All right. I don't think it's a bold claim to say that every good software development process had a continuous integration, continuous deployment in some form. So neither of us is going to tell us about a bit more about that. And how to maybe make it better. And with that, please give a round of applause. Thank you very much. So before this talk, a traditional talk by WarpForgeForg, which was very expediting despite technical difficulties. I don't have a working software, actually, but only ideas. If anyone wants to collaborate, you can come to me. If not, maybe it stays on my backlog of project that I am probably starting when I go into retirement or something. So yeah, if you read the description of this talk, my main premise is that projects do want an evergreen master, which means that every, basically, Comet or every revision was tested and was OK. I mean, why do we do even need an evergreen master? I mean, if some Comet failed and the next one is OK, yeah, why should we even care?  It's nice to have these green check marks all over the place. But also, if you allow for, basically, bad revisions to reside in your repository, you may start accumulating a lot of errors. And there are a lot of projects where, well, they do have a test suit, and a lot of those tests are known to fail and will not get fixed anytime soon. Also, if you find some error or some regression which wasn't previously covered by your test suit or something, you usually do a B-sect. And it's kind of annoying if a half of your Comets do need some special treatment because those are broken. If you basically have an evergreen master, your chances that you can just automate your B-sect and be done with it is far greater. So can we actually do have an evergreen main branch in our GitHub repositories? With all the CI solutions I have seen up to now, not really. So I'll use a bit of common Git terminology throughout this talk. When I talk about a job, it's a concrete test that I run on that basically describes steps to check your software and will return as basically a success or failure. And a job run is an execution of this job on a specific revision. For now, I will basically, a job will denote a whole CI pipeline, meaning that if a job passed, then everything passed. But later on, yeah, go into more detail about that. So classical example. We have a few comets, basically. And the last one is OK. And we have one developer who finds a bit of unused craft and wants to clean it up. And another developer who wants to implement a new feature and is like, whoa, there's already code for that that just can use. And if you merge them after another, the first one goes through, the other one gives you a bad revision. So now the maintainer can easily decide to revert this comet and have this one bad comet basically stuck on his main branch. Or, yeah, can basically reset the main branch, which isn't a very good idea.  A lot of people will yell at you if you just reset your main branch in your public project. Also, if you do this and another developer already based a feature branch on this bad revision, then a merge will just reintroduce this bad comet again. So we can go and basically test before updating the target branch, which means that we do the merge and check the merge commit, actually. We can do this without updating the main branch, at least in Git and also in a lot of other distributed control versioning systems, which are, hopefully, the only ones still around. And then choose to update the main branch on the merge commit, which we deem the one we want to choose. Of course, once we move the main branch, we have to do another merge to get the new result for the other branch. And then, yeah, if there are problems, we'll detect them early and just choose to not update the main branch, meaning that this bad revision won't go into the main branch, won't become part of our public history in our comet, in our repository, and will not basically hold us for the rest of our lives if, in, yeah, five years, someone finds a nasty bug, which was introduced previous to this point. If we find a bad revision and still want to merge this other main branch, we can basically do some change on main again. In this example, it would be a revert. It could be another thing we do to make the other branch work again. And then basically do another merge, check it, find it's OK, and then update the main branch. Yeah, needless to say, this is not what CI is to. We can also, to make our lives easier, introduce references for individual jobs we run because, I mean, if those are not yet part of main, those merge comets, we still may want to look at them before actually choosing them. So it's basically a piece of convenience. Assuming we have this cleanup in the feature branch existing, we could denote those mergers, job one and job two, and job three, the failed merge or something, which we can then basically identify by this reference name and investigate what did go wrong, basically, by just fetching the ref from the repository and checking it out and run some lower tests. Now we can go in a step further and say, as a maintainer of a repository, we want to say which comet we want to choose as our next, basically, main. So we can go and add a new test reference, which will basically serve as a pointer for the new merge commit we want to choose. So suppose this last dot is a merge commit from some feature branch or something. So we wait until the check is complete. Main gets updated. We can automate it. And then we go further to the next merge. Let it get checked and the main branch updated. And if we go like this, we find ourselves anxiously staring at screens of our, basically, CI service, which isn't too uncommon for existing setups, actually. I found myself looking anxiously at mergers go through. And I guess I'm not doing the one. But this test ref also has another nice feature. We can just say, OK, I have these feature branches. And I will merge them in order, update this test ref, and tell our CI system to check those in order. And basically assure us this test, all of them are green, without actually waiting for each individual comet to go through. And this is actually a testing window which gives the name of the stock. So in this example, our CI service can basically follow the test ref until all the mergers we prescribed as a maintainer are checked and found OK. So let's look at our choices when a test actually fails. Again, we have this testing window with a bit more comets. And each of the first three is found OK. But now we have a bad comet. And we can choose yet another reference, the bad reference, to point at that one. And basically tell our maintainer, OK, this revision is bad. Go look at it. And then the maintainer can come up with another basically path to achieve the goal by either skipping this merge of this feature, which may not be that important or requesting an update of this feature branch from another contributor. And after we've updated test ref, the CI service can basically carry on and check the rest of this bit of history basically. If we have other contributors basically, everything which is in main is a possible merge base for feature branches. This is nothing new. This is just how we work currently. But of course, using the test ref or anything between main and test as a base for a feature branch is a bad idea because we don't know whether our base will actually make it into main. So yeah, actually nothing really changes for contributors. For them, the test ref is something they can usually ignore. It's mainly something for the maintainer. So given these examples, we can derive some rules. We can move test, so the test reference arbitrarily, as long as it's a descent of main. We can force-post this reference, which is pretty important for this reaction on a bad revision. Main follows test and only moves forward. So we preserve this behavior that once a comet is in main, it stays there and can serve as, for example, base for a feature branch or for a release branch or something like that. Bad, the bad reference may be placed between main and the test reference. And yeah, it's never updated. Main is never updated to any of bad descent. So basically, bad is a roadblock for the progression of main and also a handy thing for the maintainer to have to figure out what actually went wrong. Contributors, again, yeah, they just see main and use this. We can enforce these rules by basically github, githooks, or we can basically hack githy or githlub or something to enforce this for us. One thing we have to keep in mind, which I'm still unsure about, is how to actually handle this test ref and the main ref. Because for a maintainer, you can go and be like, OK, a maintainer should know what she is doing. They just touch the test ref and pushes to main are basically ignored or forbidden by a hook. Or you can choose to go this path where you say, OK, if you try to push to main, what's actually happening is that main stays the same and the test ref is what gets pushed. So earlier I said that a job for me for now was a complete CI run. But there are many reasons why we want multiple kind of jobs. So again, we have a testing window now with three comments. And we have some check we want to run. Maybe a simple compile test, maybe a check on formatting or something, cheap stuff, basically. We can have another test, which basically does some expensive operations, which can take maybe an hour or something. You'll find many projects which have tests used, which are very large. Yeah. We can have this quick reference basically denoted through its own reference, which is called good slash quick. And we can have basically this reference progress linearly comment by comment. And in this situation, let's say, the previous test has completed after two hours or something. And we got OK by nightly builds or something. Then we can say we have another reference placed good nightly. So we have basically different good references, which different tests denotes, yeah, this is OK. This commit passed this specific test. So we update main to basically the oldest good reference because that's basically passed all tests we have, basically. So the quick test can now just progress. And yeah, as the nightly might have suggested, we can have it run fewer times, so not for every commit, and then update the main again. So why would I do this? Because earlier I said that we want an evergreen master and do not want to skip tests for some comments or have bad revisions in our history. So cheap tests are cheap. We can just run them on a very common in our main branch. But there are expensive tests. And most of them have actually a very little chance to hit actual problems. For example, if we have performance regressions, they don't pop up and vanish with another commit. Yeah, or some other problems found through formal verification don't usually pop up and vanish from one commit to the other. And yeah, we can go crazy. We can have very expensive tests run seldomly and still have this relatively high assurance that the range of commits between the last run and the current run is still OK. So it's a bit of a gamble, but you can do basically a bit of math on it, on the probabilities, and say, OK, it's not so bad. And again, we earlier wanted to mainly emulate it by section hazards. And usually cheap tests like compilers, if it's not just something like LibreOffice, which takes, or we do former checks or licensed checks or something, those usually are sufficient for eliminating those hazards. We don't usually care that often for performance issues when we find a five-year-old bug in our software. So going a bit further, we even may go and prolong this testing window for an extended period of time. The nightly before implied that we run those tests daily. But if we have a really expensive test, like formally verify LibreOffice, which is not going to happen, yeah, we can do this just once a week, because the probability that in this time frame of a week, we introduced that tolerance of the bug should be, hopefully, very low if it compiled, at least with modern programming interests. So yeah. Or you can go, OK, I have this test, which isn't even that expensive in terms of like license or power or computational time. But there is a manual step involved. We can do this once a week or every second day or something and still be OK, because we can just denote, use this good reference for this specific manual test to denote, OK, I checked this comment. This comment was OK. Go further. If you happen to do DevOps, for example, you can use different good graphs to make staging or canary part of your actual testing and not in the sense of you fix something after it hit main, which may end up introducing very ugly hotfix. But find the actual commit which introduced the issue. We'll see that later. And then say, OK, I'll skip this for now. Maybe move this feature to the backlog or something or just skip it and then go on with the other work, which is not blocking. So as I said, we can have manual tests part of your CI, basically, which we can use as means for a maintainer to approve of changes. For example, chosen by sub-mentainers. If you are a bit familiar with the development of a Linux kernel, there's Linux Next, which basically is a testing ground for mergers from many, many sub-mentainers. And very often, you find things like, OK, this didn't merge cleanly. I have this solution for the merge. And you should pick this specific solution when you do the actual merge. If you use a testing window, then this particular solution is already a commit which is basically scheduled to be in main already. Similarly, if you have subsystems which are not ready yet, because they are something experimental or something which are just playing around, you can still have them covered by those cheap compile checks or something. But if the maintainer finds them, again, he or she can just say, OK, move this back. Just push it up and we'll look at this later. So the first idea you might have is, well, why don't maintainer just update main itself? But yeah, this would basically, it is an option, but I don't find it too nice. So I'll assume that you use a good ref to actually have maintainer approval. So in this example, we saw that we had an old good ref, which is updated. And after these quick checks progressed, the maintainer basically can have a look at all those checks which are already found good without basically worrying about investing time in checking merge commits which are known to fail, for example. This is another possibility for an implementation to have one good ref to depend on another good ref. So to just always stay behind it, to not waste computation time or maintainer time on useless stuff. So assuming the maintainer found a bad commit, he can just complain to the supplementainers or something. And then we can come up with another history which maybe finds approval of this maintainer and not waste basically time with manually tracking merge resolutions across different pieces of potential history. Another thing we can do is basically bring our community into testing because good refs are actually quite cheap and it doesn't actually hurt too much to have lots of them. So each individual compile or a format check can have its own reference if it's not too messy to have all of them around. And so if we have, for example, for a library, different users, we can just let them contribute by checking this new version of our library. For example, for not the main branch, but some release branch with their software. And if it's OK for them, they can give feedback by a good reference, which they place on the commit they actually tested. Or say, yeah, we found a serious problem. We are not OK with this. Please fix it. Obviously, we would allow this only for users we trust. And so they can basically contribute and help in testing all software. Yeah, as we can also introduce time out for good references for, let's say, sources of varying degrees of trust by simply checking how old the commit is this ref points to. Because if we have a good reference by some, let's say, library user pointing to a commit which is three weeks old, then we can assume that this particular user probably stopped testing software or just keeps us back. Then we can have this reference removed and then progress main all the way. So there's another thing involving test failure, which we can actually do to improve the situation. So let's assume we have an expensive test which only looks at each 10th commit or at the newest commit every week or something. And we actually found a problem. We can actually bisect because we removed all those bisection hazards. And we can probably do this automatically and then choose a new good or bad ref which then serves as the basis for an alternate history. And yeah, there are some considerations we have to do, for example. Because yeah, assume we have a test bench with like 100 different tests. And one of them is basically telling us there's no problem. We can just pick this one and use it for bisection. But in the case we are moving a good reference, we usually want to do the full test of all those tests in the suit for this check that was performed by Rick. So this introduces another few considerations to a rule. So the rule for a test basically stays the same. For main, I already explained, we update it automatically to the oldest good ref or more precisely the common answers of all known good refs, which we basically define through our own tests. Or we let it be defined through library users, kernel users, hardware vendors, or whatever. Good refs also only follow tests and basically serve as an intermediate and differentiation point between different tests. And they also only move forward in the good case. In the bad case, they are allowed to move to a different branch, but that's another story. We previously introduced a bad reference, and this we only allow to be placed between main and test. As we said before, bad serves as a roadblock for main, so it stops the progression of main. And a very important piece of information, bad is never updated to any of its own descendants only to our ancestors, which is important because if we have multiple job executions for our range and different tests find problems, then we don't want our bad reference to move forward. But tell us what's the earliest problem, what's the earliest roadblock in our history? Yeah, there are a few other things which I actually forgot to put in this presentation. But yeah, if someone's interested, can elaborate even further. Also came with a few conventions, at least forget, because that's what I tend to use most often. I'm not actually familiar with other distributed version control systems. So yeah, it basically would be a basis for an implementation. And having this convention actually allows us to have interoperable implementation because if we have, for example, different kinds of test infrastructure, which only modify the good ref and the bad ref, according to the rules we previously defined, then we can have basically different implementations for different kind of jobs if we find those, yeah, different implementations serve different purposes. Or if, for example, library users prefer different representation. Yeah. So that was my talk. I hope I didn't bore you too much. Yeah. Awesome, so we have a bit of time left for Q&A. If you have any question, please just put up your hand and I'll come get the mic to you. I think you said you don't have an implementation yet, right? Yeah. So the basic ideas at least reminded me quite a bit of Zule with the speculative merging basically of in parallel building the commits that are scheduled for merging and also this check and gate pipeline with the different levels of how much you would test or execute and test. So have you compared it to that? No, I think I stumbled up on Zule once, but I think I didn't have too deep a look actually. Yeah. But still it would be nice to have different implementations which are integral for different purposes. So I'll have a look, yeah, of course. Put it on. I have two questions first. What is the TW stands for in your? Test if we know. It's plain. Ah, OK. And then the other thing is this Zule. I have never heard of it. How do you write it? V-U-U-L. Pardon? V-U-U-L. V-U-U-L. Yeah, so basically I guess like the bad guy in Ghostbusters. Or is it with O's or U's? U's. Yeah, then it's OK. Thank you. I actually have a question myself. So I was wondering if you've heard of Boris yet. Boris is especially in the rust ecosystem sometimes a merge bot for, I assume, similar problems. Yeah, I've seen it once. But again, I think I was distracted at this point. Yeah. OK, so thank you for your talk. And I guess if any more questions pop up, feel free to reach out to him.


Hi, it's Bridget. Welcome to Above Life Channel. The purpose here is to inspire your spirit and to fill you with hope today. I have a special treat for you. A wonderful, very talented author friend of mine, Laura Tebert is here. And we're going to have a conversation with you and share something very special with you related to Prince. And of course, your spirit. So you don't have to be a Prince fan to participate in this cool opportunity. Coming up this weekend on Sunday, the 14th, yep, sweetheart's day, Valentine's Day. Laura is going to be offering a five day challenge to help us to get our groove back to inspire our spirit and to really provide us encouragement to live our best lives. So with that, I want to talk with Laura and find out what got into you to create this cool opportunity like tell us Laura, what inspired you and and maybe before doing that since I know you so well. Give us a little backstory about how you got to this point with this whole Prince love and, and then this challenge that you've created from that kind of journey. So thank you Bridget for having me on today. I'm so excited to be here on the above live channel. So I am Laura Tebert, I am an author, a blogger and a speaker. And my most recent book that I wrote was a biography of Prince, and it was published in 2017 I happen to have it here. It's called the rise of Prince, and I co authored it with Alex Han. And as I researched this biography. In that process, I noticed a pattern of habits and behaviors that Prince repeated throughout his life and you know anyone who rises to global superstardom is by definition doing something different from most I think we can all agree on that. And I started realizing that what Prince had left was really almost a roadmap, and I thought if I follow this could I to transform my life could my life, you know, of an everyday person become more exhilarating and more hopeful and maybe maybe successful and achieve more so that's what I did during the year 2019. I lived like Prince. Oh wow wait a minute so that was 2019 so that we're talking over a year ago you did that. Yeah, January 2019. Yeah back in 2019 which seems like you know it had to be at least 50 years ago but no kidding right yeah. I did that year was each month I took one Prince inspired habit or behavior, and I did that for a month, and then it would end and I'd go on to the next month and I'd start a new behavior so, like for example, in February, I inspired by you know the way Prince dressed up for everything. Like no running to target in sweats that month. Who among us is hasn't been guilty of that once in a while but yeah I think I have my cozy pants on now. In 2020 I think we've all spent way more time in sweatpants and leggings and what have you then than we ever anticipated but I you know for example that month I learned about something called in clothed cognition, which basically says what you wear influences mindset, and it definitely mind that month I think I held myself to higher standards and I was maybe more professional in my work so that's how my year went and what I want to do this year because I think we can all agree. 2020 maybe knocked us down a couple times. Maybe let's just say it wasn't our friend it's okay. We don't use that word here but yes. That's right maybe maybe our mojo has, you know gone missing mojo is low though. For sure. Prince would not approve, or the other of the fantastic fabulous rock stars that we've channeled here and above life they would not approve of our mojo. That's right we got a we got a real help. So what what I'm doing is on February 14. I'm going to launch a free five day challenge, calling it the live for love challenge and for five days you can get a little taste of what it's like to take a walk in Prince's high heel booties. We don't have to wear them right we can actually wear on. It's true because I think a lot of us couldn't squeeze our feet into them. If we were to have them but yes you can actually walk in any, any booties you want. The idea is to take a step out of your comfort zone in a way that you choose right and hopefully into a more exhilarating experience of life that will help you feel like hey, I think that little spark inside is it's been flickering but now I see it coming a little back a little stronger, you know, my mojo is coming back so take a step, you know, in Prince's high heel booties out of your comfort zone and into an exhilarating life and that's the goal of those five days. Wow. Wow. Okay, so. Oh my gosh. So, getting out of our comfort zones. I mean that's something I personally feel like I've been in a little bit of a rut. I mean that can happen I'm sure, despite what we've experienced in 2020 and now that we're in 2021 I feel like what you're doing really resonates the out of your comfort zone piece because this feels like what you're offering Laura feels like an opportunity for us to just kind of dabble and be playful and to maybe experience ourselves our spirit in a little bit different way than maybe we have in the past and give us like permission to actually start to have fun again and enjoy life a little bit more and not be so serious and heavy about everything. I think the timing is really, really divine. Let's say it that way. Yeah, you know, it did feel like people were ready for this now I think, you know, a lot of us are bored of our routines, and we're looking for a little something else. Yeah, I think 2020, you know, at first it was a real jolt in that it did push us out of our comfort zones but you know in a way we didn't choose, right collectively, and a shock. Yeah, it was a shock and and now I think it's just a lot of people who feel disconnected or isolated or stuck in this very boring routine where they're just very limited and so these five days you're right the timing does feel really good because it does feel like people are ready to just, you know, take a step and because I, you know, 2020 wasn't great but again 2021 at this point is a little bit more the same. It's quite broken, broken through that kind of almost barrier this invisible barrier kind of piece and so yeah definitely still feels a bit like that. Yes, would say so are there things that are so I'm thinking about this a five day challenge when I think about challenges sometimes I get a little let me just be honest intimidated because it seems like, okay, okay, and I know this is free so I'm like, okay so it's going to be a ton of work like how much commitment is this for me like maybe about about how it works like like do I get an email is it like on a different place do I have to go someplace to pick up this information every day or how does you talk a little bit about what I can expect. Sure, sure, so what you can expect is you sign up and then you will be receiving an email each morning of the challenge, and the email will talk briefly about the challenge so for example, day one is going to be prioritized play. So again, this is like fun Sunday we can prioritize play did everybody hear that Sunday, the email is prioritized play and it's Valentine's Day so but it's just it really these are just small moments that you're injecting into your day this is not a big owner is I need to spend hours on this. No, so it's not like a big like self improvement plan that I have to do this and this and this and this kind of this is one day right so this is just a couple moments in your day so you read the email. Hopefully you'll get a little known Prince story it'll be like, oh, I'm learning, you know, I'm kind of surprised about that about Prince and make sure a little bit about what happened when I as an everyday person applied this to my life and then you it'll be over to you with a few beat brief instructions on how to insert, you know that day a little play into your life like maybe it's just dancing around the kitchen while you cook, you know it's. These are just small things that you integrate that day and if you want you can watch a brief video I've got about a eight minute video each day where kind of provide a little more in depth if you want to go a little deeper. So you can pop over to the private Facebook group as well if you want to chime in and Facebook group. Yeah, yeah, just ask a question, but you don't have to you don't have to go to Facebook at all if you don't want to so it's really something it's meant to only take you know, 1015 minutes a day and hopefully what you'll get out of it is so much more than the time you invest. Wow, it sounds super simple and I tell you right now simplicity is the key. So many things out there that we could be focusing our attention on and this sounds easy, this sounds simple, but I also hear you kind of saying that we can go deeper if we want so like in the videos are you highlighting stuff or Prince fans specifically or is it about the lesson for the day or the message of the day. It's really about the message and you know I might share a little bit more about these lessons as they played out in Prince's life but also I'm talking about our own lives and what you know a lot of times, there was science behind some of these, you know, activities such as like what I shared about both cognition. So there is a real good. What is that again, can you can you go back and because I get that you're using the content that you shared in your blog in 2019 about living as Prince. And this is one of those lessons so can you talk about that because I'm just curious about it sounds interesting. Well, it's really, you know, for example, you know, Prince was just known for always head to toe just looking fantastic right never slouching around in sloppy clothes and no sweatpants. Right, exactly. No jeans even no jeans but we don't need to go that far. But you know what in clothes when I researched it and learned about in clothes cognition it all made a lot of sense because really, you know, there have been experiments done where people have been given, you know, a doctor's lab coat, and they're suddenly carrying themselves differently they are operating with an air of authority that they didn't have before clothes really do make a difference in how what our mindset is so there's a lot of an amazingly all these habits had some science behind them so that's the kind of thing you'll learn about in the videos. What really applies right now for all of us who've been zooming it up and working from home to get back in in a fun playful way to like okay you got to actually you guys to get to put your dress pants on for work or you got to, you got to, you know, put the jewelry on again that kind of a thing instead of making it be this arduous experience embracing the way that we, you know, take on the colors and the fabrics and maybe learning this life lesson like from somebody like Prince to look up to like that I think that's true encouragement we need to transition from our zoom meetings back into Rio like in person meetings, you know. Yes. Yeah, yeah, and you know I even you know I try to make these things really simple to do sort for example with the day that's going to be dressed up. I'm actually even provide a formula. Good. People who are more mathematical minded can just put it together so you know top plus pants plus some kind of cool topper, plus, you know, accessory so I make it super simple none of this is going to be hard you're going to be able to walk into your class and go boom boom boom boom, put it on and there you go. Oh, I would love to see pictures of that like on hashtag done on Instagram. Oh yeah. Yeah, so cool to see everybody dressing up. Oh, you should do that yeah that'll be it'll be a lot of hopefully people will take pictures of themselves if they have a full length mirror or, you know, share the pieces of their outfit so yeah we're going to have some fun that all these days are going to be like this right just simple quick and then I you know the interesting thing is going to be just watching what does this do for me today you know do I like is this something I want to continue. Yeah, how does it help me feel and connect it feels like connection it's like invitations just invitations you know it's beyond journaling to actually taking some kind of action that to me feels really creative and I love that's one of the things that you know I love about Prince is that such a well of creativity and and in my work creativity and intuition is like the same thing it's really the same genre people don't realize that that's exactly what it is it's like channeling your spirit and you're creating and that sounds like something that's just so it's beyond inspiring it's like a medicine right now. It's like something really need. I mean in his autobiography is called the beautiful ones Prince wrote and actually in an instruction to his co writer he said I just want to tell people to create and he said just start by creating your day and then create your life. And that's what these five days are about day by day you're going to start creating a more exhilarating life. I love that. Oh my gosh that's just amazing. And you also mentioned to that. There is sort of like through this process, you kind of alluded to it a bit like with the Facebook community and this challenge is only five days so it's one day at a time through email. I created a Facebook group during just during this time so people can interact so if somebody signs up like right now right this minute which by the way you need to. And you want to be part of this you have to sign up by Saturday midnight you have to sign up before the end of the day on Saturday and that's fast. So the 13th, I'm talking February 13 sign up by the end of the day on the 13th so you can get that first email on Sunday and then Monday Tuesday Wednesday. But, but as soon as you sign up you get access to that Facebook group if you choose to write so it comes in my email and I get to say yes I want to be in it so that sounds like. The start of connection like it's not going to just go away like you're going to stay in touch with us after that kind of a thing like through the mail assume right. Yeah, absolutely so there is a private Facebook group. And if you choose to participate you can ask questions you can connect with other like minded people who are kind of on their own journeys and I think we're going to be there. Are there going to be some Prince fans. No, no. Prince fans for sure are going to be there so if you're. Yeah, there'll be some but there are just some people who want to just try a little personal growth in February you know so it's it's all kinds it's all kinds it's all ages I actually just was talking to a Broadway dancer and he's going to do it. There's lots of people trying this, but yeah and then you know you're you'll be on my email list going forward. And so I'll be in touch with you regularly. In fact, this this sort of mini course is just to give you a little taste of what it's like to like Prince and then in June I'm launching a full online course and it will be a 15 week course. And actually at the end of the five day challenge you'll get an email about that and if you want to participate you'll have an opportunity to save your space. There'll be a pre sale so if you want to like early bird pricing so. That's right if you feel like the five days you know sent you on a trajectory that you were really loving then hey come on try the, you know, imagine what you could do in 15 weeks so that's where it's all leading but really the five days are just like my gift and at the end of the fifth day the fifth day is about adopting your alter ego, which is really fun exercise that a lot of actually a lot of performers and athletes use you know Beyonce has Sasha fierce I mean Lady Gaga David Bowie and he started many many performers use this and you'll learn how to apply it to a certain, you know, field of play in your own life like whether it's your work life or whether it's your health and fitness, and it enables you to think about who you want to become but at the end of that day in the Facebook group I've got a very special surprise for everybody who participates and you can come on in and I've got an individual surprise for you. That's how we'll close out the five days and then you'll get the opportunity to join if you want to do more. Oh that sounds amazing I love that and that alter ego vibe that means anybody like everybody this isn't just for Prince fans I mean it's for Prince fans of course if you're a Prince fan you'll love it but it's for anybody. It's an amazing experience and expression when you say alter ego I totally think about higher self. Yes, for higher self our soul or spirit as a guide for us so you guys this isn't abnormally this isn't something different. This is something you know this is something you crave. You ask for and now you can have it through this, this experience this kind of playful experience moving into the energy of creativity and personal growth through this inspired experience so I'm excited I'm totally going to sign out.  We're going to have a fun and and a funky time so a Prince thing right.  Yeah, in our in our above live channel it's definitely a Freddie Mercury thing. You can live like Freddie anyone that you know enough about you know you could certainly apply this with great idea. People can own little challenges and their own little Facebook groups for whoever their fans with that would be fabulous. So yeah, this is this just meant to inspire and I certainly hope your viewers will come on over and check it out and you know enjoy these five days. You know celebrating sort of February and love and hopefully you know, puts a mojo back in your in your life again. All for that I think that's awesome so just to recap then it starts on February 14 runs for five days. It comes through email so you are if you select the link below I'll put a link below in the description you can click on that also posted on the above live channel Facebook page and the Bridget inspired Facebook page so you can just click on that link it'll bring you're right to it like sign up it's really it's really an easy deal really quick and easy, and then you'll get access to the Facebook page if you choose that as well you're going to link to that in your confirmation email and so you can join that if you want to you don't have to and if you join the Facebook group it sounds like you do not have to participate, you can just be there, you don't have to be all like chatty talking everybody just don't feel pressure just do what you want I don't know how much I'm going to participate myself because I'm kind of shy in those groups like I know it sounds weird but I am. But nonetheless it's creating an opportunity for community and interaction and so if you want to be part of this experience with which I strongly encourage you to do I know Laura very well she's an awesome creative and I trust her. She's a leader as a guide as a facilitator and so that's why I'm sharing this with you because I think it's very valuable. And it's just the prime opportunity you guys and I'll be there to I'll be in the group so maybe I'll say hi if you're if you're in there and you're like hey above live channel you know do like hashtag me or something in the Facebook group so I know that you're there so I can say hi to you. That would be awesome I totally will do that. Another important thing to note though is that learn I talked about this and she mentioned that you have to sign up before it starts because then you'll get each of the days if you miss the day it's not the end of the world you can you know get in on the next day but you're it's not like a normal course it's a challenge so you got to show up that day you got to be present to be able to get that so that means sign up now right now. So go to the description click on the link and sign up and like I said it'll also be on very face the face my Facebook pages as well so if it wants to find you, Laura like you have a blog you I know you have a whole blog you referred to that you lived like Prince for a year which sounds like it was totally the inspiration for this. Where can they find you how can they find you on social media and such. Yeah, follow me on Facebook it's my name Laura la u r a T Burt which is T like Tom I e BRT. So I'm on Facebook I'm also on Instagram Laura T Burt and on Twitter at Laura underscore T Burt so you can find me in all those places and my website is also Laura T Burt.com. Okay and your blogs on your website. Yes. Okay. Yes, that is my blog yep. Okay. Okay. Good. Good. All right. Oh, and if somebody doesn't have the book, the rise of Prince how can they get that. Oh the rise of Prince so this is on Amazon and yeah just search for the right friends. And it's Alex Han and Laura T Burt are the authors so it looks like this. Awesome. Awesome. All right, great. Is there anything else that you'd like to add before we wrap today. You know, I just want to add that, as you said, you know these days are standalone so it's not that you if you, you know miss day two you aren't going to be able to do day three these are standalone days so you know if you have a very busy day. It's okay just go on to the next day you're not missing anything and you'll be able to do that next day perfectly so just come on hop on in and enjoy the fun and I hope it's uplifting. And yeah, I'm just so excited and looking forward to it so thank you Bridget for for having me on to talk about it. Sure thank you this is a unique opportunity viewers this is really unique opportunity and so I hope you guys take advantage of it. Not not too often you get quality free stuff these days and especially for those of you who adore Prince and who love this idea of connecting with your intuition through creativity and getting out of your comfort zone a little bit. You will find, I think that your spirit will definitely be inspired. So thank you so much for being here Laura I appreciate it very much and cool opportunity with us all. Alright you guys thanks so much for thanks so much for watching. Have a great day.


physics channel for physics please subscribe my channel hello and welcome back to another episode of physics partner where we explored the cutting-edge world of physics today we dive into the fascinating dream of nanotechnology nanotechnology a word that might sounds like a buzzword from a science fiction movie but it is the reality of today's scientific advancements define as a manipulation and control of matter on an atomic or molecular scale nanotechnology paves the way for endless possibilities in a multitude of fields to truly understand the power of nanotechnology we must first value the significance of nano scale imagine a world where we could manipulate matter at such a tiny scale enabling us to engineer materials and devices with unprecedented precision at the nano scale substances behave differently displaying unique properties not evident on a large scale for example gold nanoparticles just a few nanometers in diameter can appear red or blue due to their size dependent light absorption properties similarly carbon is a versatile substance that can exist in many different forms such as coal diamond and graphite at the nano scale including nanotubes and fuller ins these forms of carbon exhibit unique electronic and mechanical properties that make them well suited for use in a variety of applications such as in electronics energy storage and medicine nano materials means material with structures engineered at the nano scale hold immense potential across various industries they possess enhanced properties such as increased strength improved conductivity and heightened reactivity a prime example is carbon nanotubes cylindrical structures that are around 100 times stronger than yet incredibly lightweight the field of medicine has been revolutionized by nanotechnology offering breakthrough possibilities for targeted drug delivery diagnostics and imaging nanoparticles can be designed to specifically target cancer cells while leaving healthy ones unharmed revolutionizing cancer treatment furthermore nanotechnology opens doors to variable biosensors that can continuously monitor vital signs providing early detection of diseases and preventing potential health crisis imagine a smartwatch that not only tells time but also alerts you for any irregularities in your heart rhythm ensuring your well-being nanotechnology's impact on renewable energy sources and environmental sustainability is equally noteworthy nano scale solar cells equipped with ultra thin films maximum light absorption making solar panels more efficient and accessible this technology could reshape our energy landscape reducing reliance on fossil fuels and combating climate change beyond energy nanotechnology helps in pollution control and water purification nano materials have shown promises in removing harmful pollutants and heavy metals providing innovative strategies for environmental cleanup electronics a critical part of our lives have been revolutionized by nanotechnology by implementing nano scale materials we have seen electronic components shrunk down to smaller more efficient sizes from high-resolution displays and flexible screens to ultra fast processors nanotechnology's impact on consumer electronics is truly phenomenal now let's dive into the world of nanoscale devices future technologies like nano robotics hold immense potential for medical applications by performing targeted drug delivery or even repairing individual cells think of miniature surgeons inside our bodies enhancing healthcare like never before as we look ahead exciting prospects of nanotechnology unfold before our eyes imagine self-healing materials that can repair themselves nano engineered food with enhanced nutritional value or flexible electronics integrated into our daily lives possibilities are staggering in conclusion nanotechnology is not merely a glimpse into the future but a powerful force shaping our present reality with its potential to revolutionize medicine energy electronics and more we must embrace the field extraordinary capabilities together we can unlock the infinite possibilities that nanoscale materials and devices offer creating a bright safer and more sustainable world so I think it's enough for today so thank you very much for listening and watching I hope you enjoyed the video I hope this video is useful for you so take care of yourself and don't hesitate to write an email if you have any question curies suggestion and even classes are required take care of yourself meanwhile see you in the next video goodbye


Hi everyone, Sean with jaspyscasebreaks.com here doing 2021 Topps Museum Baseball 6 box half case break pick your team number five where all cards ship and pick your team number five is actually the second half of a case that we started with pick your team number six. There is another case in the store now in pick your team seven and eight for that next case. Here is our list of customers and respected teams from Andy Owens and the Diamondbacks down to Alex Valdesacos and the Nationals. There is one random number block in there for the Yankees, Angels and the Mariners. You can see those three teams right there listed and here is the results from that random number block. Spot zero gets any and all redemptions for those three teams even known one of one redemptions while Michael with the one spot would get any in-person one of ones as well. And here are the last three boxes from that case and here's those lists in person. Good luck everybody. Let's see what the second half has in store for us and there's that random number block. So we're going to do three boxes at a time. You have a feeling a six is not coming Arthur? Well Arthur you got to be more positive than that. If you're telling yourself you're not going to hit right now and we'll just turn off the video right? You got to be positive.  Start cleaning out a drawer or something like that you know? See Christopher knows. Otani trout dual auto. I mean if it's out of ten right? Now it's just wondering if do I read the number upside down and it'd be a nine for rekt or do I read it right side up and it's a six for Arthur you know? Five out of five Griffey trout autos coming that'd be pretty cool Chad. That would go straight to the random number block and that'd be for Chad. Whoa no wonder see that's the kind of thinking you need. Chad with spot five is saying a five out of five Griffey trout dual auto coming. Yes please. We do have a redemption so spot zero. If it's for one of those three teams Sean Aldinger. No worries Arthur. Hey I support whatever you think is going to work for you. We have people that try to trade teams that they don't actually want to trade just so they can get that try to trade couldn't trade mojo you know? Logan saying a Joe Adele redemption. As an angels fan I'd be very jealous about that but I'd be happy for Sean other Sean not this Sean. I want to see a field book. Can those field ones? Can those be dual autos? Every single one I've seen so far has just been a single auto. I saw pictures of like a cunha I think both did I say. Post the bet always leave it if it's wrong. Are you saying that because three out of the thirty? I guess straight on based on team odds you would be right Rex right? Now what are his odds if there's a second redemption in here Rex? Because now he doesn't it's not a 20% chance right? What are his odds now? Because there's another redemption. Math too much. Cool good luck everybody. Juan Soto for the Nationals Alex Valazacos and sketch reproduction Alex Kiriloff that is for the twins Howard Zeporkin and how about a dual auto Cal Ripken Jr and Eddie Murray seven out of 15 for the Orioles. Eric Ainge very nice. Yeah always always keep the wrong bet. Same thing as if you go to put money on a on my roulette and the guy puts it on the wrong number let it ride. Ty Cobb for the Tigers Jake Johnston and Manny Machado to 75 for the Padres Brian Peoples Kirby Puckett twins Howard Zeporkin and Bryce Hoppe 17 out of 35 for the Philly it's nice three-color relic Harry Steinmetz and our first redemption 24 out of 99 Alec Baum for the Phillies Harry Steinmetz and redemption is single player signature swatches dual relic autograph so dual relic auto of Walker Bueller for the Dodgers and Sean O'Leary Frank Robinson to 150 for the Orioles Eric Ainge Kev Ryan Hayes for the Pirates Eric Jock and replica relic or sorry sketch reproduction Debbie Garcia for the Yankees which is a random number block team remember all non numbered stuff for these player teams will all be randomized as one lot at the end we got a quad relic for the Phillies that is 18 out of 99 Andrew McCutcheon Alec Baum Reese Hoskins and Bryce Harper Phillies is Harry Steinmetz Sammy Sosa for the Cubs and Matthew Gomes and Josh Donaldson to 50 for the twins and Howard Zeporkin Jackie Robinson for the Dodgers Sean O'Leary and Christian Yellich triple relic auto out of 25 25 out of 25 for the Brewers and Chad Ozowski and here's our second redemption Clay Kershaw to 99 for the Dodgers Sean O'Leary and behind Carlos Correa archival autograph copper parallel of a Labor Day Glaber Torres which actually is going to go to the spot zero on the random number block so Sean Aldinger and the Yankees that's spot zero there you go Sean archival autograph copper parallel for zero spot on the red end on the RMB Corey Seeger for the Dodgers Sean O'Leary Dylan Carlson for the Cardinals Josh X-Line and you got Reggie Jackson reproduction sketch for the Yankees another one that's going to go to be randomized as a group to the random number block one person and Edgar Martinez 45 out of 150 silver ink auto for the Mariners that's also random number block Seattle Mariners spot number five is Chad Da we go Chad yeah I think they always work really yeah oh yeah these have always been 12 yeah you're right you're right Luis Robert White Sox Josh McNich and Michael Conforto dual relic auto for the Mets that is to 349 New York Mets Joe Christian you were close very close remember we still got three more boxes to go after this too Brady Singer to 50 for the Royals Eric Serzovsky Judah AJ Puck to 50 for the A's and David Harrell and Ichiro for the Mariners another parallel it's going to be randomized all as one lot Christian Pache for the Braves Andrew Hennessy and quadrallet Chris Bryant that is 18 out of 75 for the Cubbies and Matthew Gomes too many stickers Logan it happens okay next three guys here we go all the redemption coming Logan says that makes Sean very happy if it's for the random number block all rookies Logan says I want to see a one-to-one keep Ryan A's Joe Adele and Alec Baum some good mix let's stomp down this trash hand once we get to a stopping point mix does rhyme with six so does pics and sticks and Stevie Nicks okay last box good luck everybody only three left Jonathan says you don't say huh you don't say so can somebody uh somebody straighten this out for me Subway is advertising 100 wild cock tuna right um I could have sworn I just read a thing not too long ago that said that they did a test on Subway's tuna and they weren't able to find um any percentage of it being actual tuna am I wrong did I read that wrong was that just like a one-off thing I did not go to the all-star game just to the homerun derby so Jimmy saw that story too okay so are they are they saying they've changed that and now it's 100 wild cock tuna it's wild they caught Xander Bogarts to 99 for the Red Sox and Michael Picora and good old Larry Walker that is seven out of 85 silver ink auto Hall of Famer Larry Walker for the Rockies Dan Gack Jimmy John tuna tastes good that's all you got I'm all to support remember when people were saying Jimmy Johns was that guy that got caught on the in the picture like uh naked like after they caught a marlin or something like that people swear at Jimmy John Alec Baum for the Phillies Harry Steinmetz and Ryan Mountcastle reproduction sketch for the Orioles and Eric Ainge and Nick Castellanos for the Reds dual relic and auto Cincinnati Reds David Chan that is 182 out of 271 Clayton Kershaw for the Dodgers and Sean O'Leary and nice Matt Chapman three color relic 11 out of 25 for the A's and David Harrell Garrett Cole to 150 for the Yankees that is random number block 101 out of 150 so spot one Michael and next Ryan Mountcastle for the Orioles and Eric Ainge and quad relic for Clayton Kershaw 23 out of 75 for the Dodgers and Sean O'Leary there was a silver frame on the on the first half who was it John Smoltz Greg Maddox anybody remember it was somebody Mike Trout for the Angels for that random number block non-numbered Christian Pache for the Braves Andrew Hennessy and Kevin Bijio relic 13 out of 50 for the Blue Jays and Josh X-Line Jose Abreu for the White Sox Josh Mcnick Alex Rodriguez for the Yankees reproduction sketch that's also part of the non-numbered random number block and Luis Garcia Rookie Otto 151 out of 200 for the Nationals and Alex Villasacos so remember guys all the non-numbered cards from the Mariners Yankees and the Angels will all be randomized together in the random number block Paul Goldschmidt for the Cardinals Josh X-Line and Devin Williams quad relic to 75 for the Brewers and Chad Oziowski Aaron Judge to 150 that is 29 out of 150 that's going to go to spot nine and Rex I believe yes Rex spot nine Jake Croninworth for the Padres Brian People and dual relic Otto Justin Morneau for the Twins and Howard Zeporkin that is 129 out of 349 okay last box guys Kettle Marte for the Diamondbacks and Andy Owens and Max Muncie for the Dodgers out of 300 38 out of 300 Silver Ink Otto for Sean O'Leary in the Dodgers it's kind of cool to see the uh I mean weird A's just drafted another Max Muncie born on the same date as this Max Muncie just different years A's also drafted the original Max Muncie so Alex Kirloff to 50 for the Twins Howard Zeporkin and Quad relic Tarek Scoobl that is 61 out of 99 for the Tigers and Jake Johnson Nate Pearson for the Blue Jays Josh X-Line and Reese Hoskins to 50 for the Phillies and Harry Steinmetz Joe Maurer for the Twins Howard Zeporkin you got a Mike Trout sketch reproduction and for the Metz Michael Conforto dual relic Otto Joe Christian and the Metz to finish it off that is 253 out of 349 I hope not Adam because he went to the Red Sox but I do hear he's going to be very good we've got one randomizer to do which is for all the non-numbered cards in the random number block since it is a random number block let's use the numbers angels only drafted pitchers 20 20 pitchers 19 of them college one high school I believe so let's just go zero through nine pop over here so all non-numbered cards are going to go to this number after for a non-numbered cards for the random number block which is the Yankees angels and the Mariners a one and a six seven times guys seventh and final time spot two seven times on the randomizer seven times on the dice spot number two which is Matthew Frennus will get all non-numbered cards for the Yankees angels and the Mariners and there you go guys that was 2021 tops museum baseball six box half case break pick a team number five jaspyscasebreaks.com I'm Sean jaspyscasebreaks.com thanks for hanging out we'll see you next time


In this module, we're going to talk about the internal logic or schema that governs the behavior of agents within complex adaptive systems. This logic can span from the very elementary to the very complex, and thus we will break it down into two different types. We will start with the most basic type of logic, what are called algorithms, and then go on to discuss more advanced conceptual systems, what are called schemata within the language of complex adaptive systems. The most basic form of logic an agent can have is one that simply responds to a given input signal with an output action that is always the same. For example, if one taps one's knee at the right location, it will trigger the nerves to actuate the muscles into generating a sharp reactionary motion. Every time we input the same stimulus to this physiological system, we will get the same response. More advanced algorithms are able to discern between a given set of inputs and use an if-then logic to select an appropriate output. For example, the control system within a chemical processing plant might be able to select from a set of output temperature values based upon a range of input temperature values in order to regulate a chemical process chamber. Another example of this might be the basic algorithm that is thought to govern the flocking of birds. It consists of just three simple rules which are 1. Separation, meaning always maintain a certain distance from your neighbors. 2. Alignment, meaning steer towards the average heading of your neighbors. And 3. Cohesion, meaning to steer towards average position of neighbors in order to maintain long-range attraction. Here the individual bird is continuously inputting a value to these three required parameters, processing this information according to the set of instructions and then selecting from a range of appropriate motion responses in order to maintain its correct positioning. As advanced as these algorithms may become, they are essentially designed to just generate a response to a given range of stimuli. As such, they capture much of the logic behind mechanical control systems and those governing many biological systems such as in our bird example above. But the advanced cognitive capability of a modern human being far exceed a simple set of algorithms. With this cognitive capacity human agents can create conceptual representations or models of the world and we call these schemata. The word schema comes from the Greek word meaning to shape or more generally plan. A schema is a cognitive framework or concept that helps organize and interpret information. As such it is a conceptual template that determines how reality is interpreted and from this what are appropriate responses to given stimuli. With a schema an agent can create a model of what it encounters, identify similarities and differences amongst things in order to create categories and relations between categories. This allows an agent to quickly take in new information and classify it with reference to what it already knows. Every time an agent receives new information it references it against the information it already has. This process of obtaining new information and filtering it to ensure its validity is often modeled using Bayesian inference. Bayesian inference references any new information received by the agent against prior knowledge in order to ascribe a probability value to the likelihood of its validity. If the information is deemed to have a high probability of validity it is incorporated into the agent's schema and used as a reference to infer the validity of any future information it receives. For example, throughout your life you have received constant information endorsing the validity to the existence of the force of gravity. This massive amount of information confirming it gives it a very high probability of being valid and every day that probability goes up as you receive more confirmation of its existence. The result being that if you are presented with some piece of information that disproves the existence of a gravitational force on planet Earth, your immediate reaction will be to ascribe this new piece of information with a very low probability of being valid. In this way a schema can develop as it receives new information and incorporates this into the framework, both reinforcing pre-existing categories and reducing the overall state of uncertainty as new information confirms or disaffirms the space of unknown possibilities. With a schema we have not only the basic functioning of a control system that is able to respond to an immediate stimulus, but by being capable of creating a complex model of a situation we can understand what is generating this stimulus in the first place. A schema allows the agent to identify the causes that create the effects and not only this, but an agent with an advanced schema is able to also create a model of its own operation, that is how it responds to any given stimulus and can then try to alter this basic behavior. For example, we might be able to identify that every time we get stressed we start smoking and then try to alter this reaction. This somewhat self-referential capacity for a system to model and analyze its own regulatory system is the subject of what is called second order or new cybernetics. These advanced schemata of course have many benefits to an agent over a simple algorithmic logic. It is ultimately the foundation that has enabled technology, advanced civilization and humans capacity to dominate its physical environment, but of course it comes at a cost and not only in terms of the physical energy to maintain the system, but there is now a tension between the basic control system that is designed to react to stimulus thus ensuring immediate self-preservation and the schema that creates a broader vision interested in the system's long-term objectives and consequences of its actions with the possibility of these two levels conflicting and reducing the agent's capacity for action. Human agents within complex adaptive systems are not only governed by the need for physical self-preservation, but being governed by these advanced conceptual frameworks they are required to maintain both conceptual homeostasis as much as physical homeostasis. Through a number of mechanisms, information can be systematically filtered to ensure it doesn't threaten the basic assumptions that support the schema that the system is in regular contact with information sources that endorse and preserve this current schema because it is critical to the functioning of the whole system. Psychology has plenty of examples of this such as confirmation bias, which is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing schema and placing much higher validation standards on information that threatens it. Thus, in the same way agents actively seek out environments that are inducive to their physical requirements, they will often actively seek out information sources that preserve and maintain the status quo of their schema. Thus, we should not expect human agents to be rational or logical. Ultimately, humans aren't computers where logic is a precondition to their operation, but there is instead a subjective dimension to humans that is driven by emotions and independent from logical validation. This subjective domain to human agents is played out in what we call culture, often in the form of a story or set of stories about how the world is that endorse what is considered right and wrong, with people then acting out these stories as rituals in order to validate them and feel a part of them. People buy Nike shoes because advertising agencies have created a story around the brand. People want to be associated with that and they live this story out by wearing the shoes. There is no economic logic as to why people would pay an extra $50 to buy a pair of shoes with a tick on the side of them. Much of human activity only makes sense within the context of the cultural narrative that it is part of. This may add a whole new level of complexity to our models, but we pay a high price when we exclude it in terms of capacity to capture the real-world phenomenon exhibited by many complex adaptive systems. In summary then, we have been talking about the internal logic or schema that governs the behavior of agents within complex adaptive systems. We tried to show how this logic can span from the very elementary to the very complex. At the simplest end of the spectrum, we looked at algorithms that typically operate through an if-then logic that can switch to generate a given set of output states in response to some given set of input states. We then went on to discuss what are called schemata that represent more advanced conceptual frameworks or models capable of categorizing and filtering information to ensure its validity, while also being able to develop through a process that may be understood in terms of Bayesian theory. Lastly, we talked about how social agents are not only governed by a basic regulatory system driving them to maintain physical homeostasis, but also a more complex set of needs to maintain a conceptual homeostasis.