Satish to take us to the journey of design first reimagining enterprise computing using design Welcome Satish. It's great to be here. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you to the organizers of UX India Like the person was saying, you know, my name is Satish. I'm the global head of design We were a startup until a few weeks ago and now we are a public company We have headquartered in San Jose in the Bay Area But we have a very large presence in Bangalore with all functions including a significant presence in design Engineering finance marketing all the functions. So today my talk is going to be on reimagining enterprise computing using design meaning all of enterprise computing Storage servers networking the whole bit the whole gamut of things But before we go there, I want to spend a few minutes Looking back at history because history teaches us a lot of things and history like people say repeats itself So we've all been here. We've seen this right. So on the left is the Dynatac circa 1983 Wade a kilogram cost $4,000 Took 10 hours to charge for 30 minutes of talk time It was a very big deal. It was the first mobile phone in 1983 It's a very significant point in technology and people bought it then 10 years later Came the IBM Simon Which was up one pound in size I mean in weight and cost roughly half a game and it was the first smartphone with a touch screen display and a few Applications on it like email notes and things like that and then we had the blackberry as mobile technology walled few more applications and then technology receded into the background Then mobile became a platform and the focus shifted towards the user experience That rested on top of the platform, which was delivered through applications So all in a sudden you had a platform which you could use with with applications to customize the platform to your life Right and that we have seen so my point I'm trying to make is things start out very technology centric and Then gravitate towards user experience centric centricity over a period of time Right and I don't know how many of you have seen this graph, but most people have this is Don Norman's graph which essentially says Things start out to be technology centric and the red arrow is there is a crossover point Wherein you have enough technology you have enough performance you have enough capacity and then everything Focuses on the user experience the value that you're delivering at that point in time is all about the experience Right, so let's take a look at computing through these lens for a second It's so this is the past 30 years of CPU costs declining 33% annually This is storage costs declining 38% annually This is networking costs 28% I believe 27% I believe annually over the past 20 years Technology is commodity it is ubiquitous and If you were to ask the question, what is the scale at which we are deploying technology This is Warren Hall in UC Berkeley and The data center here at Warren Hall, which is full of storage servers and Networking gear switches and stuff like that is roughly the size of one soccer field and this is Microsoft's data center in San Antonio in Texas six soccer fields worth of gear and this is Google's Data center in Mace County, Oklahoma used to be a old gate raid plant and that is I Believe six. This is 15 soccer fields. That is a typo that I've made it is 15 soccer fields So as you can tell, you know, 15 soccer fields worth of equipment is really large To deploy to manage to deal with on a day-to-day basis to monitor to troubleshoot to debug Right so This is what these data centers look like as you have seen so it is a significant problem when you have commodity Hardware, you know cheap software and it's deployed at scale It is a huge problem and again You know, we are back at this point in computing We have we are again at a User experience crossover point where you have enough technology But now you need to figure out the experience. How do people Manage all this? How do they monitor? How do they troubleshoot such that it is simple and easy and each person can actually manage a whole lot of machinery and so if we put on a design lens and we reframed the question of Technology and we ask the different question and if we ask the question if We wanted to make human computing of technology simple What needs to be built? Right we built compute we built storage We built a lot of networking gear But then we never asked this question. It was not designed to make human consumption of its simple It was he built for technology which is each of these layers, you know of compute storage and networking essentially is manned by dedicated teams in IT and they know only about their layer. They know nothing about the other layers and They're very specialized. There's a whole bunch of products in each layers with very different user experiences and these teams know how to deal with those products. They're experts in that and When you have to deploy an application for example, like Oracle or Exchange for mail you essentially have to talk to a whole bunch of people, you know Get give me some servers. Give me some storage. Give me some networking and it takes a lot of time It takes roughly three weeks four weeks Sometimes in the order of months to get an application deployed and in this day and age that is a sin Right and imagine if your application has problems Then you don't know where in this entire stack it lies and now you have to ask the question Is it a server problem? Is the storage problem? What is it? Right so the poor user essentially owns the application now has to call long Meetings get everybody in the room together and the compute guy doesn't know anything about networking they don't even speak the same language so to speak and It takes a long time to figure things out. So essentially it is a lot of complexity while Technology has evolved horizontally the needs of the applications are vertical They cut through every applications needs servers storage networking all the stuff so the needs of the applications are vertical and that is a You know that is a design problem that we need to solve So going back to the question if we ask the question to make human computing simple What would we build you end up with a different architecture? So you take all these layers and you collapse them Right you collapse them into a series of nodes and each node essentially has the functionality of all these layers And you can connect a lot of these nodes together Manage them by a single console and you can run your applications on top This is what one would build if you looked at it from a human centric manner if your design was human centric This is what you would build and then you would need just a simple Team to manage this and there is they don't have to learn multiple products. They just need to learn a product A experience so there is no learning tax and so on right, but fine Go let's go ahead. Let's assume, you know, we built this product which we have of course And then we ask a different question, you know, which is the question of impact if you build this product What is the impact? That you can have and let's look at impact from three dimensions Right. Let's look at the impact on the business Which is the customers and what they gain. Let's look at impact from The users, you know, what is the impact the human impact this kind of a product has on people's lives and Let us look at the impact on the organizations That develop these products so the design impact, you know on the business the design impact on the consumers The design impact on the builders of the product itself, right? So if we look at the business the cost goes down because all of a sudden you don't need, you know 12 products from 12 different companies that people have to learn. You don't need, you know, three or four teams The overall total cost of ownership essentially goes down. That's the business impact and then all of a sudden you have more agility because you're now able to satisfy the demands of Your consumers a lot quicker. Okay, you need a new application I'm going to just connect another node and all in a sudden boom things come to life and You're up and running within a matter of hours, right and agility these days the speed of agility in IT dictates the agility of the business because all businesses are IT centric if you're running a marketing campaign and You're trying to figure out which states I should run the marketing campaign in You can't spend three weeks trying to deploy an application to mine the data which will give you the answer By that time the window of opportunity might have disappeared So the agility is a very big deal for businesses Right, and then there's the human impact which is equally important Because at the end of the day we design products for human beings to consume, right? and so this is you know, there's a bunch of tweets from enthusiastic users of our product and You know as people know upgrades are some of the most riskiest operations that people perform anxiety-ridden operations time-consuming operations and this is one of the we've made upgrades very simple So here's a person, you know doing a barbecue and tweeting that they started the upgrade and it's up and running and They've got you know some time back to do other things instead of sitting there monitoring the upgrade and people bet their careers on Certain kinds of technology when virtualization came in in the two thousands There were a bunch of evangelists in IT who bet that virtualization would be a big deal and Their technology and their careers prospered as virtualization became a big deal So there are people here, you know, there's a responsibility we have as designers There's a social responsibility because people actually bet their careers on the products that you build right and Then there is just the sheer joy of the whole thing, you know where Be IT managing IT infrastructure does not have to be, you know serious boring stuff You say kick off an upgrade and we pop a game for you you know 2048 which you can play because the upgrade is going to take some time we know that right and You know when things are going well, we you know, you can do better than You know putting a big check mark on there. We put a monkey with a banana Just to keep it light just to keep it easy, right? So you can bring, you know, simple delight into people's lives, right and The other manifestation is design enables the manifestation of your corporate values in the product If you really say your customer first that needs to come out in the product So this is a support case submission screen we put the escalate button front and center We don't bury it somewhere You know where we don't want people to Unnecessarily call us because there is a way of thinking that I don't want to be bothered unnecessarily about every little thing But if you're really customer first, you should be willing to talk to a customer And so when you design a screen like this, you will put the escalate button right on top, right? And when you do things like this, this is what happens, right? So in the morning one of the speakers was talking about the net promoter score in the enterprise space a net promoter score is Normally in the 20s 30s is decent or good and if you're in the 40s of the 50s you're a rock star For us we have a net promoter score of 92 So when you when you do Design first when you put your customers first, this is really what happens people fall in love with what you build So internally right we design organizations we build products Right and so what is the impact of design? How can we use design to actually design organizations that function well, right? So talent is short design talent, especially around the world is short and We observed that in the Bay Area that there are a lot of highly educated people who Are actually staying at home Because they want to take care of their families the schools close at 2 30 or 3 o'clock and the kids come home and Mothers and in some cases dads want to stay at home for their kids They can do their homework and stuff like that and then we did some research and found out that 29% of all women in the United States Are stay at home mom? moms 7.6% of the dads are stay at home dads and then There is a unknown number of Free-spirited people for whom the 9 to 5 full-day work schedule just doesn't work So we created something called flex Which is essentially catering to the needs of these folks So you work according to a flexible schedule you work half the time and you get paid half the salary along with benefits So design can be used to build organizations to to get talent on board, right? And of course this we have seen how design has been used Not to just put lipstick on the pig meaning you build the product and then you make it pretty using design But you actually start Design first, so I won't say more about this and Then you know design can have an impact on the industry itself So this is an industry enterprise computing is not a product It's an industry and when you reimagine all of enterprise computing new Spaces in the entire field of computing get created which did not exist before so now you hear things like Hyperconvergence integrated systems and you have folks from Gartner and Forester You know talking about these spaces and ranking people and so on so design can have an enormous impact on the industry itself Right. So having said all this so what are the takeaways, right? So if you're an entrepreneur or If you are leading design or if you're just a designer, what are the takeaways? So my belief is for every company to succeed through design You need a true north for design and what I mean by that is For example, the true north for Google was speed If you had five designs and you wanted to choose what is the best design The design that was the fastest that gave most power to the in the hands of the user was the design you chose so that The need for speed dictated a thousand different design decisions at Google Over a period of time, you know thousands of decisions that they made they had a true north They had a litmus test right so for Nutanix. We say the true north for designers is Zero and I'm not being facetious here. What I mean by zero is that we want to build Computing infrastructure that is Zero human zero touch zero trouble tickets So any of course, you know not not that human beings will actually go away and machines will manage themselves But the ratio of how many people you need to manage how many machines Should become smaller and smaller and you need to design for essentially a zero-touch experience It's not like we wake up in the morning and get excited that I'm going to check on my electricity or some such thing We take electricity for granted. It's not top of mind. It exists We focus on the toaster and making a slice of toast or something like that So in enterprise computing needs to become like that It needs to be something that you take for granted so you can focus on the applications that matter You can get things done. You can get your life back. You can get your time back, right? So and of course from that, you know sort of design You know sort of the true north of design many design principles emanate Which will be used to dictate the day-to-day decisions These are some of the design principles that we follow. I won't go into it in detail for reasons of time and you know, I can talk to you offline if you need to and So in closing I will leave you with just this question It's very important, especially if you're an entrepreneur or if you're leading design in your company to be very clear Very precise About what is the true north for design for you? What is the one question that you're going to ask based on which you can get a very binary yes-no answer to make a decision and that is What I would urge you all to think about and Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure Thanks, at least very inspirational talk Since that we are on the topic of enterprise computing, can you give us some idea about how what are the enterprise? Computing services you receive from your internal service provider. So how does it within Nutanix? Provide a great user experience. Can you you know give us some insight into that? I think the How does it within Nutanix provide a great user experience? I think by putting their customers first By providing, you know designing for the right customer experience for us So and that can mean, you know the, you know, clearly visible status on the tickets being responsive You know those kinds of things so I mean once you put your customer first You will design the right experience for them I mean we do other things like you know having vending machines from which you can get a Cable or you can get your charger where you don't have to go and file a ticket in order to get these simple things we do You know few things like that. I mean there's a lot more to do of course, but those are some of the things that we do Maybe some of the customers speed is not the key. Something else is the key Could they be in this alignment? Sure, I mean you go after a certain base of customers There might be customers that don't value speed Maybe those are not your customers Right, maybe not every person in the world is going to be a customer So you have to identify What is the What are the needs of the customers and then you go after them and you establish your true north According to that, but there might be some people who don't see value in this Maybe you come in at a price point That is too expensive for them. Maybe you come in with a product that is not the right fit for them And those are things you have to sacrifice. You can't have it all Can't have it all opinionated design is It's a minimalistic form of design one of the classic examples of opinionated designers is Apple's design for example, it's opinionated Apple has an opinion about what Their customer needs unlike Android Android gives you the toolbox Android opens up a big tool set for you and you can pretty much do Whatever you want with it. You get a lot of flexibility But they don't optimize necessarily for your experience Apple Gives you sort of a minimalistic Sort of a close walled thing, but they're really optimizing for what they think you are is the right experience for you Right, so that is essentially having an opinion about design, which is clear What you're designing for which is clear, right? It's it many times. It turns out to be a minimalistic Form of design, which is you're not trying to make it overcomplicate, you know Overcomplicated you're trying to keep it very simple very intentional Providing with a short set of menu choices Instead of the whole thing burying things in the ad under the advanced button where you don't see so you don't have a massive cognitive load Whenever you look at a screen, you know those kinds of things. That's what goes into opinionated design


Hello and welcome to this session. This is Professor Farhad in which we would look at CPA questions specifically dealing with FAR. These questions could also appear in an intermediate accounting course and the topic is the third taxes. A topic that's heavily covered and many students find hard time understanding this topic. However, I do have it heavily covered in my intermediate accounting course, close to three, three and a half lectures and explanation. So I'm going to work some questions, but I'll also tell you if you need more help. I have plenty of help about this topic, which will deter some students from even passing the exam. So I'm here to help you check out my intermediate accounting. As always, I would like to remind you to connect with me on LinkedIn. If you haven't done so, YouTube is where you would need to subscribe. I have 1,700 plus accounting, auditing, tax, finance lectures, as well as Excel tutorial. If you like my lectures, please like them, share them, subscribe to the channel. If they benefit you, it means they might benefit other people, share the wealth, connect with me on Instagram. On my website, farhadlectures.com, I have additional resources in addition to the lectures. I have practice exercises through false multiple choice over 2,000 CPA questions. And this is where you'll be able to learn about the third income taxes and details. So if you are looking to pass your CPA exam at those 10 to 15 points, check out my website. It might help you do so. So let's take a look at the first question. Once again, these question deals with the third taxes. With regard to the third taxes, the use of the installment sales method for tax purposes would typically result in what? So if we use the installment sales method for tax purposes, what does it result into? Does it result into a deferred tax asset? Does it result under deferred tax liability? Both or neither. So the best way to approach this topic, which is this is how I teach the third taxes on my website, is to look at how do we do things for taxes and how do we do things for GAP. So how do we do things for IRS and how do we do things for GAP? So for using the installment method for tax purposes, what is the installment method? The installment method means every time you receive money, its installment, you have a taxable transaction. Well, under the GAP method, guess what? If you sell something under the GAP method, if you sell something, if you completed the transaction, you don't have to wait for the cash. So if you sold something for, let's assume you sold something for $10,000 and you're going to receive five payments of $2,000.  This is what you did. But guess what? You are going to be paid. This is year one. So this is for year one. You're not going to get anything for year one. What's going to happen is this? Starting in year two, you're going to start to receive the money. And you're going to be receiving, let's make it two payments. So you're going to be receiving year two and year three. So as far as GAP, the sales is recorded in year one. As far as tax, you don't do anything for tax purposes because you did not receive any money for the sale. In other words, it's not really a sale, it's not a taxable event. But here's what's going to happen. As soon as you booked $10,000 in sales, this is going to generate kind of a future tax liability. Why? Because what's going to happen in year two and year three, you're going to get $5,000 and $5,000. Therefore in year two, you debit cash $5,000. You will credit sales $5,000. And in year three, you will debit cash $5,000. And you will credit sales $5,000. What does that mean? It means for tax purposes. It means for tax purposes, you're going to have a future $10,000 of revenue, which you already accounted for under GAP. What does that mean? That's going to give you a future tax liability. If you have a future revenue that's going to be taxable, that's basically the definition of a future tax liability. You're going to have an obligation down the road to pay taxes. In year two and year three, what's going to happen when you forget all you have to do is debit cash, credit receivable for $5,000. Every year. So you have no revenue. The revenue will start to appear on your taxes in year two and year three, which in turn gives you a future tax liability. So it's very important. So why is the third taxes challenging? I'm going to say difficult because you need to know your knowledge from tax. You need to know accounting rules and you need to combine those two together. So you need to know your tax and your accounting principles and how do they interact together. So it's very important that you have a good understanding about this topic. And I could assure you many students when they come to me for help. Usually that's the topic that they're being challenged with. It's either this or pension. Those are the two main topics. Let's take a look at this question. Station, toy train, a cash basis taxpayer prepares a cruel basis financial statements and year 13 balance sheet. State state and the third income tax liability increase compared to year 12. So we have the third tax liability and all what we're saying, for example, the third tax liability was 5,000. Now it became 15,000. That's all we're saying. So it increased the third tax liability increase, which of the following changes during year 13 would cause this increase in the third tax liability. So all what they're asking us is, which of these would result? Which of these activities one, two, three would result in this? I'm going to make it 10,000 increase. I made it 10,000, five to 15. So simply put, what would increase your third tax liability? That's the question. That's the question. So let's take a look at what we are giving and try to analyze it again. What I like, I'm going to grab this question and work with it on one note because I'm going to need more room to work with. So what would lead to this increase in the third tax liability? Let's take a look at what we have. An increase in prepaid insurance. So let's see. So we have tax and we have gap. So what happened when we buy prepaid? If we increase in prepaid, when we increase in prepaid, what do we do for gap? For gap, we debit prepaid and prepaid insurance, which is an asset and we credit cash. Again, let's make it 10,000 and 10,000. So for gap, when we, when we had the increase in prepaid, what happened is we increased an asset. This is an asset and this is an asset. Now for tax purposes, here's what's going to happen. For tax purposes, we are going to debit an expense 10,000 and we are going to credit cash 10,000. So what did really happen? For tax purposes, the increase in prepaid because for tax purposes, you are going to expense it. What happened is you used up all your expenses. What's going to happen is this is year one for both. What's going to happen in year two? Let me change colors. In year two, basically in year two, there's nothing about the tax because the whole amount was expense. In year two, you're going to have insurance expense and you're going to credit prepaid insurance for 5,000. So notice what happened. You have an expense on the books on gap, but you have no expense for tax purposes. So what did this trigger? It triggered an increase in the third tax liability. Simply put, in year two, you're going to have an increase in the third tax liability because you already used up all of your prepaid insurance in, quote, expense in year one. So in year two and year three, you're going to have an expense here. So in year three, same thing. In year three, you're going to have an insurance expense of 5,000 and you're going to credit your prepaid insurance of 5,000. And you're going to have nothing for tax purposes. So as a result, you took the expense up front. You're going to experience an increase in your, you will experience an increase in your third tax liability. So definitely one is one of the answers. So we could eliminate A. We could eliminate D. Okay. Now, all we have to know, all what we have to find out now is, is two part of the answer or not because we know three is out because we have to have one. If you understand that one is included, three is out. So let's take a look at two, an increase in rent receivable. Okay. Again, let's do the same thing for an increase in rent receivable. Let's assume you rented something on account. You rented something on account. That's good. So here we go. We have gap and we have tax and you rented something on account for $10,000. Again, let's use this number, $10,000. So for gap, you are going to debit, rent, receivable, 10K, you're going to credit, credit, rent, revenue, 10K. For tax purposes, if you receive no cash, you have no tax. Yeah, it says year one, you have no tax obligation. Why? Because you did not receive any cash. It was an increase in rent receivable. Now, what's going to happen in year two? Let's assume you're going to be paid that money in year two to keep the example simple. So in year two, what's going to happen is for gap, they're going to give you the money. You're going to debit cash, $10,000. You're going to credit rent receivable, $10,000. And we are basically done, but there's no revenue in year two. In year two, for tax purposes, you are going to debit cash, $10,000, and you're going to credit rent, revenue, $10,000. So what happened? When you had this receivable in year one, what happened? It triggered a future tax liability of $10,000. It tells you in the future, you're going to be receiving $10,000. It means you're going to have a future tax liability. What does that mean? It means, yes, indeed, an increase in receivable, an increase in rent receivable will increase your deferred tax liability because it's increasing your obligation into the future, your tax obligation. And we know three is not correct because by the process of elimination, we said one is two. But let's look at three just to make sure what would three would do anyway because it's very important. So let's look at three. Three, it says an increase in the liability for warranty obligation. So again, let's do gap and let's do this is gap and this is tax. So what do we do? Well, when we have an obligation, when we have a warranty, what we do is we debit warranty expense. Let's make it $10,000 credit warranty obligation or warranty liability $10,000. So this is year one. So in year one, we estimate we're going to have a warranty expense next year of $10,000. What do we do for tax purposes? We don't do anything. But what did this do? Well, it tells us in the future we're going to have because, you know, this warranty is it's an estimate for the future. So in year two, let's assume in year two, we did have we did have actually the warranty. Therefore, in year two, we debit warranty expense. Let's assume we had to pay cash $10,000. We credit cash $10,000. For gap purposes in year two, we debit warranty liability. We debit warranty liability to remove the liability $10,000 and we credit cash $10,000. So notice what happened. This liability for gap purposes in year one created a future deduction for us. It's a warranty expense in year two. So what would a future deduction gives us? Future deduction will lead to an increase in the third tax asset. In other words, it doesn't lead to an increase in the third tax liability. Okay. So hopefully this makes sense why number three is not correct. Again, you have to understand these topics in detail. I understand if you're not following 100%, here I'm just trying to work with people who already have an idea about the topic so they can try to practice. But if you feel that, you know, I'm a bit confused. That's why I have my intermediate accounting. Go to my intermediate accounting lesson. Let's take a look at this question. Good. This question had numbers, so I'll give you a feeling about the numbers. Okay. Let's see. Be company, a newly organized company reported pre-tax financial income, which is gap income of $100,000 for the current year. Among the item reported are premium on officers life insurance with effort as the owner and the beneficiary. So notice premium on life insurance with the company as the owner and the company is the beneficiary of $5,000 interest received on municipal bond $10,000. The enacted tax rate for the current year is 25% and 30% thereafter and it's December 31. What should the company report as the third tax liability? So the kind of their lead in you here and telling you this is it's going to be a third tax liability. And this is, they should have, if I was, you know, I would say the third tax liability or asset use, what are we going to have? Because why the third tax liability? There's no reason. So this is an easy reason. If you got this question, this is an easy question. This is really easy as long as you understand the following as long as you understand that premium on officers life insurance with the company as the owner as the beneficiary. Is a permanent permanent difference and interest received on municipal bond. Also a permanent difference. So both of these differences are permanent differences. Permanent means they are never taxable or never deductible. So they will never, they will never like, for example, we looked at the warranty expense. The warranty expense was deductible down the road. We looked at the rent or the rent was taxable down the road. So it's a temporary difference. The premium on life insurance with the company as the owner and the beneficiary. It's a permanent and interest received on this one. It's a permanent. This is this is a permanent non deductible. What is non deductible? The premium is non deductible. This is never not deductible under the circumstances. And this is not taxable under any circumstances. Therefore, we consider those elements as permanent. And you need to understand that permanent differences would result in no deferred taxed asset. No deferred tax liability. So knowing this information, you would immediately zoom in. And the answer is the it's there's no deferred tax asset. No deferred tax liability as a result of those permanent differences. In other words, you need to be familiar with what are your permanent differences? Because if you get, if they ask you about permanent differences, those are easy questions. There's no, there's they don't affect the third tax asset. They don't defer. They don't affect the third tax liability. Easy question. Okay. Let's take a look at this question on June 20th, year one, be company lease the building and receive rental payment in the amount of 42,000. The payment was for the rental period, July 1st, year one through July 1st, year two. B's tax rate are 25%. For year one, 30% for year two, assuming no other temporary differences. And that the rental income is taxable when received what amount of the third tax should Benson report in year one balance sheet. So I think I'm better off grabbing this and working with it on a note. So let me take a look at the note here. And grab this question. So we received the money July 1st, year one. So let's see. Okay. So this is what you should do is something like this.  We have year one and we have year two. I received the money July 1st, year one and it's for July 1st, year two. So it's going to be covering this period and this period. So they already told you the money is taxable as soon as you get as soon as you receive it. So as soon as I receive the money, as soon as I receive the money, I debit cap for tax purposes. Let's do tax and tax and gap. And here's what's going to happen under tax under tax. I have the cash 42,000 and I will credit rent revenue 42,000. Okay, because that's it. And I'm going to be paying taxes on that rent revenue in year one and year one for gap. I'm going to debit cash 42,000. I'm going to credit rent revenue 21,000. It's for this period. Then I'm going to have unearned revenue of 22,000. Now, so for tax purposes, I'm practically done. I paid my taxes on that obligation. I paid my taxes in year two. What's going to happen is this in year two. There's nothing for tax purposes because that money is already been taxed in year two. I'm going to debit unearned. Sorry. I'm just unearned revenue 21,000. I'm going to debit unearned revenue and I'm going to debit. Sorry. I didn't catch that. Rent revenue 21,000. Stop it, please. I'm going to credit rent revenue of 21,000. So what happened is this in the future, I'm going to have a rent revenue on debt, but it's not taxable because I already paid my taxes. So what is that going to do? Well, they already told you that's going to give you the third tax asset. How much is the third tax asset here? We have to be very careful and please listen to me carefully. So the amount of future revenue that's already been taxable is 21,000. Now, the question is, do I multiply it by 25 or 30% and you multiply it by the future tax rate 30% because they're giving you the answer here as 25. You have to be very careful. I'm assuming that's 25. Let me just double check the math before I can fuse you. So if we take 21,000 times 0.25, see, that's not the answer. They're giving you the answer. So you have to multiply it by the future and act the tax rate. Remember that. And sometimes they try to give you an easy question with the future and act the tax rate. That's different. So I'm going to take 21,000 times 0.3 and that's going to give you 6,300. And the answer is B, B as in boy. Okay. So again, what I can tell you about this topic, it's challenging for the students and for challenging for the students. But what I can do, I can help you. I help many students overcome this topic by referring to my intermediate accounting lectures, working my CPA questions. Check out my website. That's all I suggest you do. It's a supplementary material to your CPA course. So you don't have to give up your CPA course. It's going to help your CPA course invest in your career, invest in your professional education. You study for your CPA once. Good luck and stay safe, especially during those coronavirus days.


Horror is one of the most popular fiction genres today. Big names like It, Saw and The Last of Us prove over and over that many people love to be scared for entertainment. This might raise the question, what makes creepy clowns, massive sharks and brain-eating zombies such popular topics in the world of fiction? In this f***ing video, we want to explore the psychology of horror and what draws people to being scared or terrified. The Rush What do math finals, talking to a crush and slender man have in common? They're effective in inducing fear. And even though these experiences may all be different, your body produces very similar reactions. According to medical news today, when you feel that you're in danger, your brain triggers a fight or flight response.  These are evolutionary responses that help you stay alert when the body senses danger ahead. By exposing you to scary images, horror movies and games have a way of making your mind believe that it's in danger, which creates a rush of adrenaline and feelings of fear and excitement. But of course, it's important that real danger is kept at bay, which brings us to Safety Net. Imagine being a night guard at a family pizza restaurant. Your shift starts from midnight to 6am.  You turn your eyes away from the camera for two seconds when suddenly the fox animatronic runs into your room and starts shrieking. If this were to happen in real life, would this situation be exciting? Probably not. But of course, if you knew that this was just a game, you would know that it's safe even though the scenario is terrifying. And this is the main difference between real and fake danger. In his book, The Dangerous Edge, psychologist Michael Aptur explores how people find excitement from extreme activities. He theorized that people raise the levels of excitement from risky activities by having just enough Safety Net to keep the activities from being lethal or fatal. This is how people can enjoy roller coasters, bungee jumping or even horror movies. The fact that the terror behind the screen isn't real creates a safety net for the viewer while maximizing the level of excitement. Age and gender. Who do you think would be more likely to enjoy horror movies or games? Your teenage brother or your grandma? Researchers Klassen and Johnson attempted to answer this question in 2020. They conducted an online survey among 1,070 individuals and asked them questions about their personality traits, gender, age and their feelings about horror movies. So what did they find? They found that people who enjoyed horror movies tended to have a vivid imagination, low neuroticism and strong belief in the paranormal. The researchers also noticed that males were more likely to enjoy horror movies than females. Their study also showed that there was a negative correlation between the enjoyment of horror and age. This means that if you're going to play a horror game, make sure you play it with your teenage brother and not with your grandma. The Narrative Have you ever enjoyed a scary movie or game even if you typically don't enjoy horror? What made it enjoyable? Philosopher Noel Carroll believes that there's something far more significant than jump scares that draws people to the genre of horror. In his book, The Philosophy of Horror, Carroll argues that what ultimately draws people to horror more than anything else is curiosity. With the right narrative, the horror genre is able to raise curiosity among the audience and compel people to not only watch horror movies, but even come up with their own theories about the story. While horror might not be your favorite, you might be surprised with the right movie or game that can play on your curiosity and draw you in with its fascinating story. So, how about a good horror film for your next movie night? What about you?  What are your favorite horror movies or games? If not, what makes you dislike the genre? Tell us in the comments below. And if you liked this video, hit that like and subscribe button. Thanks for watching. Until next time. And remember, you matter.


Hey there, Camilleans! It's Camille, and today we are doing the Husband Does My Makeup Challenge. This is my husband, Dakota. Hi! Camille's husband's Dakota. I have a bunch of makeup, and he doesn't do makeup, but he's going to. I put lipstick on and nail polish on people before. How much experience do you have with watching makeup tutorials? With watching them? Yes. I've watched some of yours. Okay. I did prepare a little bit. I looked up a few words. Contouring. Oh my God! Once you said that you wanted to look like a glazed donut, which I was confused by, but apparently glazed donuts are good. I kind of separated this, so it's a little bit easier for you. Thank you so much. Mostly face stuff here, and then all the other things here. Brushes are here, and just do your thing. Where do I even choose to begin? Okay, let's start with foundation. I know that much, right? Yeah. Because it's the foundations of your skin. These two are some foundations. They are. How do you use two foundations? Why are you asking me the questions? You're the makeup artist. Should I put my hair back? Do you want me to do that? Yes, I think so. Okay, I don't want to screw up your brushes, so which one do you use? No, you have to figure it out. I'm going to start with this one, because it looks fancy. How do I choose? What color am I? Both combined? That's an interesting idea. Let's start with this one. The both combined thing was smart. I don't know how you combine them. I'm so lost. How do I have a thing? Do you have a not have a thing? I don't know, like a dish or something. A dish? I don't do my makeup with dishes. I do. You already got makeup on my counter. This is the makeup room. I'm so confused. I'm going to put a little... Try not to spill on me. I'm trying not to. Okay, I'm going to put some on your face like that. Okay. And like that. This is maybe unconventional, but I'm going to do this professionally. Okay. And then a little bit of that, too. Uh-huh, right out there.  Stop smiling.  Puff out your cheeks. This is going very well already. I can tell I'm a professional. This is great. Maybe if I spread it out enough, it won't look terrible. But it probably will. I'm not going to lie. No, you're doing a good job. Are you sure about that? I think you're lying to me. I'm lovely. I'm just wondering why you only put it on my cheeks, but... Um, because then I can spread it to the other parts of your face. All right. All right. I don't think I'm doing too badly quite yet. So far, you still look human. All right. You know, that's my goal every day. I wake up and I'm just like, man, I hope I look human today. This is actually pretty good. Oh, yes. I like, yeah, this is good. Maybe in 320. Maybe she's born with it.  So is this all the makeup you don't care about? No, these are like my favorite products. Oh, no. These are things that I actually use, so... Oh, no. Okay, I think you need some blush. Okay. I'm going to use some blush. Ooh, I might want to use this because it's gold.  We could go for ugly Cleopatra or we could go for Glazedonet, whichever you are. I think that ugly Cleopatra is really the look we're going for here. Oh, okay. A quick tip is a lot of things have words on them. Yes, I realize that this does not. It totally does. I know this is blush because it says powder blush. Do you see this? Look, it says powder blush. Is it wrong to put blush on top of gold stuff? You can't ask me questions. But why? That's like my favorite whatever it is. That's my favorite. Okay, I'm going to look at what highlighter. Okay, but what do I want to highlight? Oh, I know what I'm going to highlight. I'm doing the blush first though. You said this was a powder brush, so this isn't doing much of anything. I can't see a difference yet. Maybe I need a different brush. Yeah, he just went in with a wet brush. And now it's completely full of my foundation. Okay, I'll get it off. Oh, there we go. That is so much. You're just going to look really happy or really embarrassed like all the time. What if I made your forehead blushing? Well, you're the makeup artist. Okay, we're going to do a little bit there. You know some makeup artists actually do like bring a little bit of blush to the forehead. I know I'm a makeup artist. Clearly. Next, I think we're going to go in with this. All right. I need a precision brush though. This one looks precise. How precise is that? Why do they like nicely put ridges on these things? Because it's beautiful. Okay, but like it just gets ruined. Only if you ruin it. Close your eyes. Okay. I'm trying that too. I'm doing everything wrong and I know it, but I'm going to just roll with it. I feel so weird too because it's like right on top of my contact. Oh, didn't they have contacts? Oh yeah, I totally did. Do you know anything about me? I met you at VidCon. That's when we got married, you know? Yo, we got married at VidCon. It was the best documented wedding. This isn't looking horrible, but at the same time I'm scared it's about to. We own like 7 billion items. So the things that I think we have still to do, lipstick, eyeliner, and mascara, those are things that I know exist. Okay. So what is, you were talking about contouring. How are you going to do that? You know contour? I'm going to contour and contour. What is this? Curvy contour. This says the word contouring. That's almost too good to be true. Amazing. I have no idea how to use this. Should it match the natural contours of your face? Or should I make up new contours? That's a great idea. Put some makeup right here. I just saw like the light go out in your eyes. It's like something going to. I saw you dying inside a little bit. I'm afraid now. Continue. No, I'm not contouring. No, no, contour. Contour. I like a good contour. I don't know how. Look at that. Look at that contouring right there. Amazing. So you're just going to do one side? No, I'm just going to do the other side. I know I'm so bad at this, but we're just going to like let it be. So the part I'm most scared of, to be perfectly honest, is working around your eyes. Okay. Because the last time I tried to do someone's eye makeup, it kept going. So like, you know Cleopatra? Oh. And do you know how our eyes go out to like here? Well, she's human I guess. Okay, no, no, no. But like, that's Cleopatra. Yeah. I went further. Oh my goodness. That's so scary. There's an automatic toilet in here. This says Manhattan. We're in Manhattan. It is. Wow. So relevant. Inspiring. Is this just lipstick? Can you identify this for me? No, this is not. This is lip, this is not lips. This is a brush. Brushes don't go on lips, do they? This is some sort of brush. It could be used for archaeology. I think you're on to something. Okay, okay. Well, I'm going for the Cleopatra look. So archaeology. Chapstick. Let's make sure you get a moisturizer. Oh my God. Okay. That went on my chin and on my tooth. Well, at least your teeth are not going to be chapped anymore. Is that a permanent retainer? Oh, I don't even notice it. Yeah, I've heard that. Unless, well, when I'm flossing I notice it. You floss? I'm sorry, you married me. You didn't even know I didn't floss? You didn't even know I had a retainer? We obviously don't know each other very well. I wish you had, like, green lipstick. Oh, I didn't bring my green lipstick. Let's go with this very bright pink lip color from Milk Makeup. I know milk. Yeah. I know them. We went to some milk parties together. Yeah, we went to Milk Makeup. He knows about milk. All right. Oh my God, I'm sorry. What? What am I doing wrong this time? I was just, I didn't even touch her. There was no application of lipstick.  Okay, you're going to go for it. What?  Ah, open, please. All right, and the thing? That lipstick does not go with this. I know. It's like a sad Christmas. Yes, please. Okay, can you do the removing of the makeup? I'll apply it, but, like, you can remove it. This is bare mineral. That's not the lipstick. I know that now. These are all reddish lipsticks. Okay, let me just... Wait, you know what? I'm sorry, I can't. You're getting so frustrated at this. I love it. Let's work with this. Let's see how this goes. All right. So lips open. Oh, those are lipsticks. See, this one's labeled as lipstick. But this one, okay, yeah, you're right. It's not labeled as lips. It just says matte. There's other things that are matte. That's true. This one is a little better than the bright pink. What is this? I'm not done. Wait, can we zoom in? Zoom in for a second. I'm not done. Do I see this? I'm not done. I'm not done. I'm not done. I'm not done. What is that? Why? That's real art. It looks kind of straight-ish. It's not right there. Okay. Where's that makeup remover? It's not. It is. It just... It's lying on its side. Don't let it fall. It's going to put it properly. Oh, it's rolling. Much straighter. Ish. Not quite. Okay. Your lips are done. I think they're perfect. There's nothing wrong with them at all. Wow, that's the nicest compliment. Hey, girl. There's nothing wrong with your lips. Hey, people have said the opposite to me. What? There's so much wrong with my lips. Are we chasing? Stop! Stop flushing on us! This isn't a bathroom. Well, yes it is. But that's why this room is so bathroom-like. Yeah. There's 35 colors in here. How am I supposed to pick one? You just pick whatever your heart desires. Oh, I can see myself. So narcissistic. Are you looking at your almost facial hair? I can't mix them. Can I? Should I? Do I? How? How does one mix these? See, I don't want to screw up your palette. Yeah. I appreciate that. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of this right here. A little bit of this as well. Mix them together. To get my hair color. To get your hair color. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Yes! Validation. Oh. What? Nothing. It's just so pretty. Did you expect to come out of this with a product that you could actually wear on public? No, that's why I brought the makeup remover. Are you trying to give me dark circles? Yes. I'm done with your lower eyes. Now we just need some... With my lower eyes. Which I do. Open or close? I don't know. Open. I'm really good at this. Can you open? Sorry. Open your eyes. I'm just as cute right now. Oh wow. I can see your contacts. It's weird. They look like pixels. Yeah, they do. I'm going to blend these two. Blending is a makeup term. Yes! Blending is also just an English word. Yeah. Now we're going to go for mascara. Use your favorite X-rated mascara. Oh wow. That's too much isn't it? We're going to let that be now. I mean, it's not the fact that it's too much. It's just the fact that it's on my face. Oh my goodness. Are there brushes that don't have mascara on them that I can fix your eyelashes with? Is that a thing? Well, this exists. Oh, there. This exists. Okay, I didn't see it. I'm not saying it's for that necessarily. But I think that's what you're... Okay. I'm trying not to give you too many hints. I know you've got to give me some. You can do anything that you want. Perfect. Roll in with it. Okay, I'm going to remove that now. That's not even a good mustache. See, I can't grow a mustache. So I don't know how to draw one even. Eyebrow game. All right. Let's get into it. What are the eyebrow things? Brow trio. This says the word brow. Can I ask one question? Yes. Have I used the tool improperly? You have not used it yet. Okay. Why is there a fan in here? It's called a fan brush. I know. Oh, no, no. I'm saying you're kind of right about the terminology. Okay, but it looks like a fan. It's obviously called a fan brush. Show everyone what brush you're using. Small tapered blending. I know I'm not blending right now, but it's small and tapered.  So you're lightening them right now? Yes, I'm lightening your brows. Using the lightest powder and a blending brush. You say that with such disdain. I'm trying to say things so that everyone out there feels how I feel. I'm sure there's at least one person like me watching who is like, oh yeah, that's right. They're all just brushes to me. How do you tell the difference between these things? Well, for one, they have labels. Do you realize our time here as a makeup tutorial is coming to an end? I know. I can't wait to redo it. Wow. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you my finished masterpiece, Camille. This is an off-beat look. I hope you guys like it. For years, you've been watching, waiting to learn what the off-beat look is. Here's your answer. Camille. It looked like I punched it in both of my eyes. I did have a mustache at some point, but it's gone now. Look at the lips. The lines. They are lines. They're not lines. Lines are straight. I'm blushing. I guess I'm kind of embarrassed about this. No? And my eyebrows are light and blended. Did I do good? You did amazingly.  I need to do my makeup every morning. Okay, but I have to go to school and stuff. Yeah, we'll just wake up earlier. All right, so I hope you guys enjoyed this video. Dakota does great makeup. You can all tell his channel. It's not a beauty channel, unfortunately. It could be now. Yeah, I know. You could start incorporating makeup. You could start converting makeup tutorials into my videos. Exactly. But it's linked in the description box down below, so don't forget to check it out. But yeah, that's it. If you like this video, don't forget to subscribe to my channel, too. I have my other two channels and my social media links down below. And yeah, that's it for today's video. So thanks for watching, and I'll see you chameleons in the next video. Kisses. No flowers came out or anything. Oh, edit some in. Okay, we're good to go. Kisses. Bye.


Good afternoon. I'm very pleased to welcome you to this IEEA seminar. We're delighted today to be joined by Professor Samuel Moyn, who will speak to us about his most recent book, Humane, How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. We'll speak for about 20 minutes, and then we'll proceed to question answers with our audience. You'll be able to join in the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on your screen. Please feel free to send us your questions throughout the session, as they occur to you, and we'll come to them then once Professor Moyn has finished his presentation. A reminder that today's presentation and the Q&A are both on the record. Please do join in the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IEEA. A little more about Professor Samuel Moyn. He is the Henry Orlews Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School and also Professor of History at Yale University. He received a doctorate in Modern European History from the University of California at Berkeley in 2000, and a law degree from Harvard University in 2001. He's written several books in his fields of European Intellectual History and Human Rights History, and this most recent book, Humane, was published last year by Farah Stress and Jiru, and he has presented the Karla Lectures at Oxford University earlier this year, which are available online on the subject of cultural liberals and fascinating lectures they all do. Wide-ranging and deep-thinking man. Over to you, Sam. Thank you very much. Well, thank you to Professor Hardman and to the organizers of this event. I, you know, will present this recent book until, you know, no more than 25 minutes after the hour and hope to engage you all. So I'll just share some slides to that end and maybe having a problem now that I have to fix somehow from Zoom. And really hoping to engage, you know, any criticism or skepticism you might have of the arguments I'm going to try to make. So in 1945, the Allies staged the Nuremberg Trials, and they were thinking about what's most important when it comes to regulating war. And unlike subsequent generations, they said aggression. Robert Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice who took leave to service the U.S. prosecutor, said aggression is the supreme crime starting an illegal war. And actually the Russians than the Soviets were completely on board in spite of their, you know, collusion with Adolf Hitler in 1939 and carving up Poland between them. It's not that aggression was the only problem in war and the Allies in 1945-6 also charged war crimes and crimes against humanity, a novel charge. But they said aggression is like the gateway crime that's most important to control. Why? Well, it was a gateway crime first and foremost because if you start an illegal war, you're enormously likely to start killing people illegally, including civilians. But the Allies still made atrocity subsidiary as the problem to solve in war. For a series of other reasons, if you start an aggressive war illegally, there's so much you can do that is illegal in war. First, you can kill combatants in any number. Second, you can kill civilians just not too many. Today, there's a limit. But at the time and even now the limits aren't very serious and a lot of civilian death can occur that doesn't count as a war crime. And then there's the matter of misplaced resources. If an illegal war starts, the state starting it and suffering it will have to spend lots of money on things that, you know, they might not have chosen as budgetary priorities. Finally, aggressive war can lead to entirely legal but grievous destabilization. Think of the fact that in the last generation in places like Iraq or Libya invaded by my country in coalition. Probably more people have died not because the United States or its allies shot at them, but because others did because of destabilization and ruin. And so for all of these reasons, not to mention just how tough it is to get brutality and war regulated. Our ancestors said aggression is what counts now my thesis in the new book is that we lost that priority, and we began concerning ourselves, more or less exclusively with making war less brutal. And I think there have been some consequences to that mistake that are visible now. In the last few weeks as you know, there's a new aggressive war. Amazingly in his irate rant before commencing his own illegal war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin came out as a friend of the prohibition of aggression. And he points to a record of Western war, especially Western war in the Middle East but starting in Southeast Europe in 1999. And says, well, look at the record in of that the West boast now of fighting illegal wars. He concludes this part of his rant saying, look, the West disregards international law. It's most sacrosanct principle and has for a generation or more. And the trouble of course is that two wrongs don't make a right but it's it's extraordinary that that record could justify in this, you know, outrageous rant. All of the examples that Putin cited of disregard, not so much for rules prohibiting brutality and war, but prohibiting starting illegal wars, whether you want to talk about the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, or the illegal war in Iraq or in Libya in 2011, the choice to exceed the humanitarian mandate that's the UN Security Council had voted to engage in regime change. I wrote humane the new book because I was struck years before by a kind of embrace of this new pattern, where aggression, illegal intervention as such was not so problematic. But in compensation of people, whether activists or politicians began to give a lot of attention to brutality and war, let's say instead. And I'm really, you know, interested in humane and telling a long story that culminates in Barack Obama who came to Oslo in 2009 when as a first year president of my country he won the Nobel Peace Prize to defend the new configuration, the one that's the opposite of the one in Nuremberg. She says, look, I can't follow someone I'd like to cite Martin Luther King, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. I'm at the head of the greatest arms superpower in world history. What I can promise you as a peace prize winner is that I will use American power less brutally than before, not just all of my predecessors, but my immediate predecessor George W. Bush whose war was generally debated as we'll see, not in terms of its its illegality as such, but the the illegality of the way it was fought, notably George W. Bush's decision to turn to torture. Amazingly, not King, but someone named only do know was the predecessor Obama most identified with and named check in his Nobel Peace Prize address he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. The first one in 1901 and had committed to at first a very fledgling cause, not stopping war but keeping it from devolving into the worst brutality and Obama in a sense epitomized this new tilt where we focus on that problem. Even though the wars that become sanitized may also become protracted. As the war on terror became under Obama's watch so it's really to think about this problem that you know the book engages in a kind of long history of the desire to make war more humane instead of not having unworthy or illegal wars and I start out actually with Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian novelist who was simultaneously. I think a profound critic of the very man Obama later cited all you do know the founder of the Red Cross and the sponsor of the first of many Geneva conventions the first was in 1864. Tolstoy makes a series of points that I think are telling. One is very, I think common and other domains amongst activists who think about the death penalty just for example that if you make a practice that's violent, like the death penalty or war less flagrantly brutal. At least some people are going to be prepared to tolerate it more than before. And so there's a risk that you incur and humanizing violence that you perpetuate it. It's really hard to like argue that that could never happen. And Tolstoy argued that it would if do not was successful. And he actually uses some interesting comparisons not to the death penalty but to other violent practices to let's say predict that humanizing war might have some risks involved that we need to, you know, control or manage. His first comparison is to slavery since after all before Tolstoy wrote in the 1860s. You know at the time of the first Geneva Convention, the most prominent campaign amongst activists was to make chattel slavery less cruel. And, you know Tolstoy basically argues that there was a risk in doing so which was very kind of clear after abolitionism had come, not just in my country but the Russian Empire where serfdom was abolished in the 1860s to and Tolstoy said that now it's clear that making slavery less cruel actually strengthened the property rights that slave owners claimed in human property, because it made slavery less offensive to at least more people. The question was, what to say about this risk in the new project of the 1860s of making warfare less brutal and less controversial Tolstoy also introduced a kind of more, let's say controversial and analogy between making war humane and making the slaughter of non human animals humane and he says look at all the people out there who are for less cruel ways of killing their meat. And they think that makes them good people when they go on eating other animals and you know Tolstoy became a very famous, not just pacifist but vegetarian so he's thought meat eating was wrong and his trouble was that merely making the killing of animals more humane could legitimate slaughter and by analogy he worried that the same would occur if do not project gain traction and warfare was significantly humanized. So, you know, it's not like Tolstoy was necessarily going to be right and actually at the time do not mean successor. Another Swiss gentleman leading the Red Cross named Gustav Monnier said no it's the other way around. Actually, if we humanize war, it will be the first step towards ending it and the question is, which of these, you know, guesses turned out to be right in the question. Well, the rest of humane pursues that question. And first I try to show that Tolstoy was just way too early. He kind of foresaw some difficulties that the project of let's say merely controlling brutality and war would court. But it wasn't as if those worries were worth taking seriously for a long time for a few reasons. First, if we track the history of international law. After the 1860s. There are there are two things we have to say first there were big peace movements that were far more prominent than do not project for a long time. They didn't succeed until the 20th century at least in transatlantic warfare but they did set the priorities that became the priorities of Nuremberg. But let's say more important was that when we look at the attempt to regulate the conduct of war. It remains really brutal and and the project of making it less so doesn't gain much traction for about a century. And so the Geneva Convention of 1864 turns out to be not very representative of the rest of international law which is mainly about letting militaries fight ruthlessly. And that was especially true in most war which was global imperial war, in which even rules on paper were not deemed applicable to non Christians and non whites. And so, since these wars were so. So, nasty, there was no risk that their humanity would entrench them. Finally, even in transatlantic war, even to the extent there were constraints on what you could do in war like who you could shoot at what you could do to prisoners of war. Those constraints were just set aside in big wars, notably World War one and two. And so the in a sense Tolstoy was like a prophet of a reality that didn't exist yet. A genuine attempt that went beyond a few provisions and treaties to make warfare more humane that changed. And it's really with this change that I want to conclude. I think the big changes in the 1970s. There are these humble new documents called the additional protocols to the Geneva Convention, past then, and they they really are a quantum leap. It compared even to the prior, still good Geneva conventions of 1949, let alone the history of regulating war before then. These documents are significant because decolonization has happened. And what that means is that the victims of brutal European warfare for centuries actually get a say in what what the constraints on war fighting are. At the same time and connected to this fact, West Europeans are finally giving up empire after centuries and they're willing to go along with this humanizing campaign. Amazingly, it's only in these documents 1977 that it's clearly stated that you cannot shoot at a civilian. And even more important, there's a constraint placed on how many civilians you're allowed to kill when shooting at combatants or bombing them. And that's significant because you know that of the history of air war in the middle of the 20th century and the case of my country and the Pacific Theater and World War two, or in Korea or Vietnam. And then there are some other actors who kind of enter the scene after Vietnam anti war politics across the Atlantic are are dying a slow death, but new groups of humanitarians emerge alongside the longstanding. Red Cross groups like Human Rights Watch, which, like most human rights groups commit to never say anything about the justice or legality of starting wars, but are committed to monitoring whether atrocities take place in violation of the new so called international humanitarian law, which governs hostilities, even the United States military. As I say self humanizes it has recognized few constraints in the name of humanity before Vietnam, and the warriors honor is redefined. And the US military wants to fight more humanely after the disaster, public relations disaster as well as a moral disaster of the Milai massacre. So I think that in a sense the dais cast before 911 a good example of that is the first Gulf War, which is simultaneously the first international war that Human Rights Watch monitors for violations of the laws of war and reports to the public on what those violations are, and the first war in which military lawyers help pick targets to ensure that no violations are committed. Well that sets up, you know I think what's happened in our lifetime, because there were two wars on terror as as I would, you know, kind of in retrospect. The first George W Bush invaded two countries Afghanistan and Iraq with lots of troops heavy footprint war, and also allowed brutality in the form of torture. Then there was the new form of the war on terror which is in a certain way ongoing, and still allowed light footprint war and no footprint war light footprint war refers to the massive turn to special forces small teams of those who visit to kill. And we can see, for example, and in the first image on the slide, just how far flung that kind of warfare became which with those teams touching ground in 70% of the countries of the world in Obama's last. Last year and 80% in Donald Trump's administration and then more kind of notoriously there was no footprint war, which you know concerns the rise of armed drones and other kinds of aerial aerial killing. And you know there's a lot to say in terms of military history about this succession of two forms. What Ivan tried to show in the book is that the second form was humanized rhetorically and really it was going to be different than bushes war, not the scope, which was much bigger, many more countries involved, and in the kinds of methods use not heavy footprint but light and no footprint, but in the way it would be fought in the promised and actually in some ways delivered more humanity of the campaigns and you know this is the Nuremberg reversal, more war, less concern about keeping war itself and bounds more humanity as the highest aim, no torture and limitations imposed on civilian casualties. I promise this outcome. That's what he said, not just in that extraordinary Nobel Peace Prize address, that's what he would bring endless humane war with no attention really to what what the rules constraining whether war breaks out are, but no lack of attention, which would define the war for good to how brutally you can fight these wars. And amazingly he gave his other kind of, you know, marquee address on the war on terror four years later, once the drone program became widely known and even though he reflected on the cost not just for the world but for his own country of an endless war footing. He mainly was there to promise that the new targeted killings program that he had so extraordinarily expanded would be a caring one. He was heckled actually by an anti war activist but he said, you know, she's right to be worried about endless war but it's we have to fight it and the good news is that it will be fought in a caring humane way. So that's where we're left and I think it's not that I know that Putin wouldn't have invaded. If you know the West hadn't fought so many illegal wars of its own but it would, it wouldn't have been possible for him to give that extenuating speech. And I take from this, the lesson that we should return to Nuremberg's priorities. It's always more important to control force than to merely pick up the pieces or attempt to do so. That's a noble cause. But Tolstoy was right. We've lived through a period in which I think he was proved right that that noble cause comes with risks. When we purify war, we make it easier to fight. And the question is how we pivot beyond this mistake and reversal for our future. So I'll stop there and look forward to engaging in debate with you all.


نمسکار ماتا جی نمسکار ماتا جی ہم درطی ماتا کو کیسے بچا سکتے ہیں from human activity humans have damaged the environment destroyed the oceans in the past 500 years more humans have been killed by other human beings through wars than any natural disasters looks like humans are a program how can we bring that shift in consciousness that the masters of India have taught us to live naturally and simply there is a progression in the unveiling of the various realms of consciousness as each new being appears on the planet so you have at the beginning the mineral world which is then followed by the plant animal world which is followed by the human world or human realm these are all parallels to the chakras in the system as well and the human being is that conceptual being that evolution has thrown up let's say the trajectory of time has thrown up the plant animals were the emotional beings it's the first time you talk about motion at all in the history of this planet and the human beings are not the last being that this planet is going to see or is seeing because you already have the next beings the new beings populating this planet and the difference between the human beings and these new beings these transformative beings is that while the human being is operating with reason and logic as a base station just as animals and plants operate with the emotional as the base station the new beings will operate with the transformative as their base station there is a new kind of being populating this planet not operate from that logical rational base and will thus be able to create change in a way that the human being cannot and also cannot imagine there is also something else that's happening on the planet and that is that the human being itself is expanding its consciousness collectively from the purely rational and logical because the human being is familiar with the emotional the human being is familiar with the rational and the logical but what the human being is not as familiar with is that entire transformative consciousness and so collectively that change is happening which means that human beings are increasingly capable of large scale change in a short time which is unusual for a rational logical inference based process so as the future becomes the present you will see changes not just with human beings but also with the appearance of the new beings so problems like the environmental crisis that we are facing will be dealt with in a way that we can't really imagine today it might take a bit of time for that to emerge but it will happen and as far as your point about human beings killing each other destroying each other over the last 500 years if one actually looks at history there are less human beings being killed currently by each other than there were in the past the history of the human race is quite a violent one and in fact less violent in today's day and age than it was before but while it might be physically less violent there are less lives lost it is emotionally more violent it is conceptually more violent violence is not limited to the physical and as the human beings consciousness expands this violence will also reduce in the physical and then gradually reduce in the emotional and then reduce even in the conceptual the wars that happen are also financial wars which emerge in the conceptual and you can absolutely destroy a society by financially cutting them off from the general economy so there are many ways in which these wars are fought and as time passes as the consciousness of the human being expands beyond the rational into the transformative into the unity consciousness you mentioned the ancients of the Indian subcontinent one has to say that they were there all over the world it's just that in India in the Indian subcontinent in Bharat they are still alive and that entire knowledge is still very much present it's also there in other continents but here it is far more alive than anywhere else the gods are alive the elements are alive the planets are alive that entire teaching has been kept alive far more than in most places so while we have the past we also have the present moment which is where the human race must focus this pain and this suffering also reduces if collectively there is an expansion of consciousness and that expansion happens the more people move into the present moment to live more in the present tense rather than projected into the future and that is also collectively something which is happening around the world more and more people are understanding the meaning of presence of being in the here and the now of soul of tuning into soul of moving into more quiet and this understanding is going hand in hand with that expansion of consciousness so the one propels the other and vice versa so what I can say now in this context to you Jaqbal is as a human being your contribution to this whole thing is to reduce your consumption to the minimum to consume what is required just as our ancestors said چیرلی منشند all over the Shastras again and again the ancient texts the ancient books they talk about this all the time to keep the desires to a minimum to fulfill them even less and when that happens and when everyone does that then things start to change because no top down approach will ever help it has to be a bottom up approach it cannot be a religious top down approach it has to be a spiritual bottom up approach and that is why the human race is increasingly and especially in so called advanced societies moving towards self realization or being forced into it so it is a bright future it is not a dark future by no means yes