Now look, I was going to save this story for today's Prime News, and it would have probably made for a really sick headline, but I gotta be honest, when it comes to Nintendo Switch 2, I don't like waiting and sitting on things for hours and hours on end, especially when it comes from a reputable place, and it's something that is worth talking about for two reasons. One, because this adds direct evidence to a few things, including the power of the Nintendo Switch 2, because this is not a speculative thing at this point. This is literally coming from an actual game developer in public documentation, thanks to a legal court case. Yes, folks, this has to do with Microsoft versus the FTC, and there are some emails that have now become publicly available that actually discuss at length the next generation Switch from Nintendo, and we're not just talking about like, oh, they're just talking back and forth and guessing what it is. No, they had actual meetings with Nintendo's president, Shintero Furukawa, to talk about this next generation Switch. Guys, this is huge for a few reasons, but not huge for the reasons you're seeing in the headlines. That's right, there are headlines running around about this that are misrepresenting what the actual information is, and ignoring the context of what's actually important. So before we dive into these actual Nintendo Switch 2 details that come directly from Nintendo via Microsoft, we need to first remind you that, hey, if you're enjoying this video, I'd appreciate if you would subscribe to the channel. We are trying to get to 150,000 subscribers this year. If you're enjoying the content, I would love if you gave it a like, and yeah, guys, go ahead and hit that bell so you can be notified of all future uploads and live streams. All right, so this is actually published over at The Verge, and we're gonna read a little bit of this article, not the entire thing, we'll link it down below. But I wanna make sure we have some context here. So it says rumors of the Nintendo Switch 2 announcement have grown recently after reports of developer demos at Gamescom last month. Now we know that Activision was briefed on the next generation Nintendo Switch last year, thanks to internal emails from the FTC versus Microsoft case. Activision executives, including CEO Bobby Kotek, met with Nintendo executives in December of 2022 to discuss a next generation Switch in an internal email chain. Chris Schackenberg, head of Activision's platform strategy and partner relations, prepared a summary of the Switch Next Gen inside a document labeled Next Gen Switch Draft. This document is heavily redacted, but it does reveal that performance of the next generation Switch will be close to that of PS4 and Xbox One. This, that line there is actually where the misinformation comes from, but let's get into the actual quotes from the email. Given the closer alignment to Gen 8 platforms in terms of performance and our previous offerings on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, it is reasonable to assume we could make something compelling for the next generation Switch as well. It would be helpful to secure access to development hardware prototypes and prove that out nice and early. The executive briefing summary and preparation materials were then sent on to Kotek ahead of the December 15th meeting with Nintendo CEO and President Shintero Furukawa. Kotek went on to testify in the FTC versus Microsoft hearing that he regretted not bringing Call of Duty to the Switch. Now, the big thing to note here is obviously none of these emails contain what Bobby Kotek and Shintero Furukawa talked about directly, right? He met with them on December 15th of 2022, specifically for the next generation Switch. Nintendo had sent some briefing material so they knew basically what the meeting was going to be about, what they were going to get into, and it was the person who prepared that briefing material that revealed that it is, well, as their own word said, closer in alignment to Generation 8 platforms in PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. Now, this closer to alignment stuff, let's correct the misinformation out there. There's a lot of headlines out there saying that Nintendo Switch 2 is as powerful as a PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. That is not what the email says. The email says closer to alignment. They're obviously talking about the fact that the Nintendo Switch itself is not that close in power to the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, whereas this next Switch is much closer to alignment with that. It's not, you know, including DLSS. It's not including all the core features. Bobby Kotek himself is literally on record at the FTC versus Microsoft case. He's on record there saying he doesn't actually know what the specs of this thing was and they did not have dev kits. Now, this was like back in earlier this year. This was before dev kits were obviously being sent out to a lot of companies. But there's a few things we do learn from this. One, and this is just reaffirmation. This is going to be a Switch device. Okay, so let's just put the nail in the coffin on this. It's going to be a Switch device. There's a lot of people out there that still try to argue that we don't know that this is even going to be a hybrid handhelds, you know, Switch-like device. It is going to be that. It has been legally referred to in the FTC versus Microsoft case as Switch Next Gen. And by the way, we now know that this wasn't just speculation on their part. This was because Bobby Kotek met directly with the president of Nintendo to talk about this new hardware. All right, so guys, this is a next generation Switch. We, whether Switch is in the name of the system, we don't know. But it was being referred to as a next generation Switch because it was described to them by Nintendo themselves as a next generation Switch. So we can kind of put the bet, you know, for any of the doubters out there that this wasn't going to be a Switch-like device. Another thing that we do know, and this could lead maybe to some credence of this platform coming out in earlier 2024. Again, this is a bit speculative, but it's based on a fact. Nintendo was talking to big name AAA publishers last year. Now towards the end of last year, but still last year about the next generation device. Nintendo was already at the end of 2022 reaching out to big name AAA publishers to convince them to support the Nintendo Switch too. Now, obviously trying to convince them to support it without a dev kit, that's gonna be a little hard, but at least convince them to order dev kits so they could try to put their games on there by arguing what the capabilities of the system are gonna be. It's even possible, you know, those demos that we heard from Gamescom, that could have been shown to Bobby Kotek last year. And we don't know, because there's not an email that, you know, everything's so redacted. We don't really know what Nintendo was showing last year, but it's possible that Nintendo was already showing off these demos to major third party publishers last year. So I'm just throwing out there. And what we've really learned from this is, one, that Activision seemed pretty pleased with whatever this was going to be, right? Closer in alignment to PS4 and Xbox One. This is in comparison to the original Switch. You gotta have that full context. Like, yeah, the current Switch isn't that, you know, not even close to on par. This new thing is gonna be much closer to being on par. Could even exceed it. Again, this is end of 2022. But what's really interesting, obviously, is that Nintendo was talking about this platform last year. And if they were talking to major publishers, it does suggest Nintendo had a plan for transition in place as early as late 2022. People talk about how, let me put it this way. I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of gamers online, a lot of podcasts with fellow content creators. And there seems to be this assumption that Nintendo doesn't know when they're launching their platform, that they're playing it by ear, that how well the Switch does this holiday or how well tears of the kingdom cells or Mario Wonder is going to change Nintendo's plans. When reality is, Nintendo has probably had these transition plans in place for over a year. They probably knew in 2022 exactly how they were gonna handle transitioning to the next platform, including when they were planning to actually launch this thing. So again, it's not much that we learned today, but it's important to understand that Nintendo's been talking behind the scenes to big name companies since last year about this platform, delivering dev kits to some of them significantly earlier than July of this year, but to a larger chunk of them at July of this year. Companies who weren't interested or already knew about the dev kits got to find out about these dev kits and probably get orders in and all that stuff at Gamescom this year with demos selling them on wanting to get dev units of this. Big name companies like Capcom that probably had dev kits for a long time. And we obviously have all the reports of March, March. What does March mean? March something coming out of Gamescom, which could be the potential launch of the system if not the reveal of the system. So everything is lining up right now. And obviously how powerful this thing is. Look, yesterday we talked about Bulgar's Gate 3. That was a big deal. Potentially coming to Switch, showed some of the evidence behind that. We've already obviously heard about the Matrix demo and stuff like that. So the point I am just bringing up here is this, the headlines are wrong. The headlines are telling you guys it's as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox One and it very well could be by the way, its raw performance output could be that. Of course, most reports have it a little bit better than that, but that's besides the point. Obviously none of this includes the modern features like DLSS. So what I'm trying to explain here is all this email really confirms is that Activision Blizzard was very happy with what Nintendo was telling them that this is a Switch device and Nintendo's been talking to big companies about it since last year. All right guys, I'm Nathan DeRoba Jants from Nintendo Prime. I wanna thank you so much for tuning in and I'll catch you in the next video.


In this example, let's evaluate the integral of the function x over x squared minus 5x plus six with respect to x here. This is a rational function. So in order to find the anti-derivative, we're gonna probably gonna have to use the technique of partial fraction decomposition. We wanna rewrite this rational function as a sum of polynomials or partial fractions, proper fractions. Proper meaning here that we want the numerator to have smaller degree than the denominator. In this situation, the numerator has a degree one, the denominator has a degree two, so this is a proper fraction. So we can skip any need to use polynomial division of any kind. So the next thing we need to do is we're gonna have to decompose this rational function into a sum of partial fractions, each of which will be of a form that we can integrate, because that's our goal. We wanna decompose this thing so we can integrate this. And decompose here, it doesn't mean like there's some dead raccoon on the side of the highway. What of course it means is we wanna break this up into smaller, simpler pieces. So with this decomposition, step one, what we need to do is we need to factor the denominator. It's a crime when someone leaves their denominator unfactored like in the situation, but we can live with it. We need to factor the denominator, in which case here that is we're factoring x squared minus five x plus six. This situation's not so horrible. We have a quadratic trinomial whose leading coefficient is one. So we're looking for factors of six that'll add up to be negative five. So we can take negative two and negative three. Notice if you were to FOIL us out, x times x is x squared, negative two times negative three is a positive six. And then if we get negative three x and negative two x, that adds up to be negative five x. We found the correct factorization, this we need to know, all right? The next thing we need to do is we need to find the template, the template for our partial fraction decomposition. Now, back in the early days of Microsoft Word, if you were typing something on your computer, like dear Bartholomew, there was a little animation of a paper clip, clippy, who would appear and tell us things like, oh, it appears that you're trying to write a letter or oh, it appears you're trying to write a resume. I can offer you some templates, which a template means that we want something that's already pre-structured, right? The formatting is done for us. We just have to sort of enter our specifics. Like if we were writing our resume, we would type in our name, our experience, work experience, our skills, things like that. So for partial fraction decompositions or PFDs for short, they have templates as well. And the templates can be based upon the factorization of the denominator. So for us, our template X over X squared minus 5X plus 6, the template's gonna have the following. Remember, we're trying to decompose this into fractions, which will be any easier to integrate. And we're gonna get two fractions that coincide with the two factors of the denominator we found before. So the first fraction will have as its denominator X minus two and the second will have as its denominator X minus three. But what the numerators are, we'll come back to those in just a second. So let me kind of explain why it's gonna break up like this. Because if we were to add two fractions together, if the first fraction's denominator was X minus one and the second denominator's fraction was X minus three, if we add these together, we'd have to first find a common denominator. The least common denominator would be their product, X minus two and X minus three. And then we could add these things together. So if this fraction right here is a sum of two partial fractions, it must have been the case that one of the fraction had a denominator of the first factor and the other fraction had a denominator of the second factor. So we can add those things together. But what are the numerators gonna look like? Well, this is the idea of why it's important that this fraction is a proper fraction. If we have these two, if we have a proper fraction right here, then we can assume it's a sum of two proper fractions themselves, that is something less than one, right? So by adding together two proper fractions, we get a proper fraction. Now if the first denominator is X minus two, if it's a proper fraction, that means its numerator has to be a degree less than one, well the only option there would be it's a degree zero polynomial, which is a constant. So we actually know there's some number on top. We'll call it capital A for the moment. We get some capital A and then for the other one, there's some other capital, which we'll call it B. And so this right here is our template based upon the factorization X over X squared minus, X over X squared minus five X plus six. It'll break up as two partial fractions, something over X minus two and something over X minus three where those somethings are gonna be real numbers. All right, so now we have our template. We're pretty good. Now that you look at the template, the template itself is an equation. And so the step three here is you're gonna clear the denominators in this equation above, clear the denominators. That is you're gonna multiply both sides of the equation by the LCD. So on the left hand side, you multiply by the LCD. On the right hand side, you're also gonna multiply by the LCD. Now on the left hand side, the least common denominator is of course, just X squared minus five X plus six, that is X minus two times X minus three. So they'll cancel out indiscriminately. On the right hand side, you're gonna have to distribute this thing through.    And there should be some cancellation that happens here. For the first fraction, you notice that X minus two cancels out with the X minus two in the bottom. And for the second partial fraction, the X minus three's cancel. And so doing this, our simplified equation won't have any more fractions. It looks like X equals A times X minus three plus B times X minus two. So all of the fractions are now gone. And that's to say we've simplified and we've simplified by clearing out the denominators in a manner similar to this, right?  So the next thing we wanna do is we wanna set up a system of equations, system of linear equations. So set up a linear system. So how does one go about doing that? What we're gonna see is the following. What I want you to do is take these coefficients A and B and distribute them through here.  Now looking at this equation, I want you to be aware that we have some variable X and it's a variable that means its number is allowed to vary. X could be one, it could be two, it could be three. It could be lots of different assignments, right? Now the numbers A and B aren't variables in fact. I mean, they're unknowns, but they're not variables meaning they're not allowed to vary. There's only one choice of A that's gonna work. There's only one choice of B that's gonna work. We just don't know what they are right now and we're using the symbols A and B as placeholders for what those are gonna be. And so the reason I mentioned that distinction here is if we try to combine like terms on the right-hand side, X is our variable. We add together things like AX plus BX. So how do you add together AX plus BX? We'll just add them together. A plus B times X. Now we don't know how to simplify A plus B yet because we don't know what A, B and R but we can add together the coefficients of X. And we can also add together the constant terms. Negative three A and negative two B don't involve X whatsoever. So this would be considered a constant. Negative three A minus two B. This is what the right-hand side is gonna look like. The left-hand side is much simpler. You end up with one X plus zero. Now you don't typically write the one and the zero here because it's implicit but the reason I wanna do that here is to make a connection. That when you look at the right-hand side, the coefficient of X is A plus B. But on the left-hand side, the coefficient of X is a one. And the only way these two polynomials could be equal to each other is if their coefficients are equal. We have to equate these things together. And so we actually get the statement that A plus B, the coefficient on the right, is equal to one, the coefficient on the left. Now we can also do this for the constant term as well. On the right-hand side, the constant term, that is that term that doesn't involve any X's whatsoever, is a negative three A minus two B. On the right-hand side, it's a zero. And so the only way that these two polynomials could be equal is if these are equated as well. In which case we didn't get negative three A minus two B equals zero. And this now gives us a system of two linear equations with two unknowns. And there's a couple ways one could try to solve this system. We could use elimination, substitution, we could use matrices, determinants. There's a couple of ways and many of you might have seen this in the past, but that actually gives us the next step in our process here. Since we are on step four. So now step five here is we want to solve said system of equation. And again, there's a lot of ways that one could go about doing this. I'm gonna solve it just by elimination. So I'm gonna take the first equation times everything by negative two. Upon doing that, your system of equation will convert. You'll get negative two A minus two B. I'm sorry, I wanna do a plus two. So we're gonna get plus two A plus two B is equal to two. And then the other equation is negative three A minus two B equals zero. The reason I wanna have a plus two is I want that when you combine the terms that one of the coefficients is opposite but equal. So we have a two B and a negative two B. So when you add those together, the B's will cancel.  Solving for A, we then get that A is equal to negative two. Like so. And now that we know that A is negative two, we can actually plug that into our previous equation and solve for B. We get that negative two plus B is equal to one. So add two to both sides. We see that B equals three, one plus two. And so with that in mind, we have A and B. Remember, these were coefficients of our template. Coming back above here, we have this template right here. So we can now substitute the numbers A and B in what we found here. So I'm gonna just put that down here. So remember, we're trying to calculate the integral X over X squared minus five X plus six DX by this technique of partial fraction decomposition. We have now discovered that the fraction can be rewritten as three over X minus three minus two over X minus two. I switched the order and I wanna put the negative one second. But this is the function that we want to integrate now.  You have three over X minus three here. You could bring the three out. You're left with one over X minus three. This is where the U substitution comes into play. The antiderivative of one over X minus three will be the natural log of X minus three. And so a very quick calculation, we get three times the natural log of the absolute value of X minus three.  And this is our antiderivative here. Now, I wanna emphasize that in this example, the actual calculus that we did was fairly simple. Just using the U substitutions here. We've done this before, which is why I kinda skirted through this one pretty quickly. The calculus is actually pretty easy right here. This whole shebang came about from a very lengthy algebraic calculation. It took us a while to find this decomposition. Took a while to find the A and the B, all right? But once we found it, we could convert the rational function to this partial fraction decomposition and then find the antiderivative very quickly. So we need the PFD to help us find the antiderivative, but the PFD is the hard part of these problems, finding the partial fraction decomposition. It involves this type of decomposition process using the system of linear equations. If it's an improper fraction, it might involve polynomial division. And so these things are quite lengthy, yes, but it's a helpful algebraic tool to solve these type of problems. Now, in the next video, I wanna do another one very similar to this, but I wanna show you a different algebraic technique. If you're not a big fan of systems of equations, there is another technique one could use. So stay tuned for that.


This is JSATV the newsroom for tech and telecom professionals. I'm Dean Perine and welcome to JSATV. We're coming at you live from the show floor in uh where are we? We are in New Orleans, Louisiana at hosting con 2016 and I am here with my new friends from Zen edge. Mr and pardon me Fosto if I get this wrong it's Fosto Lenborg and Fosto is the SPP of security services for Zen edge and we have Mr Leon Cooperman. Leon is the chief technology officer for Zen edge. Did I get that right guys? You got it right. Outstanding, outstanding. So Fosto tell us how the show is going for you. The show is going great. A lot of people, everyone is so nice in New Orleans. I love the crowd. They're getting fully engaged with our products. We're doing live demos every day on top of the hour. We're showing our automation. We're showing our tools and people are loving it. It's great reception. Great show. Outstanding Fosto thank you. So Leon for our viewers that don't already know why don't you tell them a little bit about Zen edge? Absolutely Dean. So we started Zen edge to address a really serious cyber security problem. We are really short of talented security folks in the industry. By some estimates we're about a million people short in the world globally and we've got to do something about this as you know on the good guy side of the equation we have to figure out how to protect our enterprises, our governments, our industry. And so we started Zen edge as a way to combat the growing threat of cyber security incidents and our core focus and theme is really twofold. Full automation of anything we can absolutely automate and machine learning where it's appropriate. So the combination of those two things is what we're bringing to bear to the market and it's what we're demoing today at hosting con. Outstanding so you know why I came up to you guys in the first place right? I read the t-shirts you're not robots. Why don't you tell our viewers what makes you not a robot? Absolutely so if you're familiar so I am not a robot at least my you don't look like one to me. At least I think I'm not a robot but you know we could be in the matrix. When you're looking at cyber security one of the the largest threats to web applications and a lot of applications in general is automated bought access to applications and so anything from content scraping to stealing data through the denial of service where your site can go down because of it looks like a lot of people are visiting your site. So one of the core innovations that we brought to the market is a very unique way of detecting the difference between a human being and a robot and so when you're behind Xenedge technology we automatically make that determination without affecting your customer's user experience and we can tell if you're a robot or if you're not outstanding. So well done whoever your marketing person is over there kudos to that person. So what's the latest and greatest coming out of Xenedge? Bosto you want to take this? Leon who wants to take it? Yeah I'll grab this so today we're actually announcing a really cool new feature of the platform we're announcing what's called single IP and small subnet protection and with denial of service the big problem has been it's the protection has only been available to very large enterprises because of the way that routing works on the internet you need at least 255 IP addresses 254 to instantiate one of these service providers and so we we've been offering that for quite some time but the today's announcement allows small medium businesses to buy single IP addresses or a block of IP addresses if they'd like and protect those individually through Xenedge and that is a pretty radical shift in the industry and you guys are first to know about it. Outstanding we love we love to break the news like that I understand it came out like what 10 minutes ago? Yeah it's just it's just the coming out of embargo now. That's fantastic gentlemen thank you very much for joining me today and thank you viewers for tuning in to JSA-TV we'll see you soon.


We have one of the most distinguished political scientists in the United States here to discuss the question of risk, risk-free societies, and that sort of thing, a subject that is of deep interest to all people of libertarian persuasion and all people who are interested in the sorts of questions that libertarians are interested in. So let us welcome Aaron Woldowski. I think my political consciousness took on a headset after the Second World War that every single command economy would prove a failure. And the only economies that got people up from poverty had a significant market element. That would have been considered unreasonable. There would have been some on one side and some on the other, even if there was a wrong increase of market. But that would have been cruel. And the extreme version would have been exactly the nearest thing we have to it, isn't it? I suppose that's the way we'll look when Big Brother takes over. We in the industrialized western nations are today not only the richest, but the longest lived and the healthiest people in the history of the world. What we'll do with this longevity in health remains to be seen. But if one wished an association between economic and social life and degree of health, meaning a high mortality and a low morbidity, then one would say that we have chosen the right way. And yet, if you tune in to the public prints, if you read the literature and see what is happening in the public policy of the United States, you get no sense of this because it's all based on the opposite premise. Any day now I expect to see on the Berkeley campus stretcher bearers carrying away the youth of the nation as they expire from any one of a number of diseases. If you read the newspapers, new disasters from chemical carcinogens, from nuclear weapons, from any aspect of technology are invented daily. Do I kid you? Or will you not find it in today's paper? How then can we explain the extraordinary anomaly where is our health and welfare gets better and better and the news gets worse and worse? So Paul's, Joe and Paul, famous figures from the Yiddish past, have their groceries on opposite sides of the street on street corners and Joe wants to drive Paul out of business.  You think that would be effective?  But according to contemporary mores you are mean vicious and killers. How? It is not only indirectly that capitalism kills or that capitalism causes cancer, but if you'll stop to think about it, that you could not justify your beliefs if you thought that the ways of life and economic organization that you so foolishly prefer, wrought people's insights out, make their fingers drop off, give them cancer and even worse. To the degree that the argument succeeds that capitalism causes cancer, we will have lost every other argument there is and the psychology of fear that is diffused through this country. Again, this is not something you heard here as some form of high verbally. Tune in, read, listen and you'll hear. It's not made up, it is real. Its purpose is exactly Joe's purpose to drive out the social and economic system that radical egalitarians don't like in favor of one that they do like. You don't hear arguments much anymore about nationalization. They've given that one up. And you don't hear very much about socialization and they've given that one up. But the argument over the desirability of self-regulation through markets is not over, it has merely been transferred to a different playing field just as heinous deeds have traditionally been committed in the name of liberty. So too, the new doctors arrived who only want to improve your health who can't restrain themselves from protecting your safety. And what have you got to say? I have looked in vain, in libertarian literature, in literature by mainstream economists and Hayekin and others for any sort of argument on the relation between market arrangements and safety. And basically it is zero. The only thing that exists is a very weak argument that if people know something about the dangers they'll ask for higher wages. And the evidence on that one is indeterminate. When I titled this talk, Risk in Liberty, what I meant was that we are much greater danger of having our liberties taken from arguments about health and safety than we are from any other argument in our time. Like what? Can you imagine that the American people would submit to having every gas station regulated, cleaning, establishment, every garage fixed up place, virtually any place in this country that has any kind of storage tank, for example. This is called the lust legislation, leaking underground storage tanks. There were millions of them and we decided in this country as public policy to regulate them without knowing how many there were, what they contained, whether they had leaked out, whether leaks mattered to anybody, whether and to what extent they would do any damage. That they decided to do after the legislation. If we go to the social side of the street, I would say even as late as the 1950s it would have been unthinkable that the government would intervene in family life so that big people like you would stop beating those little kids. Of course I see an audience of potential child beaters here whom it is the task of whole armies of social workers and police to stop from wreaking havoc on small, defenseless little children who can't fight back. And when we are concerned about the havoc that is being wreaked by AIDS we also have to be concerned about the havoc that may be wreaked on the victims of AIDS and on what grounds, public health of course. If we don't watch it health is going to make Liberty sick. That in a way is the policy message that I have but I decided not to spend this time in alarmist talk because you can see it.  That is to say if we were decent clean living Americans and we wanted to leave our fellow citizens with better health and safety so they would not only live longer but be healthier at each successive age as has in fact been true for over a century. What sort of social and economic relations we would have? Let's start out by considering the story known to all of us of the homely potato and play the parlor game. When we were young our mothers told us quite rightly that we should eat the rough outside of the potato, the shell because it had the vitamin, true. But what mother did not know was that everything that has to that has survived evolution and that wishes to live must protect itself against predators. Plants live by chemical warfare, at least they survive by that. Therefore potatoes have a considerable amount of poison in them. Now if you were the homely potato and you had a choice and you were a libertarian potato and you were asked where should we put those poisons in the rough, dark, dirty bark or in the nice, white, smooth, pulpy center, where would you put it? The potato can stand as a very important symbol of our rationale here namely that the good and the bad things in life, that which does us good and that which does us harm are intertwined exactly in the same object. Let's suppose this were not true. Then it would be better if we had socialism. Why? Because if the question of health and safety were like this, right? If there is the tree, that's good and there is the other tree, that's sick. So there's the healthy tree and the sick tree. Why shouldn't we have a government that would choose the healthy tree? If, on the other hand, the good and the bad in life is inextricably intertwined in the same objects so that safety cannot be plucked from the tree, cannot simply be directly chosen but must be discovered and if that safety is part of a larger system with eighth, ninth and nineteenth order effects so that many of the consequences of acts are hidden from us directly then we would need a mechanism that would not make us entirely safe because that is quite impossible but would make us safer over time. Don't knock it. If the good and the bad, the healthy and the dangerous, safe and the dangerous were not intertwined in the same objects you would not need high exprocess of discovery. We could directly choose the good. Suppose we followed American public policy as it is written today in many statutes and basically that statute says that if a new substance can be shown by tests to do some harm, it must not be allowed. Well, what's wrong with this?  The point is that if you follow the rule of what I call trial without error no trial would our prior guarantees against error you will make us sick. Why would that be? So, let us contrast it of course with what we know with what is the bottom, the basis of market relations which is trial and error. That is if you don't know what the world is like and you would like to figure it out, why not pitch in and figure out how it's going to happen? You mean you're going to leave safety to the anarchy of the marketplace? Leave it to these people who are going to run hither and yawn and do God knows what? Well, if we had certainty in the world then of course again we could choose even if there was statistical uncertainty or what usually called statistical risk, namely that we didn't know we knew the kind of thing that was going to happen in the world you know, consequent upon our acts but we didn't know the probability if it's occurring then we could say we can figure out what's good in a probabilistic sense and therefore we can allow some central authority with its banks of computers and its smart people to figure out in advance what would be dangerous or not and when we see something as dangerous we would just stop it I mean one mustn't just kill people you see something as bad for people, stop it but supposing we don't have certainty and we don't have statistical uncertainty but we have something that you might call qualitative uncertainty or genuine surprise by genuine surprise or qualitative uncertainty I mean it's not only that we are ignorant of the exact probabilities consequent say upon a regulatory act or a market act but that we don't know the quality of things we don't know the kinds of things that could occur for example, possibly the best example of our time age nobody predicts it, nobody has the foggiest idea that something like age is going to occur therefore we can redraw our initial question and we might ask how can we get protection against things many of which will be bad and among there will be many things of those bad things that we have the foggiest notion would occur at all let alone what their probability of occurring would be if we follow the rule of trial without error that is of stopping things that are known to do something bad what would we do? first let's take a couple of examples and then you will see what is at stake no hospital in the world could remain open why? because of the phenomenon known as yetrogenic disease you know hospitals are not good for you if you got something real wrong you might chance it but if not hospitals make people sick because you are around a lot of germs, a lot of sick people and so on well there is a, this is significant it is a well studied phenomenon if you are going to say then that we know that people will be made sicker by going to hospitals does that mean we shut them down? hell no what we have come to understand is in large, over a larger number of cases in which some people will have the wrong leg amputated and other people will get staff infections and you know physicians will leave scissors inside people and all the kinds of stuff that happens with human beings and not only in hospitals if we were to say that couldn't be done then all of the benefits that we get from modern tech medical medicine and from hospitals would be negated for new substances that is exactly what public policy now requires let me introduce a new name for an old concept here because it helps one think properly we are aware that of the concept in economics called opportunity cost that something is worth what you have to give up for it I've coined a new word term for the same thing called opportunity benefits opportunity benefits are what you get from trial and error in the reduction of old and existing dangers see when you're thinking about new stuff you're imagining you've done just as well as you could with the world as it exists there's nothing dangerous that you want to do anything about and the question is are you going to add some danger so if you are going to say should I throw myself out of windows in front of trains every day then you get the obvious answer that you shouldn't do that so it seems that there's no possible reply to this but if you're thinking then that you are undertaking all sorts of new ventures trying new things some will do some good and some will do some bad and among the good things that will happen is that existing dangers will in fact be reduced when you don't have trial and error when you have trial without error no trials without prior guarantees against error what happens to you is that you can no longer engage in the steady reduction of existing hazards I pause for a moment my left student comes to me and says something in funny social sciences which I will interpret should I do a study of a not existent dependent variable so I say no Johnny you should not try to explain what never occurs that's too hard you should try to find some trend that actually does occur but what are we doing in the field of risk then we are trying to explain we're all getting sicker you show me the trend otherwise every accident rate now the man is down almost every medical condition has improved even with cancers if you control for age right if you would allow me my kids were young I took them down to a place with marvelous beaches along which are marvelous beaches in a good restaurant called Pescadero and has a little cemetery and one thing you learn by looking at that cemetery is whole families are gone in the early 20s and by the early 30s four, five kids and parents they're all departed at the turn of the century here right so if we see that we're all that even that in the old days people lived much shorter and now we live much longer even with cancers you know there are many different types when you control for lung cancer right for smoking then almost all not quite all go down and overall the trend is very good why aren't we explaining why we're getting down here one reason and I've tried to say that of course if you want to punish corporate capitalism then you don't want to celebrate its health-giving effects but besides that if we spend all our time trying to figure out a non-existent answer to a non-existent question why are we getting sicker then we're in danger of giving up the very mechanisms that have helped us achieve the unparalleled progress indeed the only country in the world of which it has been alleged that health rates are going down is the Soviet Union and I say alleged because the data that Nick Epistat and others have seems to be pretty good but of course it comes second and third hand since they're not allowed to go and verify it here so we ask ourselves a question that's a little bit different here I've tried to suggest to you that if we follow the trends of policy and say you can't do a new thing unless you can prove it does no harm that we're going to get sicker and I've given you a hospital example another obvious example is inoculations if you give an inoculation for a pertussin which is whooping cough some bad things are going to happen to people which we wouldn't like if it was us brain damage death may be paralysis tiny tiny proportion suppose you don't give it then you get several hundred thousand kids get very very sick so what should you do well in a way what is happening here is that all of us are engaged in a great lottery in which we're putting our kids at a tiny tiny risk in order that everybody else will have a much better chance but according to the tort laws now the laws of personal injury huge settlements come somebody gets sick too the manufacturer can get no credit for all the lives and sicknesses saved only damage the other side the tort law itself has become a form of economic redistribution there are all these liberal drudges and scribblers and they're saying damn we cannot get economic redistribution to the congress this year what are we going to do well every chance we get we're going to hit the manufacturer even economic savants because they're ignorant of cultural relations that is that they're actually people who have ways of life opposed to capitalism and who would like to use any mechanism they can they don't understand what's happening so they say look you know when you leave an economist alone with a politician you're very your chances of living it's very dangerous so they get in there and they say well Mr. Economist who is it that has the best chance of internalizing the cost of minimizing cost to society as a whole to say to a manufacturer let's put the cost in the manufacturer that's right if everybody was agreed this was a capitalist country we ought to minimize cost to society that would be super but since other people are trying to undermine capitalism what happens is something like this you have some idiot speaker here and he takes that chair and he puts this speaker stand on that chair and on that speaker stand he puts a ball and on that ball puts a tricycle and your bloody idiot speaker crimes up on that tricycle and would you believe it he falls off and breaks his neck and what does he do? he sues for a multi-million dollar settlement because the maker of the tricycle should have reasonably foreseen what use would be made of it oh no nothing like that will ever happen you don't know the wonderful cases we have of the lady who sued for getting some venereal disease not because she didn't invite the fellow home to sleep with her but because she didn't invite him to do that or the even wonderful cases for instance I try out cases on people and I found one that seems to come home to people and somebody because I've asked people what would you say wasn't somebody's fault you say well if you went to the ball game you got hit by a foul ball wrong now they get sued all the time do carry your gloves with you and don't be a social nuisance at the baseball park you see the point here that as we say that we're doing good for people's lives by preventing new things we are actually harming them because we are not permitting opportunity benefits to go on a very reasonable hypothesis would be something like this consider two classes of events one we would call low probability, high dangerous event say a explosion very bad explosion at a nuclear power plant or something like happened in India the Bhopal plant vis-a-vis the high probability you'll get a little bit of benefit out of something that is by and large more people's health will be improved than will be diminished by something a hypothesis that would put the facts is that if we suffer some low probability, highly dangerous episodes they will be overwhelmed by a very large number of small incremental good things why do I like this hypothesis because it actually explains what happens that is if it were true and we'll come to that a bit in a moment here if it actually were true then we would understand why over a longer period of time even though life is full of disasters and many bad things happen health improves year by year decade by decade and so amazingly enough does safety including all the major accidents suppose for example you do and finding no literature and you do very simple comparisons you take a look at natural disasters and you take a look at them that occur in rich countries rich industrial ones polluted, disgusting with every you know chemicals entering the body just yesterday I heard when they can't show you see that big amounts of chemicals will do anything they have to show then that very trace element you know will make you crazy what's wrong with this well Bruce Aims a very distinguished biochemist at our university has shown now that in your everyday food uncontaminated by industry or capitalism plucked from nature itself the amount of carcinogenic material by weight is over 10,000 times whatever gets into the food chain from pesticide that comes from industry I didn't say a hundred and I didn't say a thousand it's 10,000 to one plus what this means these idiot doctors not what's standing the body is likely to manufacture these chemicals that they are claiming are killing us that we are much much much much 10,000 times more likely to get them from our peanut butter, our bread and all the rest of it then we are from industry now of course if you are standing in front of a pipe that's putting out a noxious fume I don't recommend it for you occupational hazards are different there you could get thousands and thousands of times more and you would want indeed to be cautious and careful here but for the rest most of these fears are unfound look supposing you drink a glass needless I say Berkeley water good left liberal water that has chlorine in it does it not chlorine forms chloroform chloroform is a weak carcinogen aims has a piece coming out then you go you've heard right silicon valley water wells are contaminated and you read always in the paper contaminated with what how much that doesn't interest anybody or they have a term that they used to use for coming to sympathizers linked to something has been linked to well you see water wells doesn't have chlorine right and it does have other forms of dirt carcinogenic material but the question is how much isn't it well it turns out for all but two of the wells the amount of carcinogenic material is less than a glass of Berkeley water why because Berkeley water has more and that has less but from reading your papers and what these people say you get no idea of this at all so you've learned a little bit that you should ask for comparative data compared to what well we are trying to figure out how to make ourselves safer and healthier and we've got the idea that if we continue with trial and error one thing that's going to help us is the steady improvement in past hazards is likely to overwhelm the few major episodes that we have but wait a minute again this is gross and inexcusable if you know something bad is coming and you know it's not going to harm people how can you let it occur I mean how unfeeling can another human being be let me set up the formula for you if indeed you are part of a government and you do know with some probability that bad things are coming for example you could take public health measures against them and I am all in favor that why their cost per person is extremely low the good they do is very large the cost-benefit ratio is immensely favorable this of course is not what we object to remember if you follow the rule of trial without error you do know cost-benefit analysis at all you only count the costs the damage to people you are not allowed to say that ad is in some way overwhelmed by this if you do that what you are doing is condemning larger numbers of unknown people in society to much worse health indeed one of the great advantages of capitalism over mercantilism or socialism is that individuals are not allowed to say not me that is they are not allowed to set up special protective arrangements for themselves so that all the dangers have to go over as against the other people in society back again you are a good government and you are well disposed and you are not dumber than the people here and you say okay we know about some bad things so I give you rules if you know with reasonable probabilities that they are occurring and you know what to do about them so that the cure is not worse than the disease and a point I will get to in a moment the cost is not prohibitive come back to that then you should do it that is to say if indeed you do know enough about the probability of occurrence and what to do about it at a reasonable cost you should why do I set up the formula in this way because that formula is a guarantee against something else have you ever known a nervous person have you ever been one yourself you know people are always full of foreboding like Joe Bifstich in the little with that little cloud over his head and you read stuff bad news is coming government can't be like Joe Bifstich government acts let's set this up in a conceptual way let's say there are two ways to deal with dangers one is the mode of anticipation planning let's head it off before it occurs the other is the mode of resilience a term I've taken from an ecologist named Hollings bounce back the ability to learn from failure and damage how to do better what the ecological literature tells us about animals and insects is that's non-human plants those that do brilliantly in a particular strand ecological strand don't do so well when environmental conditions change but those that don't do so well in one strand often do well over a variety of strands in the same way then if you're resilient you take some punishment but you learn to bounce back if you're anticipatory you attempt to ward off the danger right like the good person should you see it coming you stop that speeding car nobody gets run over if you don't guess correctly or predict what's happening you are going to spend an enormous amount of society's resources trying to ward off dangers that will in fact never occur when we talk about these bad dangers we're thinking of things that have actually occurred to us I think it's fair to say from quite exhaustive investigation on my part and your anybody here is welcome to write to me at the political science department at UC Berkeley and tell me if you have other instances here but basically I would say that nobody has ever predicted anything important not the airplane not the computer not the chip not feminism nothing that impacts it on my life false positives mean immense expenditure many many possible bad things could happen you have to guess right it's a fair bit of the time if not what you know what an immune reaction is like I suppose some of you do we have cases examples in the literature of the human body of individuals who are not killed because the organism that invades them is lethal but because this invasion sets off every defense mechanism they've got so they kind of die by resource exhaustion that's exactly what would happen if we had a prophylactic government that is to say if we had a preventative government a government that tried to avoid our dangers again if we reasonably know what's coming like you we could have a cholera or whooping cough epidemic and so on it's a damn good idea to do this even if some people get hurt provided only one thing that we don't choose the people who get hurt it would not be right for a moral human being certainly not for a libertarian to say that you or I would be singled out but if we are taking our chances with the rest of society it is part of the essential beneficial effects of self-regulatory systems that people are not allowed to shield themselves through protective arrangements which can only be enforced by the government here again one of the good things about capitalism is we all have to take our chances if not not there's a salk and sabine vaccine one is live one is dead if you take one some nobody gets hurt but nobody else gets immunity if you take the other some people get hurt but for reasons we don't have to go into practically everybody there are some freeloaders in our society the bastards won't take the vaccine so that's a harder case isn't it because if we go with the vaccine that confirms immunity on practically everyone we cover the freeloaders that's a much harder case to cover but for most cases what we are talking about here is not singling out somebody for punishment but saying that the vaccine has some untold consequences if not now then later that we can't possibly predict if we're going to say that anybody who gets damaged by something can sue or better still stop it we will stop all progress and we will make health worse indeed the one hit theory of carcinogenesis the idea that a single molecule can cause cancer is the leading edge of our pro-safety people when you hear that nothing can do any damage that means that there is no dose response effect one molecule is enough to kill in that case anybody by claiming damage can stop anything ice minus anything if you are interested in a technologically vibrant society if you are interested in a society of change how could you manage this my last point here what is it then that is in fact responsible for the increase in health and safety that we have had what we want is a social mechanism that will interrogate the unknown that is to say that will warn us in advance of many of the bad things that will happen and if they occur will enable us to respond quickly it turns out that that is what markets do if you think of large numbers of individuals and groups engaging in small transactions they are crisscrossing society they won't guess anything if a media collides with the earth I don't suppose capitalism is going to help us but for most things they interrogate large portions of the environment at very low cost if they fail they lose they don't lose here what's back of this the best I have been able to come up with is this theory here that the health and safety of society depend on the accumulation of generalizable universal resources by that I mean wealth money information all those resources from which you can make other things not things like you stockpile and you can only good for themselves but things that are converted into other things when we have age for example the best thing we have going for us is that we have created in the last quarter century before a vibrant biotechnology industry capable of very quickly figuring out what this is about and doing whatever human life will you know and knowledge will allow if this is correct then we have a different equation it is not as in cost benefit analyses health versus wealth I never do that I never let anybody put me in that position I care about money and you care about life bad for me I do only health health analyses here if it is true and I have immense evidence that health and wealth are intimately related every single ethnic group in the world those in it wealthier are healthier between countries wealthier are healthier here a 1% dip in the unemployment rate has vast effects on health compared to practically anything you can do there is no doubt about this if wealth and health are functions of each other what sense does it make to go through all this regulation which essentially says let's make ourselves poorer in a good moral cause so we can be healthier if in fact you would believe the words of the great Sophie Tucker the red heart mama of my youth who said I've been rich and I've been poor and believe me richer is better so I have argued that richer is safer here what we have is the worst of all the worlds here in that we are being urged to deny our liberties to give other people rationales for intervention into the most intimate recesses of our lives for what to make us healthier but if we once we start thinking about it we see that this is going to make us less free and sicker and one thing more for San Francisco people here a friend of mine who talks about these matters from biochemistry says he's going to change his name from Havinder you may know him to paid industry consultant because he's going to be where he goes nobody wants to know his argument they say who paid you as if getting paid was a crime I got news for people who are concerned about the sufferers from AIDS can we have two kinds of scientists here if who pays you determines your science and not the competitive disciplines of science we don't say science is good because Joe scientist is a terrific guy we say it because there's a competitive in science here if we say that industry you can't trust anybody from industry because somebody pays you why won't they say the same thing about the medical doctors the only thing stopping a vast age panic in this country listen just observe you know what our Berkeley liberals are like oh yes I love everybody and soon as they shake hands they run into the bathroom to wash is this theory no as John Wayne would say that's not a brag that's fact because I've seen it any number of times now if we we can respect four communities of scholars and scientists which is all we got to go on here on the grounds that they are perverted by corporate capitalism which causes our cancers do we think we'll segregate it to one area of our life I think not perhaps you have some questions please we're done in polio in spring of 54 we're implemented through the volunteers in Marshall Dimes it wouldn't be possible now because of the regulations yes but at that time there weren't he didn't have to ask for any federal permission to do anything and the program of mass inoculation of social successful on the other hand 22 years later the federal government tried to implement a mass inoculation program against swine flu and was roundly cast together for it I'm wondering as the government now in almost a no win situation yes is the government in a no win situation beaten if it engages in mass inoculations and beaten if not who here has not seen last week or 10 days articles in the newspaper like this you ask economy down the tubes because of praise deficit right curse those who wish to drill our nation's bottom so to speak off the California coast right the whole point of this is to say capitalism is terrible it makes you sick and you're not even making money and I agree that government is in hard times here but there is a center point here it is quite you could have mentioned other cases for example where individuals without proper warning and consent have been subject to very bad tests for them right so nobody wants to deny that there is private or public abuse of course there is what we have to ask is what the effects of regulations will be over large numbers of cases here and I agree with the implications of your mark on the polio testing here that it is wrong to say that we can live in a world without any abuse whatsoever the result of that is the rule of trial without error right if we can't make any mistake then the only thing and you're whatever you do is damned then government say well I didn't do anything but that is of course inaction is also doing something here so this is an area that people need to know more about one of its grave difficulties is you have to become expert on too many arcane things and somebody has to be about polio and about things you never heard of how many here know that the Chernobyl accident is a direct result of testing safety systems that's pretty good most in America you see what a small proportion that is do not know this if you went to your car and you put our gasoline bomb under it and lit it you couldn't have done more to cause an accident than they did and I have a long screen on the inspection of nuclear plants to show you that in testing for safety wreaks tremendous damage now sometimes you should test for safety but in many times you shouldn't because experience and theory will tell you that if you keep testing certain devices they degrade and the chance of accident increases all this should tell you is that simply reaching for safety, plucking the right fruit is not what's necessary we need as much theory and verifications we can get we need a lot of trial and error it's not straight forward it's crooked and crabbed and indirect I think that would be a good description of market relations, wouldn't it if we knew the theories of how markets worked, why would we need them why couldn't we put them on our high speed machines and direct society that way the whole point is that we can't estimate the 19th and 900th order effects the same is true of safety with things I mean that just as you mentioned the case of women doing about venereal disease it seems to be a real problem especially with AIDS if you know that you have an infectious disease and then you knowingly that is another matter that I think you're liable just as I am not to the person who is to rule on moral questions for all of humanity I could give an answer I'm prepared to give a very difficult question that you raised here there are two ways of looking at it here in the 19th century we had such strong we had overly strong protection of market relations let me give if you went into a factory and you got cut in half I don't believe either half was going to collect against the boss I mean there was just so stringent and I've done one of the chapters in the book I have called Surging for Safety is on the tort law if we have you know if you and I were in a terrible accident God forbid and one of us got badly hurt and we would get X thousands from the other insurance company if one of us is a city you get 4X if you're a corporation you get 6 to 8X well there are several ways of doing this one way talked about in congress is to cut down the possible size of awards and to have it more like workman's compensation this may be what we have to do I am not too happy with it why because lots of people who shouldn't get do get and some who need a lot and who get a lot don't get it at all but no law can be written against interpretation if you were to read the cases that we have cited and the thousands more that we can't they're so egregious that as people are reaching you know they're all rosy birds they're reaching out of left field to say that corporate capitalism is guilty as charged and the whole purpose is to get deep pockets right to take from those who have more and give to those who have less regardless what I would like is to if I could figure out how to do it is to reinstate the idea of negligence which is what your original question suggested if a reasonable person could say with reasonable foresight that you knew about this then you ought to pay all you got or as much as it takes or your insurance or whatever that's what I would like my problem is I am not sure how to write this into law, why? I've looked now at internal briefs written by insurance lawyers and they say something like this we can't figure out any language to put in the contract that will mean what it says why? because then you see a very creative judge following Justice Brennan's idea Justice Brennan interprets the Supreme Court the way the State Department lawyers interpret the ABM treaty that is to say he'll take a look at it and he says well in the light of modern conditions we know who should pay so let's figure out how to make him do it that is it'll say well liability stops after seven years and then you will claim the clause in the judge's opinion and will say but justice requires and then you're finished so in a way I know what I would like but it's not just a matter of writing a law it's a question of whether you can get juries and judges to go back to what I thought was a medium position here that is to assess negligence in a reasonable way tort law is good for libertarians and good for markets because instead of having to guess what will do damage you can only bring suit after damage has been done so I'm all for it but a reading of what has happened is enough to make anybody wonder so in a way we know I think I know from a market point of view what the right and I think from a humane point of view what the right doctrine should be whether there is any way of writing them in is another matter who has had multiple sexual partners without appropriate precautions etc and you have intercourse with somebody else who then gets a communicable sexual disease aren't you negligent by the very nature of this and shouldn't you be subject to suit by either tort law or negligence law since I want to make sure everybody knows we're talking about hypothetical cases here I won't be able to call home aren't there any precedents for this oh yes I think that in my common law understanding of this matter for instance will you distinguish the person who does this and doesn't realize that he's doing something awful and the person who does this knowing he or she has a communicable disease and still insists upon it for instance such a person will say well only a certain proportion you know get it and so on my own preference would be which is different in saying what the law says right that this should be negligence and torture the same that this should be actionable okay but I know yes but strict liability doesn't really apply here because it means that even though you made your product well it could be used in a way that was detrimental to somebody in a way that they're not abusing it and therefore you ought to pay probably but that's a borderline case here again the problem is really not with borderline cases we could resolve the question you are talking about here what I know is that the past law will give multiple precedents if you were talking about a negligence standard then I believe that person is as negligent as can be a about themselves right and the first person to protect is one substance without that you can't protect others and then negligent towards others but what the law would do with it would take a braver person than I am more concerned here not with these individual matters though I understand they're a burning interest to people who are affected by them but to the warp and wolf of daily life I cannot think of any other area of endeavor in which people as they say from the best of motives encourage a larger number of detailed interventions into people's life than those who are now the champions of health and safety thank you very much for most of it


Hey there friends, thanks for checking in at the range now and we're going to do a Stoker world review I've got three Stoker shot guns and two Stoker handguns And we're gonna start right here with the popular probably their most popular shotgun is right here And it's a coach gun side by side double barrel 12 gauge That is a beauty with walnut furniture. This is the single trigger They also make the double trigger, but I like this because the trigger resets really quick It's easy to use break open Shotgun you can see I've got two loads of 12 gauge there 20 inch barrels the right side shoots first it has a fixed improved cylinder choke and The left shot left side shoots second with a modified choke serrated rib in the middle beaded front sight a Beautiful shotgun a lot of people love the coach gun very historical They used to use these for security of people and cargo with The stagecoach is the security person would and it also has a safety right there We'll disengage that and we'll start at the top Just like that has extractors Not ejectors And we'll go ahead and shoot this one more time I've shot all kinds of loads through this and it has performed excellent now when the action is closed It automatically goes into safe. It needs to be pushed forward to Fire we'll start at the bottom this time And I told you that that trigger resets quickly and it certainly does Nice shotgun It's a beautiful shotgun last year in 2019 Stoker released the STR 9 It's a full-sized 9 millimeter handgun that has become very popular a lot of people love this gun I've owned it from the beginning. I've really enjoyed it.  They didn't go cheap on it But they did make it a budget handgun 330 bucks with two 15 round Magazines also has a loaded chamber indicator bar that sticks up when a round is loaded I mentioned it was popular a lot of people got in on this back when they were more available and They've really enjoyed it. That's the feedback that I've gotten and I have to say I've enjoyed this as well It's a it's a nice all-around handgun for a budget price Let's go ahead and take a few shots. We'll start up top Yes, Stoker STR 9 full-size handgun with a 4.1 inch barrel Certainly has treated me well in the last year Stoker produces several hunting shotguns and a good example is right here. This is the M 3500 semi-auto 12-gauge shotgun with a 26 inch vet rib barrel the capacity currently is three because the plug is in there to Keep it to three you can see it has a honeycomb rubber recoil pad cross bolt safety the Top is top of the receiver is drilled and tapped for an optic and check out that pattern isn't that nice It's called real tree Fiberoptic front sight and the choke is a full choke made by Timberridge. It's a new machinist Producing chokes, and I think it's going to become very popular in the future, but it's a Semi-auto 12 gauge that can certainly get the job done. Let's go ahead and take a few shots. We'll start up Just like that Justin said he bought it for under seven hundred dollars and He's loved it ever since here. We have another double-bill shotgun this time It's an over under 12 gauge called the double defense a little more tactical looking than the coach gun It does have black synthetic furniture Recoil pad right there. It is a single trigger All right same break open action right here with two shells of 12 gauge Action release lever right there a rail on top and between the barrels all metal rails and 20 inch barrels that have fixed improved cylinder chokes and a green fiber optic front sight Check that out Once closed it immediately engages the safety so it needs to be pushed forward, but I I really love this thing It's a it's a pleasure to shoot. Let's start up top here Just like that And then the shells extract a little bit you can see it has some jeweling Where the where the barrels connect and it's so easy to take down to disassemble this is is simple You just take the forehand off and It comes off real easy. Let's start with the bottom this time Just like that Stoker double defense Over under 12 gauge lastly for this review, but not the full line of Stoker products is the str9c and this was just released. It's a it's a very nice handgun It takes the full-size one makes it a little bit shorter Both the grip and the barrel length that you're looking at a 3.8 inch barrel and a pick rail and everything that the full-size has But just a little bit smaller loaded 30 ounces and that's that's pretty good comes with 13 round magazines and the same trigger with a trigger bar safety in there Right there and you're looking at a reset of Right there very short trigger pull three dot metal sights metal guide rod The same deep cut slide serrations both front and rear loaded chamber indicator bar 13 round magazines and once again much like the full-size It's budget priced with an MSRP of 329 for one magazine and one backstrap. There are different packages That you could purchase this gun for but I went cheap with the one magazine and one backstrap Let's start on the bottom. I really like the way it shoots. It's very smooth and it's a nice New offering from Stoker. So there it is Stoker world firearms I hope you enjoyed the three shotguns and the two handguns that I featured here today And I certainly enjoyed it at the range if you like videos like this, please subscribe and share I always appreciate thumbs up button. Thanks for watching and you guys be safe


But, you know, I hear about how there aren't enough engineers coming out of schools. I don't hear necessarily that there aren't enough designers coming out. You're not really hearing that yet from certain parts of the business community the same kind of way. I know you're feeling it when you're looking for people to hire, but I'm not necessarily hearing it from, you know, from the top echelons of companies the same way. Well, but I think that's because there's a difference between designer as a role, as an education, where you're talking about someone that's probably doing visual or product design very, very obviously very overtly. What we're talking about is design as catch-all cloud term. And when you talk about skill set, you're actually talking about a series of skills. You know, the more complicated the world gets, the more complicated that toolkit has to become. So there's always kind of this rising tide of a few individuals that both have the deep knowledge and the skill set to approach whatever your challenge is, whatever industry you're in, there's always kind of a diminishing number of people that are at the upper echelon of that capability. So I think it's always going to be a massive war for talent from here on out. I think there are tons of designers graduating. The market is flooded with them, but there's just that one small strip that we're interested in. It's just a bend. There's so many programs now that teach design thinking, but if you can't back it up with deep skill in one area, like you can't just come in and be a thinker in an organization, it's that balance. I always say I'm looking for designers who are also builders. You have to be able to think from the start to the end and iterate, you know, in between. One of the themes that I hear and tell me if I'm wrong if there's any disagreement on this, but it's just a sense that they want the broadest set of problems to solve. You know what I mean? It's like that's the promise, that's the conversation we end up having is you'll be able to do this and this and this and this. And that's the thing that seems to spark interest. If they feel like they're going to be working on one specific client, one specific type of, you know, one notion of design, then that's often times the thing that turns them off. I couldn't agree more with Neil. I mean, it took us six months to hire our head of UX, six months, which I thought was a really long time. That's actually not bad. No, that's Robert. It's actually not that bad. But once we got that critical person in place and we were able to get through him in part to articulate, you're going to work on solving problems around health, around transportation, around energy. It became a real calling card. One of the challenges is you're bringing in a lot of these designers, they are young and it's hard to get them to sometimes see the bigger picture or the management part of what you have to do. Is that sort of a, when you're looking for these, for the designers, are most of them young? Some of the best designers I've got are right out of school, right? They've been jaded. They don't know if these aren't possible, right? And they work, work, work, and they love what they do. But they're not trained to bring a whole room together on an idea. It can be very stressful. One thing on this, and this is kind of an invisible force in this, but it's a significant one, which is how many of them want to be self-starters and not work with companies even? Yes. I mean, that's the other huge element that we're combating when we talk about the fight for talent. We have so many people who say, I can put my idea of being able to be funded within a week and a half. Or be bought by you later. Exactly. So that's another huge element in terms of work, talent, and a lot of it is youth because they're used to what we'd consider chaos. And they have a totally fresh notion of problem solving, but we are competing, but then when you go younger, you are competing with more kind of, there's more of a fight for their time and interest. One thing I think that's really interesting, having a 26-year-old, is how they look at that growth opportunity, a cul-de-sac in a big company versus staking it on your own. I mean, the life lessons are, I mean, it's hard to compete with that as an organization, that kind of freedom. And we already acknowledged that what they're wired for, the problem, the richness of the problem. So that's a tough thing. Oh, no, no. What I have found though, just the counter of that, is I think there's an appeal, and maybe I'm seeing it representing a big company, to coming into a big company that doesn't have a long history of design thinking, user experience, interaction, and feeling as though you're leading that mission. I think that can be compelling. Exactly. You're creating something. You're not a Kickstarter, but you're at GE creating a new way of thinking. So I think that can be intoxicating, at least that's what we've found. I agree. I think if you frame the purpose and the possible impact, you can create that in big companies. But back to like, why are they always, do they have to be young? I've read this somewhere. I don't know if it's true or not, but that our brains, I think it's slightly different for males and females, but they're optimal.   And it goes downhill from there. I'm like maybe half the men. Long story. Yeah, long story. So that combined with the fact that, I mean, we're in technology business, so that these guys were born native to the tools of social behavior that I can never, as much as I try, can never quite be them. So I think I pretty much give them the reins. It's kind of like, you lead, and we just get out of the way or make it so we can lead. That's how we try to tell that. I think we need to rely on that because I'm not going to do it. Yeah. It's not just about the age for us as well. We have designed in 14 countries. There's no diversity. When you're trying to facilitate or enhance human connection in coffee houses and products, where's the diversity? I don't think I've ever interviewed an Hispanic architectural designer. And we're reaching out. We're doing it. I think there's going to be a 10-year span. In about 10 years, I think there'll be more diversity. So I think that's a real problem for us, and that's something we may want to concentrate on. We all can affect positively. Everyone that works for me is under 30. And the thing that I've found is that as much as they want diversity of projects, which they definitely do, it's like the broader and the more impactful, the better. I feel like what's actually driving that when you sort of chase it to its root is this deep desire to learn, which is why they're drawn to startups. They're drawn to, and whatever environment is going to help me go the fastest is what's going to get me pumped up, because it's sort of how our brains are wired. So I basically make it my mission to both convince candidates coming in and deliver for people that work for Enterprise. You will learn more faster here than any other environment, period. Which basically means I'm competing with how much they would learn if they ran their own startup. And that creates a very serious and heavy mandate for the environment you put them in, for what you allow them to do, for the risks you allow them to do. And it's not always possible to deliver, obviously. But I think that's, my competition is basically how much would they learn at NASA, at their own startup, at a Stanford program, at Y Combinator. And how do you sort of drive that? And if that happens, if you're delivering the learning, then I think everything else just falls down. Well, everybody wants to be marked now. So everyone wants to be an entrepreneur and you're trying to create a situation where they can be that entrepreneur inside your organization or outside in any way at all. Are there, sometimes I hear about complaints about millennials that they, you know, they don't really listen. They feel like they already know everything. Is this something you guys experienced? I experienced that yesterday at the John Fair, a couple of times there. At the team fair? Yeah, at the team fair. That they feel like they're already... Yeah. I was getting emails within an hour. Like, I've launched my brand last week. Now, what's the next step? You know, it was just, it was amazing because the ambition is there, but you don't want to discourage. But there's obviously some time that has to go into building brand and fundamental things that you just need to know. So for me, what I like to do is have some of my junior designers come in. You know, the interns that are working in the office come in at some of the screen printing classes that I did a couple of weeks ago, just the very fundamental things you have to understand. You can Twitter, you can get at anybody or you want on Twitter and you can get product placement done. But do you have the follow-up? Can you actually deliver? And once I started to throw those questions back at some of the teams at my table, they froze and they're like, oh yeah, I forgot about that part. So just trying to show just the simple, simple things on how to get to these checkpoints because we've all put so many years into it and I didn't want to get offended. Like, this is 15 years into making. Like, what are you talking about? You got to put some more work in, but they don't necessarily want to hear that because there's so many tools that are accessible that can just make you look like you're doing now when you don't necessarily have all the vacuum in to back that up. We don't want everyone to know how easy, how much we're faking it all. I actually have a, I don't disagree with you at all, but what I have found is that I think you can channel their impatience in ways that are productive for them and productive for the organization. So that's what I've tried to do.  You know, early 20s came to me about a year ago and said, you know, I think GE should be experimenting on Instagram. I said, okay, there's probably something there. Why don't you go pursue that and see what it could be? She took this on her own. We're probably the top fourth, fifth brand on Instagram. Oh, thanks to her. So, you know, I think she did have impatience and I don't know. I think sometimes, again, small examples, not changing the world, but for us, it's a good move for our brand. So I don't know, to me, Bob, I think you need to kind of find the places for it or you risk millennials not wanting to be part of your organization. Use design to be provocative in your organization. It's funny how simplicity can be provocative in a complex organization. An alternative approach to the problem, a reframing, world and clarity and simplicity and ease of use are all things that need to marry with the best of technology.


Once again, all this week I'm going back to the basics using a bash shell here but most of what I'm going to be teaching will work in most other shells and bash is probably the most common at the current date.  We also learned that you can press the arrow keys up and down to go through your history and you can separate commands with a semicolon and you can get user input using the read command and then giving it the name of a variable. So name would be an example if I hit enter now, it says hello world, doesn't really ask me a question but I can type something and hit enter and then once again I can use the echo command to output the variable and we know it's the variable because it has the dollar sign before it and then the name we gave it up here so we'll hit enter and you can see it printed out the same thing I typed in up here. So that was a quick little review moving on. Let's learn about keeping the screen clean with clear. While writing out a script, you can type in clear in your command or in the shell here and hit enter and that clears your screen for you. You can also and let me just run this again so blah blah blah and then we can, so I'm just hitting up arrow to get back to my previous commands just to get some stuff on the screen here so I can clear it again and as I said you can type the word clear and hit enter and it will clear the screen but if you're actually, and that's great if you're writing a script but if you're actually working in the terminal, in a shell, many times I'm not sure if it's true all the time but it has been every time I've tried doing it in a Unix environment or a Unix-like environment like Linux. You can hit control L and clear that. I wanted to say that because viewers will get mad at me if I don't bring that up. So control L is a shortcut key for clearing the screen or you can just type clear which is what you'd have to do if you want a script to clear which we're going to get into actually writing out scripts later this week. So that's clearing the screen, typing clear or hitting control L. Next thing I wanted to bring up was the new line. So if we use the echo command I can say echo hello and then I can say semi colon and a new command and I'll use the echo command again and I will say world. Now we're echoing hello and then we're echoing world, two separate commands when I hit enter. They're on new lines because by default echo puts a new line character at the end of what it's echoing. You can tell it to not do that if you'd like by adding the dash n option. I'm trying to get the right wording here, switch. They're called different things and they are different things and people kind of overlap them and I do all the time. But basically what I'm trying to say here is basically when this first command is echoing out hello when it's done it's like it's hitting enter to create a new line. But if before we put out between echo and what we're echoing out we put a dash n. We will hit enter and you can see they're on the same line now because this dash n means no new line. Don't put a new line. You also notice that the words are together because we don't have any spaces in there. So if you really wanted to do this you would should put an extra space right there. And now we have hello world. So I mean this is just an example that will be cases where you use this no new line option. This is kind of a weird one because you wouldn't actually do it like this. You would say echo hello world on one command. I do want to say though that if you would do that with the second one now you're going to not have a new line at the end of this one and your prompt is now at the end of it because we never got a new line. So that's why it's all on one line here. If we hit enter again it goes back to normal. So that's removing the new line at the end but let's say you wanted to echo something out with a new line in the middle of it. Well we can do that too with using the backslash and the end within the string that we're echoing. So echo and then I can say hello world and other things I don't know. So if I hit enter now it echoes that out all on one line. Let's say I wanted it to have and other things on a new line but I didn't want to use a second echo command. What I can do is I can come in here and I can do a backslash n and that is the new line character and I will hit enter and oh when using that you need to use the dash e option here so that it recognizes that backslash command. So basically it's saying look for these special characters that are backslashed out because there are other ones in there as well which we might get into in later tutorials. But basically it's saying look for anything with a backslash in the letter and use that as a special character and in this case backslash n we'll say new line. So once again we get the first half of it hello world hello world and then right here it's like hitting enter it's a new line that's what this backslash n is. You don't see the backslash n but you get the new line and then we have and other things on the next line. So don't forget to put that dash e if you wanted to use that. And that's pretty much it for this tutorial let's quickly review. We typed in clear and hit enter to clear the screen or if you're actually working in the terminal like I am right here you can hit control L and we went over echo dash n means no new line so I can say hello and you can see that there was no enter after the word hello here so our command prompt ended up showing up after it enter to get past that. And then we can use the dash e here to look for special characters that are backslashed out so like dash n hello world we'll put the two on different lines kind of like and you can use that multiple times in there I can say hello world and other things you can see that each time you put a new line. So I thank you for watching once again this whole week I'm posting a bunch of very basic shell commands for you to learn because the original ones I did the quality wasn't very good and so I just thought getting back to the basics doing a bit nicer quality a little bit better audio better visual recording so every day this week next week bring it back to our regular tutorials we've been working on video editing from the command line if you like these tutorials and you enjoy them and you want to learn more I have once again hundreds and hundreds of tutorials at my site a whole lot of them are on shell script mostly bash but should work in other shells as well for the most part not everything but mostly and so go there it's films by Chris calm it's Chris with a K there's a link in the description of this video my videos for the most part are broken down into playlists I have a lot of videos and I'm very bad about remembering to put some and so sir some that might be missed in the playlist but for the most part they're all broken down in playlists you can search through them and I just hope you enjoy my tutorials hope you continue watching there should be a annotation if I don't forget to this entire playlist so this whole there should be a playlist for bash or shell script basics I thank you for watching and I hope that you have a great day