The single biggest mistake that I see clients or people make when they set New Year's resolution is setting it too big and overwhelming themselves with things that they're not going to consistently do. So I think the secret sauce is to address these six areas that we're going to talk about and then actually making a very simple target that you can accomplish and then build on that starting with these these small obtainable goals and then building. The idea here is to pick things that are gonna give that are gonna provide you some value that also are somewhat challenging so that it's got meaning but also and this is the biggest consideration is things that I can do I can maintain not necessarily is this a big goal that's gonna like change everything or whatever it's okay can I stick to this because that's the that's the most important thing


Hi, I'm Luke Gregerson of the San Diego Padres. A lot of times putting on your uniform puts you in a spotlight. In baseball you represent a team, but in the armed services you represent your nation. It's got to be tough, but I think you're doing a fantastic job. It's an honor meeting some of you here in the U.S. Army Europe. Thank you for serving with pride and being someone we can all look up to.


What's going on everybody? Got Kyle and Donnie here in Layton Sports Cards and we are ripping 2022 in T. Football four box full case number 72. Pick your team style. Got Alexandros S with the Jets. Got Ben Y with the Titans. Bradley R has the Steelers. Got Brian S with the Browns. Brian B has the Giant Seahawks. Eddie P has the Cowboys Cardinals Rams. Got Gary S with the Broncos, Patriots, Bucks, Lions, Packers, Texans, Saints, Eagles, and Falcons. Thank you, Gary. Harper has the Commanders. We got James D with the Ravens. James D, O with the Ravens. James D, E has the Bears. Jeffrey C has Bangles. Jeffrey H Chiefs. Joel M has the Chargers. John A Dolphins. Nathan F with the Jags. Got Nick M Raiders. Phillip N with the Colts. Sean M with the Niners and Panthers. Sean L with the Bills. And Tomas L has the Vikings. Alrighty guys, let's see what we got here. 2022 NT full case number 72. Appreciate y'all. We are filled up on number six, Prism Draft. Let's get going on number seven now. Appreciate y'all. That one's got nine to go. Nine to go. Let's do it. NT. Come on, Shield. Come on, Shield. Bradley taking two and number eight. Appreciate you, Bradley. Here, grabbing some iMac and one and number eight. Alrighty, good luck here, guys. Box one, 22 NT. It's like a printing plate there in the middle. We've got Antoine Randall L numbered to 40. The Super Bowl immortality, 40 out of 40 there. Antoine Randall L. They might haven't seen in a while. Behind that, we have a Jamar Chase numbered to 25. Chase Base for the Bangles. Jamar Chase to 25. Got Jersey to 99. This one's Alvin Kamara for the Saints. Mara, Century Material to 99. We've got a Jalen Ramsey, another Century Materials Jersey to 99. There's the Rams, Jalen Ramsey on the fins now. There is Sunday Treasures. This one is going to be Kyle Pitts. Kyle Pitts on the Dual Jersey for the Falcons, 17 and 99. Hopefully, they use him a lot more this year. He is a beast. Nice one there, Falcons. And this is Printing Plate. One of one, it looks like Joey Bosa. It is Joey Bosa. One of one on the Printing Plate there. Nice hit Chargers on the Joey Bosa, Printing Plate Jersey. Nice Relic. Chargers. Behind that to 49, we've got a Signatures Bobby Wagner for the Rams. Nice Bobby. Behind that, we have a Dante Hall to 49. For the Chiefs, Signatures Gold, 39 to 49. Ooh, nice. The 25. We've got a Jersey Auto. This one is Bo Jackson on the Lasting Legacies. That is sick looking there. Eight of 25 for the Raiders. Very nice one there. Eight of 25. Ooh, and booklet. Nice one here, Jets. We got Rookie First Edition Signatures, three out of five. It's Sauce Gardner with the Laundry Tag. Nice one there, Encard Auto. Let's go Jets. That's nice. Three of five on the booklet. Very nice one there, Laundry Tag Auto. Sauce. Very nice. Three of five. Nice one there, Jets. Congrats on that one. That put away in a nice slider box. Nice and safe. Nice one there, Jets. Alrighty guys, box two. Really nice Laundry Tag on that. Sauce is another one that's a popular player, man. I think Hardinox is only helping him. Hard to not like Sauce. He seems like he's got his head in a good place. I don't think he's all those guys you gotta worry about. No, he's a hard worker.  Redemption on the back. Alrighty guys, still five to go in the number eight here I believe we're working on. Or number seven, number seven. Nine to go. Nine to go. Two ninety-nine. We've got a Brian Urlacher for the Bears. Got the twenty-five. Nice one there, Chargers. Justin Herbert on the base of twenty-five. We've got Chargers again. Century materials number two ninety-nine. Austin Eckler Century materials. Fifty of ninety-nine. Chargers. Behind that we've got Devin Duvernay at a twenty-five on the Framed Fabrics four-color jersey for the Ravens Duvernay. Out of Texas it's Lane's Boy. Framed Fabrics to twenty-five. Another one to twenty-five. It's going to be Vylus Jones Jr. for the Bears. Some nice patches there. Thirteen to twenty-five. One off that jersey number. Bears, Vylus Jones. We've got Dual Relics. This one is T.J. Watt and Minka Fitzpatrick. Forty-two and ninety-nine. Two beasts right there. T.J. Watt and Minka. Dolphins. Definitely should have never gotten rid of Minka. Auto Jalen Petrie. That's going to go to the Texans there. Rookie Otto to ninety-nine. Houston. Behind that we have Jersey Otto. This one is Henry Ellard. Henry Ellard to ninety-nine. Lasting legacies Rams. I don't think I've ever heard that name. Oh from the 80s. That's probably why. Henry Ellard. Lasting legacies. That's a Rams Jersey Otto. That's a rich trivia question. Yeah right. Oh nice one here. True RPA. This one is going to be for the Colts. It is Alec Pierce. Nice one there. Colts number thirty-eight and ninety-nine. Got himself a new QB this year. I'm sure he'll utilize that. Nice one there. Colts on the true RPA. Alec Pierce. And we've got Chris Olave on the Rookie Material Signatures RPS. That'll be on card to ninety-nine. Chris Olave. Nice one there. Saints. Olave Rookie Material Signatures on card. Righty guys. Box number three now. See some fire. Thick one here. Chonky. Chonky one. Could be. But first up to ninety-nine we got a Barry Sanders for the Lions. It's eighty-one of ninety-nine. Barry Sanders. Ooh these are sick. To twenty-five we got Modern Masters for the Beals. That is a Josh Allen. These are sick looking man. Josh Allen Modern Masters. Nice hit there. Bills. Really cool looking card. We've got Rams. Cooper Cup number to forty-nine behind that. Sentry materials for the Rams. Cooper Cup. Frame fabrics is for the Broncos. The forty-nine going to be Javante Williams. Frame fabrics. I did kind of notice Javante was kind of falling in fantasy too. If you look kind of worried about his injury. I could see that. Frame fabrics there for the Broncos. Got Trent McDuffie. Jumbo Jersey to forty-nine. Tremendous Treasures. Chiefs Rookie. McDuffie to forty-nine. Another one to forty-nine. Dual Jersey. Tariq Woolen. Nice one there. Corner for the Seahawks. Tariq Woolen to forty-nine. Dual Jerseys. Auto is Jerome Ford Browns. Five of ninety-nine on the auto. Jerome Ford. We're back here. Ken Houston to ninety-nine. Wasn't that who we were talking about? Wasn't that one of the guys? Thirty-one to ninety-nine. Ken Houston. Was this one of the guys, Rich? I think he was one of the... I think he was. Ken Houston for the Redskins there to ninety-nine. That'll go Commanders. Yeah, he was. We did play the Redskins. Ken Houston. That is crazy. Never seen his name before but we see it today. That is funny. Four of the odds. Commanders there. And to ninety-nine we got a NFL Gear Dual Jersey Auto Danny Gray. Niners. Ball Relic and Jersey there. To ninety-nine Niners. Danny Gray. And booklet on the back. Nice. It is Jumbo. Rookie Prime Signature is going to be Kenny Pickett. Eighty-four of ninety-nine. Very nice one there with the Gold Ink Auto and Jumbo Jersey. Nice one there. Steelers. That is sick with the Gold Ink. Nice big Jumbo Jersey there as well. Kenny Pickett. Eighty-four of ninety-nine. Boom. Congrats Steelers. Get that one put away for you. Now on to the last box here guys. Box four. NT. Yeah, sample the NFL Shield one the other day of that. The ball logo. NFL logo. That was wild. Righty guys, here we go. Box four. Oh yeah, that was yesterday. First up we've got treasured rookies. To ninety-nine it's going to be the new Patriots rookie. Maddie Corral. This one will go to the Panthers there. Maddie Corral, fourteen and ninety-nine. We've got to ten. It's going to be Jim Kelly for the Beals. Jim Kelly Green, numbered six of ten. Got a Jersey Chase Claypool, the forty-nine Century Materials Bears. Yeah, that redemption is crazy rich for sure. Yeah, that thing is nuts. Century Materials Bears. Got Sunday Treasures. This one is Jerry Judy to ninety-nine. On the Dual Jersey Broncos. Behind that we've got a tremendous Treasures Traylon Burks, forty of forty-nine. Traylon Burks on the Jumbo Jersey Titans. Nice. Ten of twelve. Nice one there. Red is number to the Jersey number. It'll be Chris Olave on the Dual Jersey. Nice low number there. Ten of twelve. Number two the Jersey number on the Reds. Nice one there. Saints on the Olave. That redemption as well. Behind that we have Anthony Brown, rookie number to ninety-nine. Ravens rookie. Anthony Brown. Signatures to twenty-five is Jason Seahorn. That'll be Giants. Giants for twenty-five. Seahorn. A Dual NFL Gear. That's a Ball Relic Jersey Auto of EZE. Seventeen to twenty-five as Ukadma for the Dolphins there. Signs at EZE. The RPA to twenty-five. And on the back we have RPA to forty-nine. It's the new Patriots QB. Maddie Corral. Little three color patch. Nice one there. Panthers. Get himself a new chance in a new city. Nice Corral there. We'll mag that for the Panthers. Righty guys and that'll do it for NT Full Case seventy-two. Give me one second. We'll do a hit recap here. Alrighty guys. Collegiate number seven's got eight to go. Eight to go. Alrighty guys do a quick hit recap here. We had Jason Seahorn to twenty-five. Giants Auto. Had Anthony Brown to ninety-nine. Auto Ravens. Danny Gray to ninety-nine. Dual RPA. Yeah, Victor. It happened earlier today. Earlier today he went. Ken Houston Auto number to ninety-nine. Jerome Ford to ninety-nine. Got a Ella Beat number to ninety-nine. Number to ninety-nine on the Jersey Auto. Petrie to ninety-nine. Bo Jackson to twenty-five. Jersey Auto Raiders. Cool one there. To forty-nine we got Dante Hall. And to forty-nine Bobby Wagner. Got some mags. We had a Maddie Corral to forty-nine on the RPA. We've got to twenty-five. NFL Gear. Dual Jersey. Easy E. Got true RPA to ninety-nine. Alec Pierce. Nice one there for the Colts. We had Saints on the Rookie Materials Signatures Encard Auto. Crystal Lave should be number to ninety-nine there on the RPS. And we had two Jumbo Booklets. First one was Kenny Pickett to ninety-nine. The Gold Ink Jersey Auto. And we had three of five. Rookie First Edition Sauce Gardener. Nice one there. Had the Laundry Tag Jersey Auto. Sauce. Nice one there. Jets. Alrighty there guys. That'll do it for NT full case number seventy-two. Let's get some prism draft going here guys. Just a minute.


Hello and welcome to another edition of Bad Titles for video games, in the past I've gone over stuff like B.O.B. and Operation Logic Bomb, and this time around we've got Kendo Rage, a request from Owen on my Patreon page. I'd never heard of this game and did not know what kind of game it was, but based on the title I was convinced it had to be a one on one fighting game, or maybe even a beat em up. I guess that might have been just me confusing it with something like Primal Rage or Laser Kendo for Commodore 64. Instead Kendo Rage is an action platformer with an anime art style that looks, plays and sounds like something out of the Valus series, or more specifically Super Valus 4 for Super Nintendo. That's the big appeal of this one. The visual presentation and the art style here is well crafted, the pixel art between levels is cool looking, and as you can probably tell the story here has a bit of a comedic slant to it. I mean just look at how your character gets hit here. There's not too many other SNES games that have this kind of humor, and I guess that's what makes Kendo Rage stand out. It's one of the only games to have this kind of visual style and humor that was actually localized in North America. Usually when a game is brought over they make wholesale changes left and right, like when Ranma 1 Half fighting game was turned into the painfully generic street combat. One thing they did change in the Kendo Rage localization though is the story. The Super Famicom version features a Kendo student named Mai, who's approached by a spirit detective to recruit her help to hunt down some monsters. In the North American version Mai is named Joe, she's attending summer school to hone her Kendo skills, and the spirit detective is instead this great Kendo master named Bob, who wants to train Mai to rid the world of rotten evildoers. And you do that throughout seven different levels, of course using a Kendo stick attack, which is correlated with an energy meter. Sure you can just turbo hack and slash your way through enemies, but if you go a few seconds between attacks and let the psi meter down below fill up, your attack turns into a projectile. You can upgrade this particular attack by collecting a colored ball that will occasionally fly across the screen. Each color represents a different type of attack, as well as a shield to help your character absorb a bit more damage.   There are a limited number of continues though, and there's no battery saver pass where it's here, so you gotta beat the game in one go round. If I had to nitpick anything about Kendo Rage, it's that the level design isn't all that great. It's not that it's bad, it's just kind of annoying. The game is laid out in kind of a where the hell do I go manner, where you have to carve your way through the snow, or wandering around in slow motion underwater. It just gets old sometimes, especially the underwater stuff. Each level has a time limit as well, since the point of each level is for Joe to get to school on time, but that wasn't really that big of a factor for me. Kendo Rage did get a sequel that stayed in Japan on Super Famicom, titled Makaruna Makendo 2, Kimeru Yokai Sori, and this one is a one on one fighting game, so if you're into that, that's there too, and it's reasonably English friendly as well. So yeah, Kendo Rage is an okay-ish game. It's not bad, but it's not great either. It's along the same lines as something like Super Valus 4 or Xardion, games I've done videos on in the past. They're each kind of mediocre, but in the case of Kendo Rage, it is pretty interesting to see a game like this get localized and stay true to what it originally was in Japan, for the most part anyway. If you really like games of this style, however, I'd recommend Ghost Sweeper Mikami, Joreishi Wannai Spotty. That one has the same anime-style presentation, but better level design and platforming elements. As far as Kendo Rage goes, it's fine. Its visual presentation is impressive, but don't go into it expecting too much.


All right picking up where I left off with my 2001 a space Odyssey special series two years ago this episode is two years in the making folks This is going to be the next episode of my space Odyssey series as well as the next episode of My odd comics series and once again, I'm talking about Jack Kirby the first question is 2001 a space Odyssey the movie was released in 1968. Why was the official comic book adaptation? eight years later in 1976 I think the only reason is because Jack Kirby wanted to do this The cover is unspectacular it's This is a favorite among Jack Kirby fans people who are not Jack Kirby fans Who are fans of the movie? Have a real This dain for this material. I can see why if if they haven't bothered to learn anything about it This was obviously a quick a Quick job that Jack Kirby did he was an extremely fast artist. He was typically knocking out Two three four sometimes even five Twenty or thirty page comic books every month Keep that in mind and his His primary interest was in creating entertaining material for kids to read he was interested in telling fun stories Enlightening stories for kids that was he that's what he considered his audience not adult comics collectors Like myself Today at the time I was a small child and I loved this stuff. I Was exactly the right audience for this some of this work is beautiful. Look at this He's creating all of this with just black and white lines What appears to be radiant light and energy using nothing more than ink on white paper You'll all also notice the text here Comes directly from Arthur C. Clarke's Novel later on in the book You'll see that the dialogue is not Clark's Jack Kirby begins Rewriting his own dialogue and it's obvious Another thing I want to point out here in the book and the movie Women are noticeably absent from the film The first line of dialogue spoken in the film is spoken by a woman. She is a receptionist Who basically says? Welcome dr. Floyd and that's it. There's one woman politician that Dr. Floyd has a conversation with briefly and that's it and there are no people of color in The film are in the book Jack Kirby made a point of adding women to crucial scenes and People of color and giving them dialogue You'll notice that some of the panels here. He's using Frames from the film as inspiration and others. He is not Some of these are beautiful pieces of work Some of these pages are quick hack jobs like here and they'll be There'll be a beautiful page like this right next to a Quick dirty job and then there'll be a fantastic double-page spread Again, I want to point out how he How he was a master at using light or what appeared to be light when all he's doing is Lines on paper one point here the scene with Dave Bowman re-entering The spacecraft Even though Hal has disabled the doors you'll notice Dave Bowman Without a helmet in vacuum Does not happen in the book that only happened in the movie then we get to the climax of the film and This is where Things get really interesting Arthur C. Clark has his interpretation of these events in the novel Stanley Kubrick has his interpretation of these events in the movie and Jack Kirby has his interpretation of these events in His medium the comic book This is beautiful stuff again It's just lines on paper But it appears to be Light and energy and movement Don't dismiss this stuff out of hand This is a reinterpretation of The cosmic events of 2001 a space Odyssey in a comic book medium by the master of the medium again, you see Two different versions of the same Shot Again, just lines on paper and yet there appears to be light there appears to be energy This is Jack Kirby. This is why I love Jack Kirby Anyway, I I believe The purpose of this Really was a lead-in to this a regular format comic book series Yeah, a monthly series and this has always been one of my favorite covers One of my favorite Jack Kirby covers. It's Very strange the colors are unusual It's kind of a hodgepodge of Different bits and pieces from the story to come in this issue Is it kind of clumsy? But that's what I love about it all those elements. You're wondering how can there be an ongoing 2001 a space Odyssey series will by retelling the story over and over And that's exactly what he does starting with prehistory with cavemen The appearance of the monolith to the primitives segueing directly into The future and with every reinterpretation Kirby introduces alien monsters and then you have the astronaut encountering the monolith in space Revealing the mysteries of the cosmos and Being elevated into the higher life form and then once again with issue two another variation This time with a female protagonist Again, I want to point out Jack Kirby was the first creator to introduce a female protagonist to the Odyssey verse She is the star of the show Primitive cave woman encountering the monolith transitions directly to a future descended In outer space Encounters aliens again Encounters the monolith in deep space And once again more interpretations of The cosmic experience How could you not love this and Again becoming a a Star child with issue eight Jack Kirby starts to get really interesting The other element of the 2001 a space Odyssey story that I haven't discussed here yet is artificial intelligence and finally here Kirby starts exploring that element he takes the concept of artificial intelligent computer and expands it into the idea of Autonomous robots, which of course would be the next the next step and he explores the same problem with Hal is that giving true Intelligence and true life to a machine What doors are you opening these x-series androids being military machines designed to Design for violence and killing once they are activated once their Artificial intelligences are activated they become insane They have identity crises So their inventor takes the latest model the x-51 and Basically raises it as a sign provides it with an actual identity The military and the government have ordered these machines destroyed so Mr. Machine as it's called becomes a fugitive as X-51 is being held prisoner He is visited by the monolith and this is this is important because What Kirby is doing here? He's carrying the idea of 2001 a space Odyssey to the next stage which is the creation the deliberate Creation of a new form of life by the life form that had been fostered by the monolith a very important point here is what the What his captors have done here is they have removed his face They have taken from him the one thing That gave him identity that connected him to his creator to his father and Over the course of issues 9 and 10 look at this beautiful cover by the way look at that unusual color work His face his identity became The major theme here see he says the greatest indignity of all the removal of my face This is heavy stuff for 10 year olds. I Bet you didn't know This is what was going on here. Did you? so he's combining these heavy concepts with this exciting superhero storytelling and What started as Jack Kirby's personal reinterpretation of 2001 a space Odyssey became a new superhero and a new series machine man issue 10 of 2001 Directly continued into machine man number one Which is one of the things that started my interest in comics the machine man series lasted a couple of years and then machine man joined the regular Marvel Universe through an appearance in the Incredible Hulk and then he became a member of the Avengers so 2001 a space Odyssey has a direct connection through Jack Kirby to the Avengers All right, thank you for joining me. I I hope you were able to sit through that rambling discourse I hope you learned something about these comics and why I enjoy them so much as as silly as they are and I will see you next episode Please subscribe to my channel so you can see more of what's coming up and Please remember to press that like button down there. That's how my videos get seen and remember my work here is Supported by patrons. Please follow the link on the screen here and in the description below To join up and you can make a one-time donation if you like. Thank you


everybody, myself P. V. Ekhande working as assistant professor in Department of Mechanical Engineering at Valchia Institute of Technology, Sulapur. Today we will see regarding the solving problems related to projections of planes in which we will consider the question where the figure for that certain part is given, the plane for that certain part is given and where to proceed for completing the answer and in that we need the knowledge related to the lines also. At the end of this session, the students will be able to draw the problems related to projections of planes when the data is given in the form of certain figure and then where to proceed for completing the answer with the knowledge of lines. So here we will take the question in which where to refer the figure which is given and where to complete the projections for the plane which is given in the figure is a parallelogram. A parallelogram is the figure or the plane with the corner positions A, B, C, D and for this A, B, C, D parallelogram where to complete its projections when the two lines are given to us. So line A, B in the front view that is A, B, F is given and A, H, B, H in the top view for that is known to us given to us and the other side that is A, D side in the front view and top view is known to us. Now as we know for the parallelogram when we consider the parallelogram for that parallelogram always two lines opposite to each other are with the same length and those are parallel to each other. When we consider for example A, B and C, D these are A, B and C, D is parallel to each other as well as those are with the same length. Where the other sides that is A, D and B, C are again parallel to each other and with the same length that comes at we are going to use over here and for using this concept for completing this figure we are going to use the knowledge of parallel lines also. In case of the parallel lines we know that the parallel lines projection will appear as a parallel in all the views in all views whether it is front view, top view, side view or any auxiliary view those will appear as parallel to each other and if the sides are same views will have sides are if suppose same then its projection in the views will be obtained with the same reduction or enlargement in the both figures. So here now we will consider the lines which are given in the question those are A, D and A, B. Now A, D line will have the parallelity with respect to B, C. So for completing B, C line over here where to draw the projection of B, C line from this B, F corner or B, H corner as a line parallel to A, D in the front view or A, D in the top view. So where to draw the line parallel so the parallelity with respect to this A, D line is to be maintained and on this line drawn will get the position of D point sorry C point similarly where to draw the line parallel to A, H, D, H from B, H in the top view. Now on these two lines we will obtain the third corner in the front view we will obtain the third corner over here somewhere here and in the top view we will obtain that corner somewhere here. Now for obtaining that third corner Cf again we will use the concept related to parallel lines in which the sides will appear as a parallel to each other. Now here A, B to that will have the parallelity of D, C line. So for completing the projection of that then where to complete the line starting from this D corner as a line parallel to A, B and which will have the intersection at this point and the corner is to be considered as a Cf corner. So that is the completion of parallelogram in the front view. In the same manner we can complete the parallelogram that figure in the top view by drawing now the line from this D H point as a line parallel to A, B that is A, H, B, H to this A, H, B, H where to draw line parallel to where to draw the line parallel from this D corner. So where to maintain the parallelity with this A, B and the line is to be completed in such a way that it will have the intersection with the line starting from B and the point will be obtained as C H and this is completion of the top view of the parallelogram and front view of the parallelogram. So in the question complete the projection means where to complete the front view and top view of the plane. Now is it clear to you that we are using the properties of lines parallel to each other means the knowledge of the projection of lines that is utilized in completion of problems related to the planes. So which concept we have considered over here related to the parallel lines correct that is lines will appear parallel in all the ways, two lines will appear parallel to each other in all the ways. So we are obtaining the parallelity of A D with C B over here, D C with A B over here. The same thing is in top view A B parallelity is with D C over here, A D parallelity is with B C over here. The reference taken is from ML Dabade. Thank you.


Hey, what's up guys we're the know here come back at you with some more batch tutorials I'm gonna get the windows command line started up here bring a write down so you guys can see what we're doing and let's get to Doing some programming Now today, I'm gonna be showing you guys another really simple and pretty easy concept to understand But remember we are still in the very early stages of the series So we're gonna be going through some pretty easy to understand stuff And obviously we're gonna keep building off of that once we get further and further into the series But today what I'm gonna be talking about is something called data types and this is very easy to understand These aren't actually commands It's just a type or a form of data or something you're gonna be manipulating when you're actually writing a program or writing a script You do have information and things that you want to be able to work with so It's pretty easy to understand that like a number is a number though some letters are text and Some words like a sentence is just some some piece of information that we want to be able to work with though But all of these do have kind of a specific name But you aren't really going to be able to see these in the shell Like if we type in one it's obviously gonna tell us one isn't really a command or anything that we can run So but I just I do want you guys to be able to know if you have something like a one or Or maybe a zero or even a negative number a negative number like negative one or negative 30 How about how about we get 9,000 in there too? Just because that's kind of cool all these are what we call integers and it's just a number I'm sure you've probably heard of this in algebra or back when you were in math class when you were you were a little baby and Yeah, but these are just numbers. They are whole numbers that we're gonna be working with now in batch You wouldn't normally see something called a floating point number or anything that uses a decimal like 4.9 8 or something Or like 3.14 if you want to be pie. I Like hey, whatever But yeah in batch we don't use these too often But in other scripting languages and even other programming languages, of course We will be using them so I do want to introduce that theme and that I do to you guys Even if we don't use them so much in batch because it's really gonna help you later on if you keep learning programming languages And other computer-based things So another thing that we're gonna be taking a look at though is Numbers don't really help us out too much If we're gonna be getting information across to our users and actually being able to tell them what's going on We need to be able to actually say things to them We need to be able to give them text and give them something to be able to read and understand So if we just typed in letters and words obviously like hey My name is John This is a string of text Each every single one of these each symbol each letter each piece of white space or exclamation point It's a character and you can kind of think of a character as a symbol It can really be anything as long as it's something that's maybe in the alphabet Maybe it's part of grammar like an exclamation point or something But it's just a character and when you have a whole lot of these when you have a sentence or a phrase or something That you want to be displaying what this is called is a string. It's a string of text now normally in other languages You'd be using a quotation mark here double quotation marks or even single quotation marks in some cases But in batch we don't really use these too often For output and some other things we don't use them because we don't really want these these quotation marks to be visible when we're displaying them and Echo the actual the actual program and command that we use to display the output will interpret them So in some cases we do use these quotation marks in some cases We don't because batch is just plain a little weird and that's how it works But that is kind of what I want to be able to show you guys These are the data types that we're going to be working with something called strings. We have integers and that sort of thing They're obviously a lot more out there. I Definitely recommend you take a look and see what else you can find on data types It'd be cool if you guys could kind of do a little bit of your own research and see what else you can learn But I do want to be able to show you guys at least what we're going to be working with later on in the series So when you have information you're trying to work with and manipulate this data It's going to be in forms of either a string or an integer or a number and that sort of thing So we're gonna be working with these a lot more in the next video I will be sure to see you guys then and I hope you you stay beautiful until then Goodbye guys


Today I'm going to introduce our work about tennismional results for probabilistic BDL. The structure of the talk will be as follows. First, we will recall some background knowledge about PBDL and tennismional properties. Also, we introduce some other related works and our motivation. Next, we will see the characterization results of PBDL. After that, we go on to introduce two notions of bisimilarity and see that two extensions of PBDL categorizes these two notions. Let's first have a look at the subject of our paper, namely probabilistic, probabilistic, propositional dynamic logic, also known as PBDL. It was first introduced by Dexter Cawson in 1985 to reason about the probabilistic programs at a propositional level. So instead of problems like the determination of a program, PBDL describes properties such as what is the expected running time for a program involving coin flipping. Such demands determines that the nature of the logic must be real valued rather than boolean valued. We will come to more details about PBDL later and before that we introduce some knowledge about tennismional properties. Tennismional properties are basically bridges between logical equivalence and structural similarity. The benchmark work is traced back to Tennismional's paper in 1985, in which they proposed a simple model logic characterizing bisimulation for image finite label transition systems. The importance of such properties is that once we have the bridge between logical equivalence and structural similarity, then in order to check that two structures are not behavioral equivalence, if equivalence, one can simply do it by finding a logical formula which distinguishes the two models, and this is usually much easier than the formal work. Our paper is based on many previous work on labeled Markov processes. Labeled Markov processes are continuous probabilistic transition systems, and as one will see later, they are basically a PBDL model without the function valuations. We applied both the results and some proof techniques in the first three papers listed here. There they proved that a simple logic L0 categorizes both states and event bisimulation between labeled Markov processes. Other related work also mostly considers labeled Markov processes. For example, this paper here gives a real-valued logic which gives the same Tennismional properties for labeled Markov processes. However, as far as we know, there's no Tennismional results for PBDL and behavioral equivalence for PBDL models. So the first question we ask is that what behavioral equivalence does PBDL actually describe? After this, we defined the state and event bisimulation for PBDL models, which we think are natural extensions of that for labeled Markov processes. We then tried to extend PBDL in a natural way so that the new logic characterizes these two notions of bisimulation. Finally, we take this paper at the first step towards further research on Tennismional properties about co-algebraic dynamic logic. Alright, we are now ready to introduce our first characterization result, namely, PBDL characterizes trace equivalence. Before that, we briefly talk about PBDL. The syntax for PBDL is fourfolded, and we only present the non-trivial parts here, namely the programs and the functions. The programs involve primitive programs, sequential composition, and Boolean tests. Besides, it has arbitrary linear combination and iteration. For the functions, the most important part is the modalities, namely the diamond Pf in green here. So this syntax is rich enough to express programs like wild loops and conditionals. As for the semantics, a PBDL model is a tuple where sigma x here is a measurable space. VP and Vf are respectively valuations for primitive programs and primitive functions. Programs are interpreted as Markov kernels here, which are basically probabilistic state transition functions. And function symbols are interpreted as real-valued functions. In particular, the value of diamond Pf is the expected value of function f after executing program P. Next, we introduce the notion of trace. The terminology trace comes from automata theory, and our definition of trace on PBDL is actually a natural generalization of that for probabilistic automata. For the alphabet set, we have not only the primitive programs, but also those Boolean tests. The reason, put it simple, is that Boolean tests also appear as primitives in the formal construction of PBDL programs. Then the trace row at state x is a function which takes two inputs, a word omega in sigma star and the primitive function capital F. And then it returns the expected value of function f after the transition omega starting from state x. We illustrate our definition through a simple example here. So the primitive programs are A and B, and we only have one function symbol F. The states with red circle are states whose value of F are 1, and the rest all have value 0 for F. One can simply calculate that the trace at x0 with inputs A, B and F have value 1 over 2 times 1 over 3 times the value of F at x2, which is 1 over 6. Similarly, one can calculate the trace of y0 at with the same inputs. And since these two values are different, we say that these two pointed PBDL models are not trace equivalent. In fact, one can notice that these two pointed models are also distinguished by some PBDL function. For example, diamond A then B, F. Notice that this PBDL function is actually looks very similar as the trace at the input of the trace we had before. So this somehow already implies one direction of our categorization result. Namely, PBDL equivalence implies trace equivalent. The non-trivial part here is that the relatively weak notion, seemingly weak notion of trace equivalence actually implies PBDL logical equivalence. And this is based on the following observation that diamonds somehow distribute the linear combination, somehow distribute over the modality here. And this will give us our first theorem, namely, PBDL characterizes trace equivalence. Next, we go on to states by simulation and event by simulation. We first have a look at state by simulation, which is more intuitive. So let's start from state by simulation between labeled Markov processes. So labeled Markov processes, as shown here, is simply a measurable space together with some transition functions on it. And labeled Markov process state by simulation is a binary relation on the state set, such that for any r-related pair x and x' and for any r-closed subset A of x, the probability of x-transit to A and the probability of x'-transit to A by program P are always the same for any primitive program P. This is illustrated by the figure here. So this y, r, y' and z, r, z' illustrates the meaning of A, B, r-closed. Namely, for any r-related pair y and y' either both of them are in A or both of them are out of A. This notion of state by simulation is actually very intuitive in the sense that they are very like the notion of by simulation in the classical case between labeled transition systems. The only difference here is that the reachability condition now is replaced with the probability of the transition. For the state by simulation between PDR models, since PDR models are basically labeled Markov processes with this red extra valuation on primitive functions, we can define state by simulation between PDR models naturally by taking into consideration this extra weight structure. So we say that besides the above conditions, we require that for R to be a state by simulation, any r-related pair should have the same value on any primitive function F, which is illustrated by the red part here. We also illustrate this by a simple example. So here we also have two discrete PDR models. The states with red circles have value 1 for F while the red states have value 0. We claim that the states xx0 and yy0 are not state by similar. This is basically because if we do want to have a by simulation relation r which relates x0 and y0, then we indeed want to relate x1 with y1 and x2 with y1. However, this is not possible because for example, y1 can transit to state y3 via B where y3 has value 1 for F. But for the state x2 via program B, it can only transit to state x4 whose value of F is not 1. This simple argument tells us that there is no by simulation which relates x0 and y0. However, one can calculate that actually these two pointed models are trace equivalents. This implies that state by simulation is actually a strictly stronger notion than trace equivalents. Furthermore, it implies that in order to characterize trace equivalents and in order to characterize state by simulation, we do need to strengthen our logic namely PBDL. The notion of state by simulation has some shortcomings namely it requires an electricity even just between labeled Markov processes. Our idea comes from the simple logic L0 which can write state by simulation for labeled Markov processes. This simple logic L0 is defined here whose key part is the yellow part. The yellow part basically does a threshold check. It says that the probability to be transferred to a state which satisfies phi via program P is bigger than the value r. r is the number between 0 and 1 here. Since it characterizes state by simulation for labeled Markov processes, and our notion of state by simulation between PBDL models are kind of natural extension of that for labeled Markov processes, we imagine that if we could add L0 somehow to our PBDL, then our new logic should be able to characterize this new notion of state by simulation for PBDL models. The difficulty here is that L0 is a boolean value logic while our PBDL is essentially real valued. So what we did is that we simply add a new constructor bigger than r for our PBDL boolean functions. And then we can express the yellow threshold check via the new PBDL plus function in green here. Essentially, it says that after executing p, the probability, the expected value of function f is bigger than r. And since f basically denotes the formula phi, so the green part basically does the threshold check as we said before for the yellow part. And here we have this new logic PBDL plus and one direction is kind of easy, namely state by simulation implies logical equivalence. The non-trivial direction here is PBDL plus equivalence implies state by similarity. We solved this by using some proof techniques which they used to prove that this L0 categorizes state by simulation. And this gives us our second theorem, namely PBDL plus categorizes state by similarity for our PBDL models. Finally, we come to the event by simulation. So the notion of event by simulation is a bit more evolved than the notion of state by simulation because it is no longer following the idea of state to state transition. Spelling out the definition and we still start from labeled marker processes. So a labeled marker process as state event by simulation is a sub-sigma algebra of the measurable space on x such that if we replace lambda with, replace sigma x with lambda, the new type of we have is still a labeled marker process. This definition comes from the observation that for a relation to be R to be a state by simulation is equivalent to having this typo to be a labeled marker process while this sigma R is the sigma algebra generated by the binary relation R. This notion of event by simulation is interesting because it has several advantages over state by simulation. First of all, perhaps one of the most important one is that the characterization is no longer required in electricity requirements. For state by simulation, this is necessary in order to prove that state by simulation has transitivity. But for event by simulation, this is no longer a problem. And secondly, from a categorical point of view, this notion of event by simulation arise naturally from cospens. Our notion of event by simulation is also a kind of natural extension of that for labeled marker process by taking into account the evaluation for primitive functions. So, apart from being a labeled marker of process event by simulation, we require that this sub-sigma algebra lambda to be compatible with our evaluation in the sense that the inverse image of any value is still an element in this new sigma algebra. So, in order to find an extension of PBDL, which categorizes this new notion of event by simulation, we still go back to AL0 categorization results. So, the previous AL0 not only categorizes state by simulation, but also categorizes event by simulation for labeled marker processes. So, somehow our PBDL is sharp, so it also expresses the threshold check. But since event by simulation is somehow a relatively weak notion of by simulation, our logic PBDL plus turned out to be too strong to be invariant under such by simulation. So, we need to add this threshold check in a more restricted way. There are more than one solution, but what we did is that we allow only new functions of the form diamond PB bigger than R rather than arbitrary F on the left hand side, where B is a Boolean function. So that we avoid over complicated structure on the left hand side of this constructor. And using some proof techniques of the AL0 categorizing results, we can finally show our third theorem named PBDL sharp categorizes event by simulation for PBDL models. Now, to summarize, in our paper, we first proved that the original PBDL categorizes trace equivalence for PBDL models. After that, we go on to introduce states and event by simulation based on the notions for labeled marker processes. These two notions, I think, are quite natural and reasonable generalization. And finally, we finally extended PBDL by incorporating those threshold checks in the AL0 and give categorization results for these two notions of by simulation for PBDL models. So, after this, we have the future work. First of all, we can have, we can, we do need to check some computational properties of our extended PBDL. Logics, for example, is that they still have small model property. And what is the, what is the, what is the complexity of doing, for example, model checking on it. And second, we have, we have a bigger plan of trying to prove some handsomina style results for generic co-algebraic dynamic logic. So, co-algebraic dynamic logic was proposed partly to prove the completeness of game logic. And actually it is a very generic picture, which includes PDL, PDL with neighborhood semantics, and also this PBDL. We have already some primitive results. For example, if, if certain distribution properties like, like, like this hold in co-algebraic dynamic logic, then our proof for trace equivalence of PBDL, our, our categorization for trace equivalence can actually work to prove that these logics also categorizes trace equivalence. Besides, we have also shown that certain notion of by simulation always preserves a logic logical equivalence of co-algebraic dynamic logic. While the inverse is obviously not true. For example, by simulation between PBDL models. For example, PBDL, like, PBDL equivalence does not imply states nor events by simulation between PBDL models. So this is basically the bigger picture that we try, we try to do. And this paper is definitely the first step towards such a goal. Thank you.


Welcome to CN Live's daily report on the substantial hearing of Julian Assange on the extradition request by the United States. Today was a long day at Old Bailey in London and it went a little over time, so we apologize for our late start. There were fireworks in the courtroom again on day two. We saw an attempt by the prosecution, by the U.S. government, with their British lawyers to narrow the focus of the charge against Assange, simply to documents that he released that had the names of informants that were not redacted. This brought an outburst from Julian Assange whose voice was heard and Consortium News was monitoring directly the courtroom video. We could hear Assange and he called out nonsense that that was not true, that the prosecution was wrong, that he was being charged for all the documents that were released. Getting back to 2010 era about Iraq and Afghanistan, this later was rebutted by the defense attorney Mark Summers who read out in the courtroom parts of the indictment. But the day started with testimony from Clive Stafford Smith, who was an American attorney. He was in the courtroom. He's an attorney who's represented various defendants inside Guantanamo Bay. And an extraordinary scene played out there in a British courtroom in a country that's the strongest ally of the United States, that there is Great Britain. And we heard quite detailed discussion of assassination programs, of torture, of rendition of war crimes committed by the United States. I think this had to make the American officials in the room, certainly the British prosecution lawyers, and most likely Vanessa Barrett's a bit uncomfortable. While this was going on, she was seen typing at her computer, whether she was taking notes or doing something else, of course this was impossible to determine. But she did not seem to be focused on the witness. Because again, this was something you don't really, you don't often hear in a courtroom in a Western country about the crimes that the United States is committed. And these were, of course, based on WikiLeaks documents that this lawyer, Mr. Smith, had used in his defense of his clients in Guantanamo Bay. James Lewis on cross-examination, he then brought up this issue that the documents that Smith had referred to, outlining all of these crimes that WikiLeaks had produced, had released, were irrelevant. They were irrelevant because Assange was not being charged on those documents.  He was only being charged on the very few documents that were, that had the names of unredacted informants in them. This is a thing the US is really pounding on. And those documents were still classified documents. So whether there were only these documents that he's being prosecuted for or not, he's still being prosecuted for classified documents. I see this as a sleight of hand by the United States to try to play both sides of this. On the one hand, they're saying he is not, and in fact, this is James Lewis, the QC for the prosecution, said, and is a quote, Assange is not being prosecuted for publishing. And this is a way to appeal to those critics of this process, which say that the prosecution of Assange is, of course, a prosecution of journalism, the publication of classified material. Not so, said Lewis. It's only about him revealing the names of these informants. And this is something I've written about and spoken about quite a bit because I, in my understanding, there is no statute in the United States, law books against revealing the names of informants. There is one about revealing the names of US government agents. Many of our viewers will remember the Valerie Flam case back in the Bush administration. She was a CIA agent whose cover was blown because her husband had written an article, an op-ed in The Times, opposing the US invasion of Iraq before it happened. And that is certainly a crime, but revealing the names of informants is not a crime about whose statute was mentioned in the indictment of Assange. Every indictment lists at the top of it all the statutes that the defendant is allegedly broken. But there's nothing in there about an informant. But finally, Lewis actually explained what the US means by this. He's saying that the names of informants are defense information that's protected by the Eskinage Act. It's a bit of a stretch, but at least I have some understanding now what the government is thinking. The fact is, though, that on rebuttal by the Mark Summers, the defense attorney, Summers got up there and read out the actual indictment. And it's clear that he's being charged with state department cables, the Iraq rules of engagement around the collateral murder video, and generally defense information that is protected that Assange has released. So it's clear that the entire indictment is not just narratives of those documents about the informants, but about all the classified information that Assange published. And what the US is trying to do again is to show that, hey, they're really concerned about the First Amendment. They're not going after him for publishing that. It's only because he's an ogre and he's a bad guy and he revealed these names, these dangerous names. Now, Lewis on cross-examination also brought up this book by David Lee and Luke Harding, two Guardian journals about WikiLeaks. And in that book, they published the password to the unredacted archive of the entire archive that WikiLeaks had given to the Guardian. And there was a password to encrypted file and this password could be used by governments and could decrypt that and they would then learn the names of informants. And in fact, it was when that happened and WikiLeaks became aware of that that they decided they would release the entire archives after it had already been exposed by the Guardian journals, so that those informants could see their names and go to safety. On top of that, we have statements on video, which I have linked to on consortium news. That's on our YouTube channel of Mark Davis and Australian journals who was there in the bunker in the Guardian with Julien Assange, with the editors of the Guardian, who were then always on the phone with the New York Times and the Spiegel, the other partners in the release of that material. And Mark Davis says, and he offered himself as a witness for this extradition process. He's not been called yet as a witness, but he's often testified that Julien Assange was the only one who was concerned at that time with the names of the informants and that he did an all-nighter on the Friday before the Sunday night publication to try to redact as many as he could. So that really needs to be put into this court because this idea that Assange was reckless about the informants is not true. The Guardian was reckless for some reason publishing that password. And yet here we have the U.S. government's British lawyer trying to say that Assange wasn't even being prosecuted for publishing, only for publishing these documents. And I think that that speaks to the public relations nature of this entire U.S. case, which is trying to smear Assange again as someone who's a really bad fellow and they endangered people's lives. And in fact, we didn't hear this in the court from Mark Summers, the defense attorney, but we know from Robert Gates that there was no damage done to any but informant that it was only embarrassment for the United States. We also know in the Chelsea Manning trial, I think it was also established that no one was damaged by the leaks that Manning had made to WikiLeaks. In fact, these very documents with names of informants in them. So there's no material evidence that any inform was ever harmed. That's not stopping the U.S. from pursuing that line in this court to try to convince the British government to send Julian Assange to Eastern District of Virginia and Alexandria. So yes, there's also the issue of the dinner that Lewis tried to bring up that at this dinner in London with the partners, with the Guardian editors and the Spiegel people, but Assange allegedly said, you know, if the informants die, it doesn't matter, they deserve it. There shouldn't be informants. Now, John Gates was an editor at the Spiegel at the time who was at that dinner and he has said publicly that that is not true, that Assange never said that. But that came from this book from David Lee and Luke Harding. And Gates is on the witness list next Wednesday. So we're going to hear from him about what happened at that dinner. And also at one point, Summers tried to ask Smith and redirect examination about the, I'm losing my train of thought here, about Luke Harding, about his fabricated articles. Of course, he didn't say what it was, but I think Summers was referring to, of course, the article that Harding's name was on, which said that from page during the Guardian that Paul Manaford, this was during the Russiagate mania, had gone to see Assange three times in the Ecuadorian embassy. Guardians never retracted that. They've never provided any evidence. There's no video evidence. It's been denied by everybody involved. And I think that's what Summers was referring to. And that got Vanessa Varate's back up a bit, and she cut him off, and she wouldn't let him go further with that line of questioning about the fabrications of Luke Harding. And at that point, Summers dropped this story and didn't go further and explain what I did earlier about how Lee and Harding revealed the password. So this is only the second day, so that might definitely come back up again, I think. Now Summers on redirect read from, yes, I said that already, but he also explained clearly that he's not, Assange is not being charged only on these documents that have performance names in them. Now I have to go to the painful part of today's session, which was in the afternoon, the continuation of testimony of Mark Feldstein, who was a professor of journalism. He was first examined across by the defense. It's a defense witness. And he made some very good points about what is the practice of journalism in terms of encouraging, controlling, pressing your sources to give you more information, or even to do something that may be illegal, to get the information that is necessary to expose government wrongdoing. Robert Perry, who was the founder of Insorted News, wrote an article back in 2010, when this was happening, when the Obama administration was considering prosecuting Assange, that he himself, as an investigator reporting, he was one of the best the U.S. has ever produced with his own contrary revelations. That Bob Perry would often encourage his sources to commit a small crime, i.e., take a government document, and then release that to prevent larger crime from being committed or exposing with crime, like a war crime, that's been committed. That's exactly what Assange did. And Feldstein was good in explaining that that was absolutely routine journalist to practice what Assange has done. But it was on the cross examination where things really went badly for Feldstein. Louis, Mark James Lewis for the U.S. side, he's obviously a very skilled prosecutor, but I'm telling you, the mercy rule should have been called at some point. A referee would have ended that fight a long time ago, because Feldstein was on the ropes, he could not respond to questions. He didn't even remember points he had made in the direct examination. It was a cross to forget for the Assange team. He withered. He never explained, for example, that Chelsea Manning under the Nuremberg principles was obliged to reveal crimes committed by the United States government. But this is not a crime, that journalists didn't even go back to his earlier points, that journalists do this all the time. And Feldstein was asking him all kinds of legal questions that he had no way to answer. And I think he was just taking advantage of a man who was totally unprepared for this cross examination and tried to get points on the record in this court that he'll be using later on that were really painful to watch because it was just an extraordinary bullying prosecutorial move. And this is what happens in these courts. And Feldstein was not prepared for that. And I think that this was, frankly, a shame because he, it was pretty much a victory for the Assange team. And yes, well, I'm just going to note here about my producer that Summers did mention briefly that the password was published by Lee in that book, but I don't think he fully exploited that. But I presume that he will later on in this court case, the Feldstein thing did not end soon enough. And it went on and on and maybe Vanessa Berets could have cut it off because they went over time. On redirect, Summers tried to get out of Feldstein a few other points that were of interest and importance about what he'd said about this being journalism and routine journalism, but Feldstein was kind of shell shocked at that point and couldn't even respond to the question from his own side. So this is what happened today and we've got three more weeks of this, but we see where the U.S. government's going. I think that for them to pound this issue of informants being endangered, that seems to be where they're going here and then trying to protect themselves from the charge that they are violating the First Amendment with this prosecution. In fact, that was a big part of the back and forth. If I could call it that between Lewis and Feldstein, that in fact the U.S. is not violating the First Amendment because Assange participated in the crime, the crime of hacking by conspiring with Chelsea Manning to hack. And of course, as he did say at one point, Feldstein, to his credit, that journalists conspire, if you use that word, conspire, then journalists conspire with the sources all the time. That is absolutely routine. And he also tried to hammer him, Lewis did, on the issue of whether this was a political prosecution or not, because in his written testimony and in the report that was produced for the court, Feldstein says this was a political prosecution. But Lewis was being just a generous and narrowing the definition of political and just electoral politics, trying to say that how would this help why did Trump do this that he think was going to help him in his campaign? And was it directed from the White House? That in Lewis' thinking, it was only a political, this is only a political prosecution. If Trump tells the Attorney General, you got to prosecute this guy. And Nixon came up in the direct examination of Feldstein that Nixon, in fact, on his tapes, we hear even using some colorful language as Nixon did to say to go and prosecute people and we have to make the destroy the New York Times and stuff like that. So there's precedent for that. And then FDR, which is interesting that came up, tried to prosecute a journalist in Chicago, but the grand jury did not return the indictment. And Lewis used that as an example to show that the grand jurors are a barrier to a political prosecution. Well, that is just a totally different case. And it doesn't really apply to Julian Assange's case. In my view, politics is more than just electoral politics. It's about policy, but upholding US policy, their foreign policy, what we're dealing with here. And when Mike Pompeo, and also the reputations of American officials and the United States itself, this is deeply political because it deals with policy and political reputation. And this is what I think was wrong of Lewis to just talk about electoral politics. When you look at Pompeo and the speech he made or sections from the revelations of WikiLeaks and to destroy an enemy, this is the motivation. And I think that falls under the category of politicization. Also, they could be looking for proper conspiratives. But the fact that the grand jury continued was a big issue for Lewis in showing that you cannot say that the Obama administration did not want to prosecute Assange. They did want to prosecute Assange, but they did not. And the reason given by two high DOJ officials to the Washington Post, and that became a contentious issue about how much of this Washington Post article, Feldstein actually quoted in his report on how much he didn't, Lewis trying to undermine his status as an independent, impartial expert. In fact, he was saying he was not an expert. He was only giving an opinion. So the fact is that the Obama administration did not prosecute. He was trying to say that in the end of the day, that's the proof that they did not want to prosecute. And they couldn't because of the issue of prosecuting other major media for doing the same thing Assange does. I think the first time I saw a smile on Mark Feldstein's face was when Vanessa Baraitza said that court is adjourned. He was quite relieved. And it was so was I, to be honest with you, watching that. So tomorrow starts day three. We may have Daniel Ellsberg as a witness. We may not, but he's on the list. And that should be interesting because Pentagon Papers came up today as well. Nixon. So we will go back into that. These are the general themes that were dealt with in today's session. And until Feldstein's meltdown, it looked pretty good for Assange because I think they demolished this idea that the only documents Assange is being prosecuted for, the ones that mentioned the informants, and that issue is going to be key to this substantive hearing over the next couple of weeks. The issue of the informants and what Assange did or did not do about that and whether that is actually a crime, it's not on its own. It is a protected part of defense information that Espionage Act protects. But to say that they're not going after and for publishing, well they're going after for publishing those documents that had informants names in them. So they are prosecuting him for publishing. That was key to today's testimony about what journalists do, whether Assange has done that and whether he's committed a crime or not. So this obviously has not been settled after day two. And we will see you tomorrow, hopefully at our promise time, 12 noon, east and five British time, but the court did run over and we will pick up this tale tomorrow. For CN Live, I'm Joe Laurier reporting.


hing to speak today? All right with that we'll close open forum and move to new business Claire. Is there anything That you have to share with the board for any business Great. Anyone else from the board? Steve? So my um, want to talk a little bit about my my lunchtime my latest lunchtime reading Which is um material related to boston squares and streets zoning initiative So this is sort of their effort to you know, their first step in trying to modernize your zoning hub and There were two um, there were two things um That I came across that I thought were were interesting and that might we might want to consider at some So sometimes we um, or perhaps me more than maybe some of my colleagues have been torn by the The words open space in the different ways and the ways we Use those same words to mean different things in different parts of our by-law um the boss there boston's draft zoning of draft zoning it has a They use a little bit of a different verbiage for private Outdoor space that's open to the sky, but accessible to members of the public. They will call it Public open space But other portions of the parcel that are not accessible to the public. They refer to this as amenity space This could be a backyard. This could be a balcony. This could be a rooftop. I just thought it was a nice training the other is um With mbta communities we tried to You know come up with a list of active uses for ground floor This is this sort of thing is very much at the center of what they seem to be trying to do and their use cable has a whole section called active uses So anyway, those are that's great. Yeah, and is some of the dimensional regulations like They include things like floor plate size so you don't end up with too large of a building on on a single parcel and things like The length of unarticulated solids, which we kind of we have some of that. Yeah, but yeah, it's it's a niche It's um, you know, it's it's a zoning bio. It's a it's a zoning ordinance So it's dry reading, but it's an interesting dry reading. Great. Thank you, Steve. Anyone else? All right, um with that I think that takes us to uh, see if there's a motion to adjourn So motion All right, we'll take a vote starting with steve. Yes, gene. Yes, shena. Yes kin. Yes, and I guess as well this meeting is adjourned Thank you


Bismillah alhamdulillah wa salatu wa salam ala Rasulillah. So I wanted to go over a little bit about what we ended the discussion with in our discussion portion last week. There was a sahaba, a companion of the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. He had a drinking problem. And it was interesting to see how that case played out in the time of the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. And he was not somebody that was distant from the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. He was somebody that had an interaction with the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. And his story comes in Sahih al-Bukhari. And it even says he used to make the messenger of Allah laugh, not just once. He used to make him laugh on multiple occasions. So the first point that I wanted to highlight is that this was a man who had a relationship with the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. And he would continuously be bought back in for being found drinking and charged for it and get the penalty for it. Despite that, the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam didn't shun him.  And if it slips, it's not a pattern of behavior. But here we see the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam laughing and interacting with this Sahaba. So the story goes on and he would be bought repeatedly in charged with drinking and he would be sentenced with the penalty, which shows that he had a problem drinking. It wasn't just one time he was charged, he faced a legal consequence and he was able to stop and move on with his life. Now, what's interesting on one of the many times he was brought in and charged with this crime, a man cursed him or some people cursed him. And the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam responded to them and he said, don't curse him. He said, don't curse him for by a law. I know he loves a law and his apostle and his messenger. And I found this to be so interesting because the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam could have responded in so many different ways. But despite that, this is how he responded. He responded by not approving of that criticism. But he responded by, number one, disapproving of it and speaking out against it, but then number two, highlighting an important aspect of this person, which was that he loved the messenger of a law and he loved the law. And the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, I know it, I know he loves them. And what's interesting is that this love is what transforms people. This loves what transforms behaviors.  They transform their schedules, they set up their whole life around this love. But what's interesting is when we see people change, when we see people with an addictive behavior change, I don't see Muslims change because they've been criticized so much that they've met a threshold of criticism that then they just met that critical threshold and changed. I don't see Muslims that are lectured so much or they feel so guilty that they meet this threshold to change. But what I commonly see so much so that it is like an old story is Muslims that have a spiritual experience, they find a peace in the Dean, they find a sweetness in the Dean, they find love in the Dean. And I think the most important thing to recognize is there is a sweetness that is in the Dean. By the way, before I move to this part, what's interesting about, I have to say this, what's interesting about that Sahaba was he wouldn't meet criteria for addiction based on the diagnostic statistical manual, the psychiatry handbook that kind of judges who gets what diagnosis. There's 11 criteria for addiction and he meets a criteria for addiction. So if we're struggling with an addictive behavior, we have somebody with that addictive behavior. He continued to use despite legal consequences, he continued to use despite not wanting to, he lost control of it, he continued to use despite loving a law and his messenger and it disrupting that relationship. So he continued to use despite disruptions in relationships, legal consequences and loss of control. All right, so this sweetness, this pleasurable experience, the spiritual experience exists within the Dean. Again, in Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was reported to say, none will find the sweetness of faith. La yajidu ahadun halawat al-iman. None will find it, the sweetness of the faith until three things happen. Before we go into those three things, I wanted to highlight that first of all, there's a sweetness to iman, halawa. Islam has been in so many different countries. That's where halawa for some reason transmits over to every culture, every language where Islam has touched. So we know this, we know sweetness. Sometimes we don't know though, that there's a sweetness in iman. Sometimes that doesn't get transferred over to cultures as cultures are an important mechanism to pass religion from generation to generation. Sometimes it becomes about social pressure, maybe even social control, just ritual, like this perfunctory motions that we go through and we forget that there's a sweetness to it. And if we can experience that sweetness, it can really drive and change us. So the second point is that, not only is there a sweetness, it's something to be found. You got to look for it. And you don't find it until these three things. And what's interesting is there's a lot of seeking that happens with addiction. A lot of us are seeking an experience with our addictive behavior and the addictive behavior works until it doesn't. For many of us, the addictive behavior is a placeholder for a deeper experience. So a lot of people think once I got sober, then I had a spiritual experience and then life changed. But oftentimes as time progresses and we peel away at the onion more and more and try to figure out like, how did this happen in the first place? And how do we continue to maintain the gains that we've made in recovery? Oftentimes it requires to continue to peel away the onion and figure out the reasons that drove us to use in the first place. And as we do that, many of us realize that addiction was not necessarily the spiritual experience or the seeking didn't happen after sobriety. Although it sort of is paramount and obvious after sobriety. A lot of times people find that many of us the seeking started with the addiction. Like our journey to a lot didn't start after sobriety but we were looking back as we look back we might find that we were seeking something through that addiction. Maybe when we started to rebel against our circumstances maybe when we started to challenge societal norms maybe when we said, no, I wanna seek something more there's something more meaningful here or there's something meaningless here or no, this doesn't seem real here. And our addictive behavior was oftentimes we find out part of a larger trial and error process until we found that something more. So it was like experience but now it didn't it works for us until it doesn't and then we seek a different experience a different experience, so on and so forth. So a person won't seek fine the sweetness of Iman until what?  The prophet says, no, he says until three things till he loves a person and loves them only for the sake of Allah until he experiences love for an individual and he only does that for the sake of Allah not reciprocation, they do me good I do them good not like what is the angle here of this relationship but just giving just giving only for the sake of Allah. The second thing is the second thing mentioned is or one of the things mentioned is till he loves Allah and his messenger until Allah and his messenger becomes more beloved than anything else. So again, love. So loving others, loving Allah and his messenger this is where the sweetness comes in and then the third until it becomes dear to him to be thrown into the fire then to go back to that life without love. Yeah, I need until it's more beloved that he goes back to gets thrown into fire. That's more beloved to him than he returns to Kofo to in gratitude and disbelief after he finds that love. So it's important to recognize that as we talk about how we can change this is a primary way by which people change is by finding a spiritual experience therapy, medications, peer support groups. All of these things are incredibly important. For many of us they're important. And for many of us spirituality is an important part to when integrating into the process to get us there but then really keep us there and make recovery worth it and make recovery worth it. So then how do we develop this love? And that's the question. How do we develop this love within ourselves? It's through getting to know Allah and His messenger. So to know them is to love them. And if our love is deficient it might be a deficiency in us knowing them. And one of the best ways to develop this is to spend time with people who know how to develop this love or who develop this love or other people who are passionate about this and then just getting some of that passion.  So spending time with the people that love Allah spending time in the gatherings of learning and remembrance, spending time with learned people spending time with people who can get you excited about Allah and His messenger. Spending time with people specifically that are learned and have worked on themselves and then can teach you how to think about the world and frame problems and problem solve. So again, coming back to what we've been talking about in these sessions and then a great segue into the text is a lot of this again is changing our thinking to change our behaviors. One way is to engage in the language of therapy. Another strong way that affects our thinking is being in company or seeking out good company and or seeking out company that helps us develop these thinking and these emotions within ourselves and through that behavior changes and perhaps the strongest emotion is love. So if we wanted to change our thinking to change our emotions to change our behavior then it's important for us to utilize one of the strongest emotions and get some of those thinking patterns that leads to that love which is strong enough to change that behavior. So we've been talking about chapter five in the workbook and we've been talking about triggers and urges, identifying triggers, the role of thoughts in relapse into our addictive behavior. We've been talking about distorted thoughts on page 92 how to catch them and challenge them. We've been talking about red flag thoughts, how to catch those dangerous thoughts that are more imminently threatening, how we think and feel and our ability to abstain from our addictive behavior. And then we started talking about responding to these thoughts and outsmarting our nefs, outsmarting our addictive brain. And we started going through different case examples and then we moved into chapter six. So we went through some case examples last session. What I'm gonna do is leave that up to us to continue to read and exercise that ability to challenge those thoughts.  It's like a really high yield portion of this chapter because it's a table that goes through thought areas and responses. So it sort of just gets to it. Like we've went over the concept, we've went over a couple of case scenarios and went to apply them. And then it goes over, okay, so what are some common thought errors that come up? And what are some of the responses that we can use for them? So I'm gonna go over a few of them. Number one thought error that we've discussed in the past is black or white thinking. The thinking is I messed up everything at work. I might as well engage in my addictive behavior. The response would be, did I mess up everything? Can I swear on that in the court of law that I messed everything up? Would a video camera catch that and also show that I messed everything up? And then we challenge that with everyone makes mistakes sometimes and engaging my addictive behavior isn't gonna fix it.  And then we went over discounting the positive, jumping to conclusions, taking your feelings too seriously and the response to I feel hopeless, therefore my life must be hopeless. I might as well engage in my addictive behavior is the thought challenges. Just because I feel a certain way doesn't make it reality. Feelings can and change and engaging in my addictive behavior won't change my life situation. It'll actually make it worse. And then self blame. This is a big one. Self blame, that's illogical. Not self blame or centering the self that's logical and constructive. Self blame that's incessant and doesn't leave to any constructive outcome. The thought challenge that the thought is, it's all my fault that I engage in my addictive behavior.  A thought challenge can be simply, I have a disease or a spiritual disease or something that brings about more compassion within yourself, a framing of the problem that brings about more compassion or humanities to the problem. I have a problem and I'm taking positive steps to recover. It won't happen overnight, but I can turn things around if I abstain from my addictive behavior. This is a big one because people, this is a marathon. Persistence is a series of short races. It's not one long race. So just because we went to treatment once before or just because we tried at this once before doesn't mean that now we crossed it off the list and we can never do this. It's all over. The reality of the situation is this requires persistence, a trial and error process. It's like exploring anything in life. It's like exploring anything in life.  And that's how you continue to move forward. When people think this is an easy thing and they want an easy explanation for it, they don't manage their expectations of this and they tend to not do well. And then labeling. So I engage in addictive behavior therefore I'm just a loser.  It means that if you take care of yourself and your condition, you can recover. So when we say that this is a disease or this is a strong habitual problem that doesn't necessarily mean now that is an ability to just say, oh, well, I have this problem. Here's my card, my health card. You got to understand I have this problem. Nobody's saying that. None of us are saying that. And that's where this disease concept or this spiritual disease concept or this habit concept gets lost. What we're saying is we have a problem and we are recognizing we have to take responsibility for that problem. So somebody with diabetes, they don't just say I have diabetes. I'm gonna call in from work. I'm gonna miss out on my responsibilities. They say, I have a diabetes. I have an added responsibility now to make sure I take my insulin three times a day, make sure I change my habits around my nutrition and make sure I take monitor myself and my glucose and each time there's a change in my sugar, it's my job to monitor that sugar. So I make times out of the day and monitor that sugar and I adjust according to that because I have a disease. So you take a responsibility for that by the treatment. So you're actually not taking away responsibility or adding responsibility. So labeling ourselves, I engage in addictive behavior or I'm just a loser or I'll always be like this. That's not okay. Then we talked about the spiraling relapse and then there's exercise 6.2, putting your red flag thoughts on trial and then there's thinking versus doing and then there's some great exercises. We've left off exercise. We were gonna postpone exercise. So I'm gonna postpone some of these doing things as well. Exercise, meaning physical exercise and it's strong impact on addictive behaviors. I'm gonna leave some of these other doing things till next time. So it's like keeping a schedule, using distraction against our addictive behavior and then also physical exercise has an incredibly strong impact on how we engage in our addictive behavior. So Insha'Allah with that, we'll start with questions. If there's any questions, we can go with questions and then we'll go to the check in Insha'Allah.


Hey, I'm Andrew Connell. This video is an overview of one of the chapters in my course, Mastering the SharePoint Framework that's available for purchase on my site, boytanos.io. This overview video is going to give you an idea of everything that the chapter covers. You can learn more by checking out the description and the notes below the video. If you've got any questions about this chapter or about the course in general, just make sure you drop a comment below the video and I'll be sure to get back to you. So with that, let me get out of the way. Enjoy the overview to this chapter. Client-side web parts historically have only been able to be used as relatively small boxes of functionality on SharePoint pages. But in this chapter, you're going to learn how to leverage them in alternative ways, including as full-page applications, otherwise known as single-page apps or spas, and even as custom tabs inside of Microsoft Teams and maybe even other options as well. So in this chapter, you're going to learn how you can leverage SharePoint framework, client-side web parts, and more than just SharePoint. So what exactly are we going to cover in this module? In this chapter, we're going to focus on a couple different scenarios. We're going to first focus on leveraging the SharePoint framework web parts as custom tabs inside of a Microsoft Teams application. And then we're also going to see how we can leverage a SharePoint framework web part as a full-page application inside of SharePoint. So let's dive in and see how we can do this.