasons that are offered to support the claim that we have a bent key. And by the way, is that enough reasons to put forth? Let me stop here and say, is it enough reasons? Okay, what were the auxiliary conditions? She says that we have to observe the auxiliary conditions for a met. That's true, we have to have a met condition. What else might you put in the auxiliary conditions or initial conditions? What's that? The key. Actually, I touched it, and they touched it. They had two volunteers and they touched it, I touched it, and we stroked it. The question is, you want to make sure that we didn't touch it in a way that could bend it? Right, and one way we checked that out a little bit, so we did make it. After it was bent, we handed it out to people and said they could not unbend it with their hands, okay? So that's a little bit, but that's a good point. Excellent point she brought up, that the key, that someone shouldn't touch the key, if they touch it, we want to make sure that wasn't sufficient to have been the cause of it. Okay, how strong is the support? The bent key had been marked beforehand to preclude switching, because that was a people like in the past most often guessed that well, I just switched the key for a bent one. So we had the key this time marked to preclude that. However, the key had been out of sight and then demonstrated its possession for several minutes before it apparently bent. So that was not a good thing for proving that this was a miracle or something. Was it possible to physically bend it during that time? Okay, that's the question this depends upon knowing about the principle of leverage and realizing that the demonstrated had another key to see in at the same time he also had possession of the key that was bent. There are a lot of ways you can quit this, but again just trying to follow a framework right there gets you to thinking and gets you to think that otherwise things that you might not might overlook, might overlook. This is why you have checklists when every time a plane is going to go up in the air these guys go through the systemically, it's checklists. The more systematically you have the less likely you are to miss something that you and it's very easy to do that. So what would be adequate support? Here we want clear evidence that the key was not bent before the demonstration could not have been bent by physical force during the demonstration and this is not always easy to set to determine in these kinds of things. The search should contain observational conditions that are optimal for making sure these precautions were adequate. Now let's give the devil his do. I did have some negative things to say about Targ's recent book on Physicist Proof for ESP and I vehemently said this was an insult to science in a way. It was certainly a dereliction of forgetting about the last 400 years of scientific revolution and going back to the age of miracles because he doesn't take into account at all any of the criticisms and so on. But in this case Targ Gela was first investigated seriously by experiments at Sanford Research Institute over a period of several weeks and most people don't realize this. It's always presented that the results were successful and they validated Gela as a psychic. What people don't realize and forget about was that Yuri Gela was the scientist, the Targ and put off the two physicists at Sanford Research Institute in the 70s when Gela was being tested there. They set out deliberately to test their interest in this metal bending power. It's not any other psychic powers he might have but in his ability to bend metal without using physical force. And they set up their cameras and everything to do this. So they really set up ideal, good observation condition. So they would have cameras and every angle you could have it and if he was putting any force he even had calibration to measure how much force he was actually putting into it. So they wanted to really get this pin it down in really good scientific fashion. And unfortunately most of the time he was there they never could get him to do it. What would happen was they would work for hours and hours trying to get him to have the bend the key or bend the spoon or do some other psychokinetic thing under the observations where there would be no doubt that they got it. They pinned it down scientifically. It never would work so they would have to break after a few hours of this because it was straining on Gela supposedly he was working his way and his power was getting weak. So they would take a break and they would go off to have a cafeteria and have some coffee or something and while they were at the cafeteria suddenly the spoons were bending all over the place. They said now he's hot now. They'd run back to the laboratory turn the cameras on and again nothing would happen. And this went on for weeks and weeks.  When he opened it up he was right eight out of eight times. They did it ten times over the period of time and two times he was not right. He didn't guess. He said I don't have feel for it. So that was one of the things that they published in the nature paper of evidence they had for him being able to see that and then he also did some experiments where they had him draw a figure while he was in an F-hour day cage believe it or not. They drew something outside the cage and he drew a figure and then he tried to duplicate while he was in the cage and he was pretty accurate to have some pictures of it like one of the things they drew was a set of grapes a bunch of grapes with 18 or grapes in a bunch that was the drawing they tried to predict.  That was one of the best things ever and I still see this thing on the greatest psychic piece of all time Gela got it exact. Most things you get you only get it close that's good enough but he got it exactly in that one. So their evidence what they pointed as a success for Gela was in the psychic stuff but they had to admit that on metal bending they could get no evidence whatsoever so at least they did that right and if they got any evidence on the condition they did that that would be very impressive but that didn't happen. So at least in that case they were right. Now it's interesting that in his book which I said he was giving all kinds of things which why you should believe in ESP and why he believes in ESP that's finally mentioned Gela. It's amazing that he wasn't talking much about Gela but he talks about all kinds of other stuff and he like was one scientist spent most of his time with Gela and became good friends but all this time all those years he was dubious because they couldn't get it about Gela's ability to bend metal psychically but I don't think they have spoon bending parties. There was a man named Halk and I was in the government committee we actually looked at that as well because there were people in the military intelligence who were going to these spoon bending parties and it was Lieutenant Colonel Alexander John Alexander still around and does other things psychically he was running spoon bending parties but I was still a colonel in the army all over Washington DC spoon bending parties were people never meant to spoon with their mind or any other way and would never think of wanting to bend spoons but now there was put forth and still is on the web you can get them to go to them as well but back in the hey Gela people were running these spoon bending parties you pay a little bit of money and they were going to transform your whole life and you sit in it with your spoon in a group like this like we have here sitting here maybe and you're encouraged to keep shouting and bend bend bend and you hold the spoon and you're supposed to not focus on what your hands are doing and you're supposed to try to encourage everyone else and shout it's like a revival meeting and deliberately you get going and by the end of the meeting sometime during the meeting some will say well my spoon has bent a little bit and they even goes hallelujah and they shout and they're all excited the spoon has been too and pretty soon a lot of people say their spoon has been it turns out during the meeting it's Ralph Hough who grunts at me Hough says first of all you must never have skeptics there because that destroys you but the other thing is that they give them a bunch of rules and one of the rules is that you do at some point when you're getting very high and you feel the psyche power is running through you there's some power but not enough to make it fully bent but enough to get it going and then it'll go itself so this is what happens so all these years it turns out that Todd as believing in everything else Madin Blavansky talking to the dead he was still skeptical about spoon bending even though he saw in his colleagues they were giving him reports of it everyone was going to spoon bending parties and their spoons were bending he's still skeptical about it and the book he says but he finally lost his skepticism he went to a spoon bending party and he knows that the spoon was big heavy spoon he had and at the end of the spoon bending thing he looked and his spoon was bent he convinced notice what's going on here it's a kind of a vividness thing we'll talk again about one example that happened to him where his spoon bent by he was in his hands he trust because it was in his hands and he felt it so it's real now thousands and thousands of other people his friends many of them too they had it happen to him had the same experience that wasn't good enough for him right but when it finally happened to him he's where he doesn't say he measured the spoon beforehand to see whether it was bent he doesn't give no details about that he doesn't give us any details about anything else he doesn't talk about the possibility that under these high powered conditions where it's psychology everyone knows that you can suddenly bend the spoon to anything like that without realizing that you're doing it you could feel that you're putting it in and you're encouraged to do that the thing now is bent believe that you did it several times I've encountered people I'm not allowed into them but after the parties I've been around and I've talked to people who come out of it with their bent spoon and I say well did you bend it yourself do you put any pressure on it he says oh yeah but not that much anyway so then we come to general so that's the framework I'm going to now do we have my time is 20 minutes okay so we do have time let's go through another example and this example I think I may have put a case in your I'm not sure I put that one in a guide but I'm going to put it up here for you anyways this first case we're going to do two cases if we have time this one is I love this I just love this case it's small here it is I think we can do it here it's a book by a major again I love this British people have always degrees and stuff oh you do have it okay so it's the same one so you have it in the guide as well but I'll put it up here oops I am sorry okay it's this polarity therapy at the top which you can see and it's distracted from Cooper Hunt major this is the way he has it his title C L M A canned tab I guess that's Cambridge right he's got some sort of degree from Cambridge PSD Doctor of what is that? Psychology? not psychology is it MSD DD PhD MSF that's a good number of degrees 1969 radioesthetic analysis that's using the dowsy rod the pendulum to diagnose things okay so here it's the full thing and we're going to apply we're going to apply the framework to it okay whether one employs a rod or pendulum or one of the latest instruments designed to detect and measure the radiations of the human body in its many cell groups there is almost an infinite number of findings which can mean of the utmost value for it one very useful reading and by the way and I love this one very useful reading to begin at the beginning of our specialized form of analysis which my wife and I have evolved over the years in our radioesthetic healing practice is the polarity of the patient hitted to it hitted to it had always been thought that we should sleep at night with our heads to the north and our feet to the south I've never heard that before I guess I'm out of touch with things so how many of you have heard that now you're supposed to sleep but you head to the north okay so we don't not everyone is aware of these things now you learn we have found through radiosesia that this varies with the individual some should sleep with their head to the southeast or southwest northeast or northwest according to the finding of the instrument supreme let's make sure we can see that okay acid what's that acid is the supreme importance of this we cannot say as yet and since we are not anxious to produce fat are disrupted domestic harmony by dislocating arrangement of the furniture we do not lay down an inflexible law for any patient at the same time we have found the item to be of practical value clinically we had two cases of actual fact by the way when I was reading over this paragraph I was saying when he saw that problem of disrupting domestic harmony I was thinking of the wife having to sleep with her head at the foot of the bed and the husband sleep with the head of the... the first was a patient who complained of acute insomnia which nothing would relieve we discovered that the lady was sleeping with her head in wrong polarity where you see you laugh but this is serious business sleep loss is a very unhappy situation where you see radioesthetic examination indicated a different alignment and the patient advised to try it out she braved a domestic strife and her subsequent report was complete harmony and sound sleep in other words during the hours of nightly refreshment the cosmic forces of renewal were unhindered by incorrect polarity in the sleeper and were allowed to flow freely through the end of being of the patient so there are things that she's learning in this course at a value I'm sure the other case I can cite was one of a little girl who was greatly troubling her household by extreme restlessness she was brought to us for a test of polarity and our advice was adhered with an immediate satisfactory result of complete harmony and deep sleep I can only add therefore in conclusion that the test of polarity and applying of it in this way provided that friction is not caused in the household seems worthwhile it is easily ascertainable by any work with the pendulum or rod by holding a specimen of the patient's blood or hair or handwriting in the receiving hand left hand or right handed operator maintaining the desired thought and consciousness while functioning with the power hand which holds the pendulum and as that complete reported that to take the thing now we want to apply a framework to it right because this would be if this were so this would be a moonshot earth running I guess right and I'm a magician so that would be fine may I use my hand I guess okay so what fact is oh that's not what I want that's that I want that I thought I had an analysis here somewhere on that oh no okay I do have an analysis there let's go through the thing now let's just say what are the reasons what is the claim being made here what would you say the claim is that people have trouble sleeping because there's something wrong with polarity that there is polarity that can go wrong and cause insomnia okay and there's one more aspect of the claim it's possible to measure the right what's the added feature that you can change it right you can cure their problems by making them sleep in the right polarity right so the claim is that if that people having trouble sleeping any problems with sleeping if you could if you find that there's a polarity problem there if you get them to sleep according to the right polarity in the right direction it will be cured right so a couple claims I guess a risk polarity I guess but the and the stronger one is that this if you can people reorient and sleep according to the correct polarity for them they will be fine okay okay so that so now let's get that into the framework the hypothesis would be what we're going to test it now okay you got it see we're going to use the principle of charity we're going to do one other thing as well we're going to assume this guy did this as an experiment correctly so okay so what is the what is the hypothesis what's that when sleeping in the right direction of matching polarity subject receives proper deep sleep okay now you have to have initial condition it's very important here that's that they have to have problems sleep problems yeah they have to have sleep problems and they get the wrong polarity but okay so that could be the initial condition is that they have to have sleep problems sleeping right and because if they didn't have sleep problems and they don't have sleep problems afterwards that's not a test of anything right so so it's important that it's an initial condition that you got to demonstrate and how would you demonstrate that though how do you demonstrate that they have sleep problems to begin with I suppose you could right so you're using test among you're using their word for it okay how do you test that they've improved their sleeping habits at least one of these cases it was the risk of the family complaining right you know her spouse might have been aware of the fact that she okay so you have the other part so there's a problem if you're going to set this up as a test it's a problem of how are you going to what we call the criteria what criteria are you going to use you got to set this up any good experiment you got to have something that you can measure or show it's going to be a change from the initial condition that it is and be measurable and it's got to be a final condition that's the predicted outcome which is a measurable change from the initial condition without that you don't have anything right I'm sorry a witness somebody maybe you have a witness so we've got a problem though we've got to set this up somehow this is not going to be an easy thing to do all the time we have to set up criteria without measures for it otherwise we're left with people's testimony which we know are what I'm reliable right so you have to find some ways of measurements and working on it there should really have a controlled situation that's another problem okay now you're getting into another issue which is see this way hopefully the framework gets you to think this way into another issue that a controlled condition here what would be a good control to have here I mean they have sleep labs they have sleep labs okay I thought what you were getting at was that one control would be to actually miss half the people are given the wrong polarity issue and half the people are now sleeping the wrong way according to the polarity judgment and they don't know that it's going to be double blind and then see again a double blind analysis going to be done to see which ones what proportion of people there's a difference in the number of people who are sleeping correctly as opposed to incorrectly and that would be a reasonable thing to try 10 minutes okay good thank you any other things we want to say about that okay we got 10 minutes I'm going to just introduce you and we got a complete analysis I think in the thing on the this paper by Krider I think I'd give you that a case of a character analysis I mean I'm so happy after you get all this done they can go back and look at their thing okay I'm I'm going to say that you can go on and yeah try it we're just going to start just giving you some possible suggestions okay so the last thing we're going to do work on was this it's anything here I hope I have a here's I got both of them here I sort of actually the full paper actually is not much longer than this but I give you the gist of the paper this is a study that was published in 1944 by a man named Krider a psychologist named Krider and this is 1944 and he was teaching at an all girls school in those days girls who do go to school they were from the upper class and well healed because many girls didn't go to college and when they did go they usually went to an all female college to protect them or something like that I don't know but this is a different world okay you got to remember that 1944 is different from the world that you are people are aware of okay anyway he's a psychologist and he does his study he publishes a study of a character reader Margarita Essie calls her she's 30 years old and had been a character analyst for 15 years her clients gave her excellent testimonials to test her abilities Krider conducted the following experiment Margarita saw each of the 16 female college students from Krider's class in the author's office each student was seen individually the analyst made a series of statements about each student the statements were made one at a time and written down the subjects had been instructed not to react to the statements Margarita made from 19 to 25 separate statements about each student after the 19 and more statements were written down they were abandoned handed to the student who checked those which he agreed okay so you can see what's going on here the student comes into the office and sits opposite the character reader the character reader doesn't talk to them and the student is not supposed to give them any clues or anything and the character reader can look at them and writes down statements each one statement to a card and then has a stack of cards for that student each student is given a statistic and he gives a couple of the readings this is one reading from one of the students they're all similar in many ways this had 25 statements and he says overall reported that in 7 of the analyses there was no disagreement at all so in 7 of the analyses no disagreement in only one of the analyses were there as many as 3 disagreements all told for the 16 analyses Margarita made a total of 364 statements of those statements the students disagreed with only 22 in other words the students agreed with 96% of the statements made by Margarita now Karate provided two of these things I'll give you one of those and you may want to look at some of them some of the statements she made does not like to take chances very very sensitive very self conscious gets along well with boys by the average student worries about her studies introvert over emotional tries to conceal it general health good I love that one in the settled stage these are young undergraduates college undergraduates has had a broken love affair should not be in the business world and at that time of course that would be a fair statement you won't dare say that today but that would be a fair statement I don't want to see you accepted okay appreciates good music must always have a feeling of security how many here would be uneasy if they didn't have a feeling of security is of generous and cooperative nature digestive organs normal that's one of my favorite ones heart normal kidneys normal finds it hard to ask favors should not be given technical work does not like routine either very stubborn bad temper when aroused yet she doesn't display it often this is what we call my colleague Norm Sumberg calls a double barreled statement this girl would be happiest when being supported has many big dreams okay and the others would like that they only gave two examples in the state but they would like that and the criteria then stated that psychology may say that the statements are mostly complimentary that they are too general that they reply to everyone however from what I knew of the students I was in substantial agreement with the analyses that is presented more interesting is the fact that the students were satisfied and in the discussion with each other following the analysis they were held the opinion that the analyses were surprisingly accurate credit supplies a statement from Marguerite but I won't go over that he concludes that since she is one of the several who are doing similar work I believe it is of considerable interest to psychologists to know how our competitors work much better in fact to try to understand and to scoff at them okay so that was from that time 1944 legitimate psychologists presumably who wrote that paper published in the journal journal social psychology okay and that was a stimulus for a later paper which we're going to cover in fact I'm going to give you Randy I'll show you a clip of Randy actually duplicating that experiment of a later one there a man named Fora who in 1949 this was done in 1944 wrote this paper by Crider and he was I guess sort of skeptical and he looked at this and he said well one thing wasn't done you know that you should always think about experiments and think about like the case of the dog that didn't bark in the night what would happen if this we mixed these up gave this one to some other girl and the other girl got the other ones reading what would happen there that's an important control right so Fora essentially did something like that that became very famous and we'll get to that in the next lecture and we're going to again to begin working on what's called the psychic reading so I think it's a good time to stop here but go through your own analysis try to find a framework to this and then look at the I think I give a sample analysis in the of how I did it but before you can buy analysis try your own analysis on it just try to see the framework see what you come up with here and I can see by the way you're smiling so on that you're already ahead of the game but that's okay so I guess the next lecture is lecture six and we will use that to transition to what I call the psychic reading and we will then go from there to teach you all how to be psychics


All right. So now I'm going to move over to talking about the dashboard cascading sharing. So the easiest way to do this is just to show you how it works. So I am now going to share this dashboard with a group of users who don't necessarily have access to these new dashboard items that I've just added these four charts here at the top row. And so I'm going to share the dashboard with the system administrators. I'm going to give their access to view and edit give access. So now we see the system administrators have been given access. And now the new thing to enable cascading sharing is the second tab up here that says apply sharing to dashboard visualizations. So I'm going to click you over here. And you're going to see there's a lot of text here. I won't go over all of it, but essentially it's communicating to you what will happen if I click apply sharing to dashboard visualizations. Essentially, if a user or group has view and edit access to the visualization. This won't be reduced to view only all users will have access levels that won't be updated or changed. So let's just see exactly what happens. So I have now shared this dashboard with a new user group. I have four new dashboard items. I'm going to click apply sharing to dashboard items and it's going to process and then it gives me this message here for visitor visualizations were updated. That's these top four here that I just added and then 17 visualizations already had sufficient sharing setting so that's all of the others. So now I just very quickly given access to those charts that I had just made to that user group system admins that enables them to view this dashboard. All right. So just to show the proof of that I'm going to open this dashboard item back in the data visualizer app. I'm going to go to file. I'm going to go to sharing and now you see here we are system administrators have been added to the sharing settings for this dashboard item or for this chart automatically based upon how I shared it on the dashboard. So again hopefully that's make this makes it much, much easier for everyone to share their dashboards with with users very quickly, very easily and and really helps, you know, communicate across multiple dashboards.


How are you? Oh, good, good, good. I think, I think the meeting is not happening. This is what I'm understanding from. From Matt Nelson, they were mentioning. Oh no, actually it's you. Matt. I. I know there's a meeting tomorrow. To just sort of kick off some of the. Yeah. The refaction work. Exactly. Exactly. I think like he was mentioned. I mean, I think someone mentioned that was actually with the first of July in the States. The schedule moved it. And it didn't move to our schedule. From our consensus calendar. So I guess we can just, we can just keep and go check out the. The, the hyper ledger. Discord. I think they were postponing. Yeah. That's why, that's why like, I didn't know what was happening. So you think they're postponing today's one or. I think, no, I think, yeah, exactly. No, so today is not happening. Apparently like with the first of July, they moved everything like on two days. So we just, we check out with, with Matt. Oh, there you are. Second match in the house.  I don't know. I think this is the wrong week because of the fourth of July. Yeah. So we will. And on the calendar that I see it's basically to be pushed a week later.  I was told by hyper ledger to just fix it. So I might just fix it. But what's the, what's the fix the fixie will be postponing to next week. Or to get the base one and anticipating that. Yeah.  We also have the modularity consensus kickoff tomorrow. Like the modularity. So I don't really need, I don't think we need the meeting today. Matt, do that briefly about like prepping, like what we are doing for tomorrow's meeting. Yeah, yeah. That's fine with me. Yeah. And I think I'm going to move this one a week earlier. It's next. Tuesday. And we want to also move the, the consensus calendar one also earlier than. Yeah. I'll move our internal meeting as well. Perfect. Awesome. You guys prep the meeting for tomorrow, right? Yes. Yeah. So I think you're good to drop off. Francesco. I know you're. Sounds good. Easy. All right. We'll see you then. Yeah. Awesome. Bye bye. Thanks. All right. Let's see. So I'm sorry again about the confusion, Michelle with this meeting today. The base who. Hyper ledger calendar updated, but I don't think it updated everyone's individual counters. We've moved this meeting for the fourth of July. I don't think it pushed the one. So I've moved this specific contributor call to next week. Okay. So I think it's time to discuss what we're going to be doing in the modularity kickoff tomorrow. Maybe not the full hour, but like 10, 20 minutes, something like that. Okay. Yeah. Gary. So, so first of all, I said, I shared two links. In the. Basic modularity channel. They're one. Two. I've seen these two links. There's this modular base who one. And then the kind of implementation planning approach. Yeah, so I had a look at these, although I feel like maybe the first one, there's a bit more in it now than when I first looked. Yeah, we did these. Well, I updated this yesterday, I guess, but I've, we updated these at the beginning or at the end of last week a little bit. Okay. Yeah, so it might be, might be good for me to have a, have a reread of them. Yeah, so I mean, look, what I think we should use the first meeting tomorrow for is to agree upon some design goals and approaches. Like our goal is not to go into the meeting tomorrow and like fully design a solution that'll be working for everything. What I think is going to be happening is that we're going to try to get on the same page around language and around basically just software engineering best practices. And then go forward on the like first slice that we have, which we're toying with a few different kind of domain areas that we would be looking at, like transaction management. And like, again, not starting with this because consensus might be the toughest topic to decouple and to make modules. So we're, we're again, you can read these pages, but it's basically our goals are to come in with specific approach on one or more and go through what that will look like. I think Justin Florentine on our team will be bringing basically some diagrams about like, how would we do the transaction management and validation stack in terms of this kind of vertical slice approach. So yeah, it's intended to be a very much so kind of like a design session and to align ourselves on process, not necessarily to come like with a hard and fast rule on what we're going to do in our approach. Gary, do you have anything to add on this, on this point? No, I think you covered it pretty well. All right, we have more people joining, unfortunately. Hello folks. I'm really excited. It's quite upsetting that the calendar got all screwed up today. But anyway, we're just discussing the kickoff for the modularity meeting that we'll be having tomorrow. All are welcome to join. We are discussing modular basu. There's details on the wiki page. The hyperledger basu wiki that has all the context. I think. If Matt and Nishal, you guys agree on these goals or anything like that. And there's also some discussion in the discord and the basu modularity channel that we are kind of just good to proceed. Yeah. Cool. You might want to reiterate first, you asked that the contributor call was moved. It's been pushed one week and it's just a calendar. It's not food. Yeah, sorry. The basu calendar did not reflect the movement of this. Your call to next week. And then following every following week after that. So apologies on that one. The actual on me a call will be. Next week, a week from today at the same time. But we have the modular base who kickoff from the working group tomorrow at this time as well. Yeah, so I guess, I guess Matt is maybe one thing from my point of view, I guess is that there are, you know, there's still, there's still quite a few areas of basu. I've not sort of touched and had a look at in detail. So, you know, I, I guess I'm just keen to be able to come to you wherever I can in this, in this area. So I might.  No, you're good. We feel like, I feel like we always have a tendency to over design and over get into the implementation details up front, at least on the. So big questions and like high level opinions of best practices are kind of exactly what we're looking for. Like I mentioned, we, I think that consensus we will take on the first kind of pieces just so we can start the ball rolling, get some lessons learned kind of quickly and iterate. Yeah. So any questions that you have that are like, you know, very straightforward that can only help steer the discussion, frankly. Cool. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I just, I want to make sure that yeah, I'm on the right side of being a useful contributor to this rather than slowing stuff down. And I guess also if, if there's, if there's stuff outside, I guess, of the main line of sort of development, you know, while, while some stuff is kicking off sort of in earnest to begin with, that's, that's useful to send, you know, to someone like me, that almost like, I guess almost like a, a learning exercise kind of thing while some of the main stuff is kicking off. If there's anything that, that sort of leaps out in that, in that space, then I, I guess feel free to sort of consider throwing stuff my way while, while some of the main line stuff proceeding. You know, I definitely tend to find getting your head into a problem helps you learn that area of the code better than just staring at it. Got you. I'll have, I'll make sure that we're sharing more information on our approach in basic modularity, the channel. I think there's a little bit of discussion around how we're going to accomplish this from a technical perspective. So if you're familiar with dependency injection tools and stuff like that, like dagger, like we love your opinion on just trying to work out the context there. Yeah. Okay. So I will share some more material, any new material that I think of will go into that channel. Sure. Yeah. And I think, you know, there are only so many, so often you can run, run calls, right? So, so often working on a channel is a pretty effective way forward if you, if you put enough in there. Yeah, so we'll be working on that. Sorry, go ahead. No, I just going through the channel because I didn't look through it. So yeah, I will also go through that channel. Yeah, there's some technical discussion that I think again is getting a little into the weeds before we've gotten into the actual discussion of the goals and stuff. So, you know, takes whatever's in there with a grain of salt, those are just some approaches that the other maintainers are kicking around. But I'll have the team share as much general information as we can to prep everyone for the call tomorrow. With the outcome of tomorrow's call, hopefully being a direction on the first couple of modules, deciding what they are. We're going to use kind of the rule of threes of abstraction. So if you don't need more than one or two, or more than one or two use cases per like module, for example, and it's not really worth abstracting or modularizing. So we're going to be picking the kind of visual representation of the domains in that area. Again, a lot of that stuff is on the implementation approach page where it lays out all of the business logic kind of areas and domains within basu. And then the the the diagrams that I've shared the Miro diagram that's in there as well has got some more visual representation of what that looks like. So I think that of what's most of interest here is the application approach. So one of the goals of the modularity work is better distributions. So Matt, this is what we are talking about as far as like choosing enterprise release, public release, public mainnet release, private network release, EVM release, roll up release, et cetera, et cetera. So our three goals are basically that resolution of tech debt and distribution and better client modification. So we're not necessarily sold on if the client modification stuff is best to serve by plugins or full modularity, i.e. if I need to customize module instead of using the plugin API, I rip and replace or alter the module and put it back in. Right. So we, you know, again, I think that where since you guys might not feel as comfortable as these other folks in the code base, you definitely have software engineering experience of bringing more around like approach and best practices will help ground the discussion a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That sounds, that sounds great. Yeah. Yeah. Sweet. Any other stuff like we have, I have time now we're on the phone already. If there's anything else we want to chat about, I think again, sorry about the screw up with the calendar, we'll resume this contributor call next week, which will be good because we can do a little discussion about the modularity thing and all this other stuff. But if there's anything else we want to chat about today, I get one question. I know this is still a modularity, but I guess one thing that there's not a lot of mention of in the, at least in the first wiki page, I don't think the segment either is where it's relative to the current plugin module. I don't know if that's, that's because it's sort of a given that it's in some respects where it's relevant. It's going to follow the current plugin architecture pretty closely, or if that hasn't, you know, if that's not a done deal, where do you see it versus the existing plugin API? Yeah. So that's what we have to figure out a little bit, right? I don't think the plugin API, we had some discussion about this the other day internally and consensus aside. I don't know if our goal is to expand the plugin API to be so unwieldy that it like is not a useful abstraction anymore, because it's just like everything gets shoved in there. So I think that that falls under the third goal of like client modification. Yeah. The way I laid it out in my head was the plugin API is a much simpler entry point than modifying basic modules, let's say, to modifying the client. So if our goals are around basically ease of use and developer experience and modular and continuing down the route of the plugin API is probably valuable. If our goals are around maximum customizability, reuse of components and like basically basic can go anywhere and do anything. But there's a lot more like hard work to make that happen. Then I think that that lends itself more to the full modularity approach where we are cleanly interfacing all of the components and you can swap them in and out at will. So this is what we discussed, right? Like what are the goals of you all as well? I don't think that that's why on my side as a product manager for this either way I can see my team spending effort and having it be valuable. But I want to find out your guys' goals too. From a modification standpoint, I have a feeling it's better to have a plugin API that's easy to work with and exposes X number of things versus having to wholesale modify like full modules in the code base kind of on the fly is a little tougher, right? So that's what we're looking to figure out. I think the approaches that we end up taking, I was initially sold on the plugin first kind of approach. I'm sort of back walking out a little bit after we've kind of dug into the technical details. I will let the engineers speak a little bit more about it tomorrow. I think that's a great question that we should talk about. I'm going to note it on the page as a comment. Yeah, sorry, Anna. I did see it is sort of mentioned in there. So yeah, I think that would be useful certainly for people like me where I understand where some of the discussions that have happened that might sway the decision, the reasons why some of the engineering team think the current plugins approach may be stretching it too far to extend it to the remit, but this sort of working groups aiming for any of that background or discussion. Yeah, that'd be really useful to read. Yeah. Gotcha. I mean, it's not it's mostly just chats. So unfortunately, it's not. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, that's cool. I'll ask the team to put in a little bit of that color in this in the modular Basu page. Awesome. Yeah, that'd be great. All right. Anything else that can be this that or the other thing? Oh, no, nothing from a side. Awesome. No, I think just on the the second goal, the distribution side of things. Did you want to chat separately Matt about some of that outside of the modularity workshop called tomorrow?  I still haven't gotten to that. No, all right. Yeah, it's not super long and it's super high level initial questions. Yeah, I think, you know, this can be accomplished as part of the modularity discussion and separately. So I think, yeah, let's get through the first meeting and then depending on how we decide to approach this, it might be worth starting like as kind of another track around how we reach this goal, whether it's through modules or some other thing. Yeah. I think that that can be kind of similar. Like we, there's multiple ways we can accomplish that. So let's make sure we're considering the other avenues to. Yeah, yeah, totally. Yeah. Yeah, I think one aim I guess I have is that in that sort of document that talks about, you know, sort of release cycle. What one or two use cases, you know, sketched out use cases for a couple of different types of release might help us a useful sort of playing back some of the technical discussion. How would that, how does technical outcomes make easier or make harder, you know, those, those release cycle sort of sample use cases, I guess. So maybe that's something else for me to try and add into that. That document as well. Yeah. Sweet. That works for me. I'll take a review today. I'll give you some comments. It's not very long so I will get to say for sure. Awesome. Cool. Thanks. All right, folks, I will see you all tomorrow. I'll make sure to share as much as I can in that channel. These documents are living for sure. So if you haven't read them in the last couple of days, definitely. Unfortunately, but yeah, I'll make sure we can get as much detail up front. I'll have the engineers share some discussion. If there are any that are relevant and we can go from there. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.


Thank you so much Duffy and the panelists. So before we resume the breakouts at 11, I want to remind everyone that the solutions showcase will close earlier today at 2.30 PM. So please be sure to visit our sponsors and grab that last-minute swag before it's all gone. I also want to take a moment to thank our fellow co-chair, Frederick here. So this marks his final time as a co-chair for KubeCon plus CloudNativeCon. And I want to give him a well-deserved round of applause for all his invaluable contributions to this event. And thank you so much for bringing the fun outfits on stage. What is that? Is that like a Pikachu outfit? So this is actually a Fippy costume. I came across it in the CNCF store. So you could see, if you haven't seen it properly, it is actually a Fippy costume or Fippy hoodie. I love that. And yeah, thank you again for everything that you've done. And we're so grateful for all your contributions to this event. Thank you. So first, I want to say thank you to everyone who is here. Like, being a co-chair would be nothing without all of you. So you really are the community. You are the people who bring this all together. And as my term comes to an end here at KubeCon, CloudNativeCon as a co-chair, I am thrilled to be able to hand over the reins to a new leader. So please, everyone, a huge, huge round of applause to our new co-chair, Kasper Barg-Niesen. Thank you, Fred. You have been such an amazing influence to this community. Thank you.  And Kasper, we really look forward to working with you to create such an amazing event starting with KubeCon Paris. Yeah, and I know we will be seeing you again at your upcoming KubeCon CloudNativeCon events. Yeah, there it is. Next, in Paris, France, KubeCon, CloudNativeCon Europe will take place 19 to the 22nd. And then again here in North America, in Salt Lake City, KubeCon, CloudNativeCon now North America will take place November 12th to 15th. Also, we've got one more exciting announcement. So from KubeCon plus CloudNativeCon in Paris, we intend to have poster sessions for the very first time. So if you have any latest research, novel ideas, or innovative solutions that you'd like to showcase and also get feedback on, please, please, consider submitting the poster sessions. The CFPs are open. And I think they close sometime soon after this KubeCon. So and you can also find more details about this on the CFP page. So I'm already booked. So I cannot wait to continue seeing all of you at future KubeCon and CloudNativeCon. So again, we truly appreciate all of you joining us for the keynotes. And thank you all for, again, a huge rattle of applause to our speakers and sponsors who have helped make this event happen. So have a great final day. I expect to see SIPI Nation in Paris. And with that, I am looking forward to seeing you next time. Everyone, thank you. Thank you.  When I'm...


The number one question in sleep research is, why do we sleep? Followed by the question, how much sleep do we need? After literally hundreds of studies, we still don't know the best answer to either question. A few years ago, I featured a large 100,000-person study suggesting that both short and long sleep duration were associated with increased mortality, with people getting around 7 hours of sleep living longest. This then a meta-analysis of all such studies, including more than a million people was published, and they found the same thing. We still don't know, though, if sleep duration is a cause or simply a marker of ill health. Maybe sleeping too little or too long does make you unhealthy, or maybe we see the associated lifespan shortening because being unhealthy caused you to sleep shorter or longer. Similar work has now been published on Cognitive Function. There's controlling for a long list of factors. Men and women in their 50s and 60s getting 7 or 8 hours appeared to have the best short-term memory, compared to those that got much more or much less. Same thing was just demonstrated with immune function. Both reduced and prolonged habitual sleep durations were associated with an increased risk of pneumonia. It's easy to prevent oversleeping, set an alarm. But what if your problem is not getting enough? What if you're the one in three adults that suffers symptoms of insomnia? Sure, there are drugs like Valium you can take for insomnia in the short term, but they have a number of adverse side effects, and non-pharmacological approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy are often difficult, time-consuming, and don't always work. Wouldn't it be great to have natural treatments that can improve both sleep onset and help patients improve the quality of sleep while improving next-day symptoms over the long term? The effect of kiwi fruit consumption on sleep quality in adults with sleep problems. Two kiwi fruit an hour before bed, every night for four weeks. Why study kiwi fruits? Well, people with sleep disorders tend to have high levels of oxidative stress, so maybe antioxidant-rich foods may help, but all fruits and vegetables have antioxidants. But kiwi fruits contain twice the serotonin of tomatoes, but it really shouldn't cross the blood-brain barrier. Kiwi fruit has folate, and deficiency might cause insomnia, but there's lots more folate in some other plant foods. The reason they studied kiwi fruits is because they got grant money from a kiwi fruit company, and I'm glad they did, because they found some really remarkable results. Significantly improved sleep onset, duration, and efficiency, using both subjective and objective measurements, went from sleeping six hours a night to seven, just eating a few kiwi fruit.


For only the second time in school history, the BSU football team is headed to post-season. The Beavers are headed to the mineral water bowl to take on Washburn University this weekend. The Beavers and Ichabod's have never played against each other before, and BSU is eager to get back to play after a three-week hiatus. It just seems like it's taken forever. I wish this game was about two weeks ago and get it rolling, but it's huge. When you're playing in December, that's where we kind of always talk about being able to play in these games, and certainly wish it would be the playoffs. I'm sure Washburn would be wishing it was a playoffs, but our kids have had a real good prep for the bowl. They understand how important it is, and we certainly dangle that carrot out there of tying the most wins in our inner-school history by getting a nine, and that's what we're shooting for. So they understand the importance, and they understood the importance of it throughout the course of the year. We want to take a step, and this is one step to getting us closer back to the playoffs, which we've been trying to get to. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


It is a form of self-determined learning by an autonomous learner with practices and principles rooted in andragogi where the learner chooses what is to be learned and even how they would like to learn it. If we consider this pedagogy as level 1 where we have engagement with learning and andragogi as level 2 where we have cultivation of self-directed learning and in this pyramid the tip level 3 is the hutagogi where realization of self-determined learning. So here the learner maturity and autonomy needs to be higher to climb this pyramid up whereas the instructor control and core structure will be higher as we move down this pyramid. As a continuum of andragogi, hutagogi is a stage where andragogi is self-directed, hutagogi is self-determined. It is a single loop learning, it is a double loop learning, it is for developing a competency, it is for developing a capability, it has a linear design and learning approach, it has a non-linear design, instructor learner-directed learning, here learner-directed learning, here the students have the content to learn, here the students need to understand how they are going to learn.


Hi everyone Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com coming at you with another separate number block We have two of these for pick your team at 16, which is coming up in a separate video This one's for this group of teams right there That's how the number block works if you're interested Big thanks everybody right here there the numbers right there. Let's roll it. Let's randomize each one five into two seven times for each list one two three four five Six and seventh and final time Daniel down to Josh All right five into two seven times for the numbers one two three four five six and Seven and final time after seven two down to nine fifty percent hundred twenty five percent there we go All right, Daniel with two Jimmy with zero Mike with three Allen with five Chris with six Allen with four eight and one Sean with seven and Joshua be with nine and remember Jimmy for zero as you saw in the item description You'll get any and all redemptions including blockchains for those teams on that bottom tab right there including one of ones Alan you'll still get any live one of ones that we pulled let's sort by column B Let's box these up and center it up coming up in a separate video will be the break itself We'll see you for that jaspyscaserates.com


There's a lot of news going around about COVID-19. Sometimes it's hard to tell fact from fiction. Let's tackle a few common myths. Myth one. COVID-19 isn't a big deal for young people. Actually, people of all ages can be affected by COVID-19. Even wizards? Even wizards, Harry Daughter. In fact, the Center for Disease Control reports that of all COVID-19 cases, 35% are in people 49 and under. And one in five people hospitalized for severe COVID-19 were between the ages of 20 and 44. But perhaps the greater danger is that young people may spread the virus to those most vulnerable to COVID-19. People with other health problems and the elderly. So let's look out for each other by staying home and stopping the spread. Myth two. COVID-19 doesn't spread in very hot or very cold weather. Based on current data, coronavirus can spread in all types of climates. Sorry, Dots. Myth three. Despite what you may have seen on social media, teas, mouth rinses, essential oils, and other home remedies do not work against COVID-19. And cleaning products like bleach should never be swallowed or injected. Myth four. There is currently a cure for COVID-19. In short, not yet. Some people have looked to antibiotics for treatment. While antibiotics work great for bacterial infections, they don't work for viruses like coronavirus. Using antibiotics for viruses is a bit like cleaning your house with a pickle. It doesn't work. You may have also heard of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and other medications being used for COVID-19. While certain drugs may have some benefit, it's unlikely that we'll find a cure quickly. What we need is more research. Research that clearly shows what is safe and effective against COVID-19. Unfortunately, news stories have sparked big demand for hydroxychloroquine, taking this drug away from people who need it for other conditions. So what can we do? We can arm ourselves with information from trusted sources like the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control, and your local health authority. Together, we can spread accurate information and not infection.


Metaphore, a comparison between two things that are otherwise unrelated. With metaphor, the qualities of one thing are figuratively carried over to another. When I say, dude, I'm drowning in work, I'm using qualities associated with one thing, the urgency and helplessness of drowning, to convey meaning to another thing, all the work I've got to do. Metaphors are everywhere. He's a couch potato. She's got a heart of gold. That party was the bomb. He is the root of all evil. Swear words and slang are often metaphorical. Take bullsh** for example. Wait, can I say bullsh**? No, no. It's a perfect example of how metaphors are everywhere. No, no, no. Alright, it's bullsh**. By bringing two unrelated elements into comparison, metaphors add creativity and clarity to writing an everyday speech, allowing us to see things in different angles and in a fresh light. Take the sentence by H.P. Lovecraft, which uses vivid imagery to suggest the limits of our knowledge. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage so far. In rhetorical and literary analysis, we often look at how authors use metaphors in ways that go beyond short phrases. An extended metaphor is one that goes on for several sentences.  In the novel Invisible Man, for example, Ralph Ellison extends the metaphor of invisibility to describe how black men and women are often overlooked in American society, pushed to the margins, into the shadows. So metaphors aren't just some stylistic flourish that we use at the sentence level. In fact, according to George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, our very thought, the conceptual systems we use to think and act, are fundamentally metaphorical. They're intrinsic to thinking, which is why it's wise to pay attention to how they're used. Metaphors. Equipment for living. Which isn't metaphor, but I'll stop now.