I don't know what you're talking about. This is a broader... So this is... Don't worry, after German, everything will be great. So... Okay, so today we're going to talk about the indie games conjecture. This is really a fascinating... A fascinating question. Perhaps in theoretical computer science, this is one of the most important questions that doesn't seem hopelessly unsolvable. That seems like a question that we might be... We are learning more every year. We're learning something more about it. And eventually, learn a little bit about it, of course. The setting of the video is conspicuous. You should find the CSP, instance, subset 0.1, the train over. This is, I think, the FTP. F supply is unrelated to this one. Yes. Yes. Yes, yes. So, simply, it's just an alphabet. And an organics is just 0.1, but it shouldn't be any finite alphabet. We define the I of X, the value that the assignment is given to X, is the I, and these are constraints, and they take their average value. For example, we can do 3-star. So let's start with the case of 3-star. So 3-star, traditionally, finding out whether the value is 1 or it's less than 1, then this is the rate of the valentine. Thanks to the n-time, you can believe that you can do it faster than you can. So, there's an alphabet, and it's kind of, I don't know, since that's for data cover, and the same vocational relation, so you can read it into the cube, go into the omega, or something like that, and you can read it better if you really do not depend on the number of this way. Let's say the 0.1, and then there are the time of day, and so, then there are examples, like the exam problem, and we can solve it with the old math card to find out the graphics by far, then we can solve it with the n-time, and this unique problem to define, and the way I cannot like to separate these guys is because this this is not a name, this is not a standard that I use, this is what I call a propagation. I reach a leader, the algorithm to solve them is an algorithm which basically guesses one solution and then book gets this solution, and now because in both, say, when the graph, how do you solve it, you know, you put one vertex on one side of the graph and then you kind of propagate what you guess is the graph, which is bipartite, you never get a good problem. And so, linear, there are ways to generalize it, this notion of what it means to be linear, using this notion of putting more things in the future, and these are the propagation structures, and they are hard, and the quantum conjecture is basically every CSP plus basically this is NP-hard, in fact NP-hard in this one, in time, and this is the P, and in fact the algorithm in because it's not a single propagation technology in some kind of a specific algorithm, so it's typically in the time there is a particular question I don't see or something, less than that, the conjecture says that basically every problem can be solved in every time into a small exponent or and this is the version where this is by injecting a lot of trigons and and so this is the modifying the version of the conjecture from the 19.5 and it's very I think the people that openly have no doubt that it's true, it has been proven for binary alphabets and it has been proven for ternary alphabets and there are there are there are a program in place to prove it in quality and basically in slow and steady progress so my understanding of that is that for a given predicate do we know how to set it? so they have some kind of so they have some kind of a test this is this notion of the quality of disease which memory basically if you give the value of predicate quality of disease in some kind of the way where you say if you have say suppose you have like some polymorphism is basically where you have some number of satisfied assignments a and there is some operation that you can perform on mode then come up with a different line if coordinate wise operation that will also be satisfied you can come up with three x or you can just x or together and you will see the satisfaction and the polymorphism is some kind of a generalization of that and then interestingly they know how to prove that CSP doesn't have the polymorphism then it's going to be hard the path that's open is to prove that Gaussian type algorithm solves all the cases kind of right in the sense that people that were in my crypto class remember me complaining about Gaussian elimination it's really annoying the algorithm it's hard to understand it's an open wish maybe it didn't exist because it doesn't have a lot of use for us it's mostly annoying because it doesn't allow us to prove that something is happening we hope it will be hard so for example what we do in cryptography we want to base cryptosystems on the path of the path on the why people in conjecture among many high school students and unfortunately even people that are older than that that it is impossible to solve in your systems and to do that because noise especially in the discrete setting in the continuous setting noise is not so bad minimization but in the discrete setting noise comes completely through the Gaussian information and we can indeed show this show this formally so we can talk about complexity of say approximation we have you're only going to see that the instance has value 1-mc and suppose you go you find something that's also close to 1 so let's just say 1-final of 1 versus 1-final of 1 approximation so the goal is to find if the instance has something that I can find really satisfactory solution but we don't care exactly about the dependency so so basically for this the best thing we can do is get 7 over 8 plus 2 to the of 1 even when this seems like 1 minus 2 to the of 1 and again deleting this so this we can do in trivially basically we can take a random assignment and deleting this requires a bunch of time play the cover again somehow and you will be something like a bit size and deleting this will be better so even though it's easy in the instance it's actually having the approximation says the best thing we know to do in this half plus 2 to the of 1 approximation and but the propagation says you can still do it with basically now maybe with some combinatorial algorithm but the best way to do it is using semi-determined programming basically we can do 2 sum of squares and then you can do it so you can basically in all these cases find something of the form 1 minus epsilon you can find it as 1 minus epsilon f10 to 0 f10 to 10 to 0 so the immediate conjecture so basically for the approximation if you actually want to understand the approximation better you want to understand what is this value of f of epsilon the immediate game conjecture is really about understanding this kind of dependence in terms of for example for max cut and I think you said in the same for basically say max cut the reason factor depends on the side but basically if you think of that as constant then what we know we can get the 1 minus 12 epsilon approximation which is how if it's something like 1 minus 15.201 epsilon and the UGC tells us that this is the optimum and you see that even more sudden than that it's even more sudden than that because if the UGC is 2 it will not jump from polynomial to exponential it will help explain some of the so so basically this picture of the one denominator regulator but so basically the reason my sense is that we still don't completely understand we're still not looking at these things and to me even more interesting than we saw the UGC objective would be to find the right way to look at these things such that the answer is obvious then you have to prove it but somehow I feel like we looked at the some way to understand this whole picture maybe as far as like a bigger picture of not just this piece but somehow it would be obvious to us what the value of this function and then it means it would fall out so just fall out but anyway let's state the the texture so in any game in sigma in the CSP where the property of predicates is sigma 2 to sigma 1 but basically the predicates of the form PXY PX1 X Y Y sigma 2 to sigma 1 for pi is some permutation for most of single meters you have some graph you have some graph G from vertices you label their edges with these permutations and again you assign you assign to the vertices I you assign some text in C by N and the value typical edge that the text I I so this is the this thing is the question and the unique game is a problem and the unique game is conjectural you see that for every epsilon there exists a sigma such that the 1 minus epsilon versus epsilon to G sigma problem is empty like I said so this is the unique game conjectural and like I said before the order of conjugation is pushed if sigma fix then there is an algorithm that solves an arbitrary close to 1 epsilon satisfies arbitrary close to 100 percent so unlike label copper or CXO where you can get completeness 1 close to 1 which is that for the this is the unique game conjectural some people are excited about it is this result for the renderer that I mentioned this week so the renderer the unique game conjectural is full and it is basically the we do some squares we have some linear on top of it it is optimal approximation for where this is so it basically tells us if the unique game conjectural is true then we can find out exactly the shape of this function F and in fact we can do it in more general for every kind of machine parameters we can we can find exactly what is the best we can do in polynomial time and beyond that we will have to jump so this end the unique game conjectural is a very good friend of some squares because it tells us that some squares is optimal whether some squares is a friend of the this is the main thing we see so far it seems to insist we are trying to break it but maybe it will stop just short of it okay so this is the unique game conjectural so let me say what we have planned to do we want to define a small set expansion program which is more equivalent to the unique game but somehow it is easier to work with and then show the sub-exponential algorithm expansion and maybe the sketch how to generalize the unique games and then I want to discuss how this algorithm and some of the analysis type examples of game back and forth and maybe if we are trying to talk about some approaches people have in UGC and what the sum of squares has to do with these approaches so this is the plan of work so if there are no questions I will talk about now so so so the unique games conjectural we can define it in this way so at least the judge so we can also look at it as a problem on graphs we define a motion called the label extended so if we have a time let's me call it G in the label so it's about the label with limitations on the sigma then we can define G hat on N sigma vertices so so basically this is called the label extended so basically what we do is we take these hand projects back and we replace every vertex by a cloud of size of the alphabet size and J were neighbors and they had a particular permutation then we basically put this matching between the corresponding to this permutation so if the original graphics you always think about the original graphics way it was regular and had a green B so it had a D and a V so we have an actual mapping between an assignment in sigma M naturally map to the subset of the number of strains every violated constraint is violated and basically this guy and this guy have got this matching assignments then this edge goes out and this edge goes out so basically two times the number of constraints violated it was the number of edges going out so in particular if the number of constraints violated was a strong number N which is the total number of constraints then this would equal the P and the side of the assignment so we map every assignment to a set where we use one guy or a colleague in every cloud just to know that the size of the set is M which is the size of the graph divided by the other side so the set is small so in some sense we map every assignment that satisfies a certain number of constraints to and to a set it doesn't make sense the assignment was very good and the set doesn't make sense with graphs, with clouds, etc. it's annoying so we need to find the smallest expansion problem it's basically the general question of the smallest expansion program with the general question of graphs so the smallest expansion is a given amount the set is the number of vertices the set is number epsilon for every set S depending on the little bit of slack the delta is almost correct the smallest expansion hypothesis is very similar to the individual structure for every epsilon that exists the delta the smallest expansion the delta and let me say that morally the hypothesis should be people many people are actually not sure that but it seems so one direction the least direction that the negate form is easier than the smallest expansion problem that direction seems obvious it will more or less show the reduction from taking indicating things into a graph unfortunately this is also open so this reduction it's a very natural reduction very simple reduction but it's not sound the reason it's not sound is because the original negate instance could have had could have had non-expanding sets but it's also basically basically if you find so this reduction we show where he marks an assignment that satisfies most of the constraints into a set that doesn't expand but we have to also take a set that expands and map it into an assignment that satisfies most of the constraints this is obviously the set somehow if it's a set of small size and it's in the section if every cloud is very small then everything kind of falls out but if it's a set that basically has very more uniform intersection with the cloud say some clouds contains completely some clouds then then we are in trouble in particular for example if the original negate instance was composed of some number of restored parts then this reduction kind of would be trivially unsound and we haven't found a way to fix it this direction is open the other direction which is much less actually no natural reduction but I can say that that was actually so basically that it's more satisfying in the business community that's actually the result of the end result it's a very contributory reduction that also goes out to some extent that's some kind of non-future transformation but that part is not but to me is that some sort of expansion is in some sense what should have been the right way to formulate the indigans texture in the sense that it seems more related, it seems basically related to the indigans texture in the same way that the fastest cut the max cut or trigger is related to all these things so with this kind of picture we can try to show the shape of the work so if you take a smaller expansion it's kind of the easiest the easiest problem in the game is still influence so so let's kind of say this is kind of a status because without this it's probably easier this is the thing that our basically smallest expansion is like the easiest problem in the indigong field and introduces the indigames and we can also use it to produce for instance fast cut which we don't know how to use for indigames so it's kind of useful at the starting point for the basic conjecture the indigames itself then there are this agro kind of propagation propagation csp max cut too soft max to be and indigame implies those guys and then you have you also have to have for instance the hardest the label cover then you have guys csp that completely don't need propagation so there is a natural way to think about what does it mean not to need propagation so you cannot so for a signer guessing one variable you cannot guess another variable and one way to say that a predicate doesn't allow for propagation is to say that a predicate supports a pairwise weekend distribution so basically given a sign for one for one variable any one of the other variables that participates in the seven is going to be anything so we cannot say the proper name and it is so basically this pairwise somehow so that this pairwise the position you do two guys one that are says and one that are not subspaces so for example vx so it is going to the subspace of the dimension you know the subspace of dimension 2 inside the dimension 3 the final equation a plus v plus c so a plus v plus c is 0 or 1 like this kind of and then there are the guys that are not subspace so what is interesting we have reduction from negative cover to this guy right now we don't have reduction to negative cover you guys that are not subspaces so at the moment this is the part this is the part that is empty hard I kind of believe that this should also be empty hard and in fact probably we have some squares low bounds we work with C1, C1, C1 and C1 we have some squares low bounds in your low bounds so that is what we do guys that are exponentially hard this is a relatively new reduction by C1 hopefully someone will also show this equation this is the current situation of the hardness side on the easy side we have a sub-exponential time algorithm here and I kind of believe that this should be sub-exponential here and of course in these games the hardness is closed down so in these games also it loses to all these things potentially for this reduction because this is the problem that you can solve with sub-exponential time so you can already see some open problems of the week such as give sub-exponential time algorithm for this one, this one or this one for example give a 2 to the square order time algorithm for mascot which part of I think was the open problem of the week when John sometime ago when we have so if you are interested in this one in John but in some of the but it's reasonable to believe that there should be sub-exponential time SOS based algorithm here I think it's also reasonable to believe that there should be an empty hardness reduction here and I think both of these things we kind of go along to help clarify this picture it's also interesting to understand what are the things that you need to know and whether there are some interesting things that I have to deal with and of course it will be that the volume in these games is in P which basically we believe that this slide is not really empty hardness or sub-exponential but rather empty versus P this is kind of the now basically I want to show you so maybe I mistake maybe I mistake what I mean by sub-exponential but I'm going to deal with the the new issue in all of our part just looking now currently just from what we have SOS lower bound so basically below this line actually we have these results one of them was in SOS we have these results before it was so in 2006 it's like 3XO was an empty hardness result before it was in SOS the other one I think was an SOS before it was in empty hardness and it inspired it so here we just have a SOS hardness result here the slide is captured by SOS so maybe we just don't know what's actually in that task what's this TSA or what are the other forms so the TSA it's pretty nice that contained a pair-wise independent distribution but they are not a linear subspace that is a pair-wise independent so the TSA is a very simple derivative it's X1 X2 and so X5 and then there are more complicated things along those lines and it's what I think when simply now that you can show that it's a linear based derivative cheating but these are predicates where there is a pair-wise independent distribution supported on them but it's not a subspace and in fact if you look at the random predicates that's a random predicate so you take a random predicate of a certain density like in some cases most of the choices for density will for most choices of density will be here and not here so so one of the nice kind of one of the nice kind of predictions of the indigates projector is that if you take a random predicate of a certain density then there is I think that it's basically a super super sparse it's easy and you can't everything has to be hard and you still don't know how to pull that but this kind of thing it's just yes it's just generally approximating so approximating it to to a regime which is ok so here you have to be a little bit careful of the regime because there is a certain regime where max cut becomes hard so let's just say this is like 1- epsilon versus 1- epsilon 0451 so this is kind of a regime where we don't have an algorithm so one of the tricky things here is that exactly the all this much and these problems if you ask for 2% approximation then it becomes harder then you have your abstraction and it becomes exponentially hard you begin to understand the problem in fact even in the indigates problem itself when I say in the indigates regime of 1- epsilon versus epsilon you will find some other regimes where the problem is actually exponentially hard and becomes down here so let me just state the condition time algorithm it's taking something in both of these it's less or it's less so this is the degree this kind of a degree and it becomes something a little bit better so abstraction epsilon versus both so set of sides epsilon set of sides so if you choose better to be epsilon to one-third then you get 2 to the n to the one-third algorithm for the indigates problem and 2 to the n so this basically gives you to the n to the epsilon to the one-third and 2 to the n to the epsilon this gives you 2 to the n to the epsilon algorithm for some expansion and 2 to the n to the cube root of epsilon for indigates so better is the kind of parameter you can choose if you want more time versus more quality but you need to choose better to be less than epsilon to one-third for instance in Wikipedia you need to choose epsilon better to be less than epsilon better to be more better to be more than epsilon and that's what we do yes that's inside the loop so here it's basically fights it's better to fight against epsilon to better to fight something better in the loop we see that basically we put 0 to and then we use the 0 to one-third no, I think we're getting into it somewhere else here was somewhere else here that's what I knew long time ago when I was suddenly really tired Yeah, am I just focused on this? I understand I said that was funny Let's go Somebody can do it It's hard Where did that come from? No Yeah, I used to I used to I used to I used to I used to Oh, there you go Yeah, so Geometry Geometry Actually, it's a new fashion You can actually go You can go I, yeah That's not what you're doing Well, I like to do it on my own I would like to do it on my own You guys use that a lot Because the way that I want to use it You can use it as a guide You don't have to do it You don't have to do it You can do it So maybe You can use it as a tool Can you take the soft phone? Yeah, yeah How did you know you were a baby? Yeah Okay, so if you play games If you play games That's why you're a camera If you play games Different interpretation That's not so useful So So don't think of it as a game But I'm sick, I just think of it as A constraint satisfaction problem So I don't get it So I think of it as I think the best way to do it Is to have a few minutes Oh, yes You want to think about Do we get a few minutes Questions About X, I That's not so interesting So I'm seeing A lot of people Have something very unique Of what I would say a medium So you take A few months To take An equation to model Some large number Some large number And the four equations Import just to write So that's that No, it's not like It's a dynamic field It's a linkage So The vision of the game Is Large number Of A Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of we use, which is a local chigger equality. So chigger, chigger equality tends to be called. So chigger, 1 by 2 by chigger equality is the following. We usually might have to become a plus here, but we write it with the, so let's identify g. So think of g as the same as a normalized r or d. So chigger equality tends to be calling if x transpose gx is at least 1 minus epsilon. Then we can find set s, say, outside of most m of the room, such that a number of mj's will be calling for s to be complemented with most force, so epsilon. But this is chigger equality, but it doesn't give us a small set. So local chigger equality, what it does is the following thing. Local chigger equality tends to be the following thing. If, in addition, we have the property that x is analytically sparse, what is analytically sparse would mean that one of x is at most the n, two of x. Then we can do it. And how do you do that? Let me just sketch it. The local chigger equality, I think we've proven several times. Yes, so it's x for all x. Right, yes, so given, if you give an x like that, you can find set s like local. So if there exists an x like that, then let's just get a sense more for my sector for your sake, because I always get confused about these things. Let's just get a sense that we get the right scaling. So for a technical remark, if x was exactly of the form of 1s, and the size of s is delta m, then the norm 1 of x would be delta m, and the norm of each filter would be, would be square delta m. Now you know that you got the inequality in the right direction. So the general, generally the way it works is that the sparser vector is that when you make it sparser, you benefit the higher norms more than you benefit the lower norms. So basically, whenever you see a condition like that, basically a larger norm is larger than something in the smaller norm. When they make the vector more sparse, this is going to be more likely to make it. The spikier things are like when you take them into a higher power, then you give them away. This is the lower figure, and now you can make it. So I just want to tell you that this condition is vectorless. Right. Maybe you could make it so that you would always get, I guess the norm of g would also have this upper condition. But at least more than that, it's more automatic. So I suppose that you would be far from the norm thing also as this upper condition, which might already imply that at least it's a little bit better than that. I mean, that you have to satisfy this condition because it's not vector, and it's going to automatically, it might have sucked, it might not be completely over to 1, but it couldn't have a lot of weight in it. So it's projection 1 does not explain why it has this logic and this logic in correlation to the vector. So here is a sketch. If the sketch is there are two steps. It's step 1, which is when the support acts as the size of most of the data. So that part basically requires going through the pool of jigger inequality and doing it again. And then it's the same that basically this pool involves taking a level set. So suppose if we got this set x, most of the things are zero, and then some of you turned out it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really matter. And basically what you can show is that the jigger, you can consider jigger if we choose some level set. This thing and that level set, so that level set can be, this will be the set S. And so it will be contained in the support. So if the vector was actually sparse, it can go carefully through the pool of jigger inequality. You can see that if the vector is actually sparse what jigger will give you is sparse vector. So now the second thing, the second thing you want to move from, so given x, if x satisfies this property that is number 1, let's go with that m and number 2, then there exists x5, that's x5 minus x. Okay, so by the way, I might need to lose some of the epsilon zero. So we find some x5 such as x5 minus x. So let's do 2 of that, or I'm not sure, I don't know if we need it to be 0.01 and x5 itself is actually sparse. This is a kind of counting thing. There's calculations. Basically, in this condition, it says that if you take all the coordinates of... Don't put it in the lower average. Basically it says that a vector like this that has one smaller than this might not be sparse, but something like this.  And all the small coordinates, if you move them, it will not lose a lot of the 2 nodes. You only have actually delta and coordinates that contribute to the 2 nodes. So you can make the vector sparse where you're not losing a lot of the 2 nodes. So if you don't lose a lot of your 2 nodes, then it will still satisfy... So it will be actually sparse and still satisfy this property. This is just a calculation. So actually the second step is easier than the first step. And the second step is actually... This thing is something that you need to send again and again. This type of property is a very good property for being an actual sparse. We also saw this in this class as the vector problem. The thing is that sometimes it's easier for the computation and it's not always easy to work with this. Sometimes you want to move the 2 versus 4 thing. Some other laws, but this is kind of the general thing that we keep doing when we want to analyze something that has to come up with something sparse. We move these kind of soft boxes for sparse. So basically given this thing, then what we want to show is the following. So the standard exponential algorithm you can follow from the following demand. It's going to be a bombastic, the structure theorem. So structure theorem is the following thing that has to be done.


A simplified approach was developed to explore nutrient deliveries to coastal zones, identify the main determinants of eutrophication, and develop a comprehensive concept of systemic processes responsible for river and coastal water degradation, leading to a land-to-sea continuum view and promoting interdisciplinary dialogue among scientific communities. This would help actors in multiple sectors and policy makers make harmonized choices for a sustainable environment through an economically and socially viable way of life. This article was authored by Josette Garnier, Jill Billan, Louis Lasalleta, and others.


What's going on guys welcome back to the channel and I appreciate you being here today I've been this top five lucky salute drops of the week But guys you want to win some loot of your own in the form of emblem colds Sparrow colds gift cards and more if so simply drop a like on the video leave a comment down below and join my discord server Linked within the video description, but let's get straight into this top five in at number five We have a clip sent to my destiny DL 090914 one war beast two engrams nice Number four we have a clip sent to my jamstick one two three same as the last clip but with an added extra Three we have a clip sent in by orange juice still to this day I still haven't had a legendary engram turn into an exotic this guy's RNG is crazy Do we have a clip sent to my montage productions to exotic from the same vendor at the same time? I am so done In a number one we have a clip sent to my alirans three vendors pre-exotics Seriously But guys that is the end this top five lucky salute drops of the week We enjoyed the video leaving a like really does help me out if you have any amazing clip to send in Send it into the email address links within the top of that video description But guys I hope you enjoyed the video thanks as always for stopping by and hopefully I will see you on that next one


Clusters are important for our distance ladder, so let's point out a few things about them. There are two kinds of clusters. Open clusters, usually a few hundred stars lightly bound by gravity, and globular clusters, hundreds of thousands of stars tightly bound by gravity. The Pleiades, or Seven Sisters, is an open cluster of extremely luminous blue stars, and it is one of the nearest star clusters to Earth. It is one of only a few open clusters whose distance can be measured by a parallax. This image is a close-up view of the jewel box cluster, taken by Hubble. Several very bright pale blue supergiant stars, a solitary ruby red supergiant, and a variety of other brilliantly colored stars are visible in the image. The huge variety in brightness exists because the brighter stars are 15 to 20 times the mass of the Sun. While the dimmer stars are less than half the mass of the Sun. This image shows a pair of colossal stars inside the Trumpler-16 embedded in the Carina Nebula, an immense nebula of gas and dust that lies approximately 7,500 light years from Earth. WR-25 is the brightest, situated near the center of the image. The neighboring TR-16-244 is the third brightest. Just to the upper left of WR-25. Second brightest to the left of WR-25 is not in the cluster. It's a low mass star located much closer to the Earth, and just happens to be in the line of sight to the Trumpler-16 cluster. The small open star cluster, Primus-24, lies at the core of the large emission nebula, NGC-6357. We'll cover emission nebula in another segment on the Milky Way. The brightest object in the picture is designated Prismus-24-1. It was once thought to weigh as much as 200 times the mass of the Sun. However, the high resolution Hubble Space Telescope images of the star show that it is really two stars orbiting one another. Here, we're zooming in to a glittering open star cluster. It contains a collection of some of the brightest stars seen in our Milky Way galaxy. Called Trumpler-14, it is located 8,000 light years away in the Karina Nebula. Because the cluster is only 500,000 years old, it has one of the brightest concentrations of massive luminous stars in the entire Milky Way. These blue-white stars are burning their hydrogen fuel so ferociously that they will explode as supernova in just a few million years. The combination of outflowing stellar winds and ultimately supernova blast waves will carve out caverns in nearby clouds of gas and dust. These fireworks will kick-start the beginning of a new generation of stars in an ongoing cycle of star birth and death. NGC 6791 is one of the oldest and largest open clusters known. It is 10 times larger than most open clusters and contains roughly 10,000 stars. Penetrating 25,000 light years of obstructing dust and stars, Hubble uses infrared to provide the clearest view yet of a pair of the largest young clusters of stars in our Milky Way. They are located less than 100 light years from the very center of the galaxy. ARCH's cluster is so dense over 100,000 of its stars would fill a spherical region that only contains 5 stars in our local neighborhood.


From Soju's radio and television, this is the Army Now. Military working dogs, or MWDs, have a tough job. In the deployed area, MWDs are often responsible for safely clearing areas for troops and vehicles. There are different types of MWDs, like Pepe. There's a couple different programs. The program I'm with right now is the Specialized Search Dog Program. When we can get deployed, our main mission is to search for explosive ordinances, weapons caches, and IEDs. Specialist O'Neill also said dogs like Pepe are unique because they are trained to work off-leash with their partners. Soldiers of the 117th Infantry Regiment used dogs like Pepe during Operation 7 Strike 2 because her non-aggressiveness made her more useful in the close confines of villages. That's the Army Now.


Live from New York, it's theCUBE. Covering theCUBE, New York City, 2018. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media and it's ecosystem partners. Hi, welcome back. I'm your host Sonia Tagare with my co-host Dave Vellante and we're here at theCUBE NYC covering everything, big data, AI and the cloud. And this week is also New York Fashion Week and with us today we have a guest who is really, who intersects both of those technologies. So Billy Whitehouse, CEO of Wearable X. Thank you so much for being on. It's a pleasure. Thank you for having me. Great to see you. Thank you. So your company Wearable X, which intersects fashion and technology, tell us more about that. So Wearable X started five years ago and we started by building clothes that had integrated haptic feedback which is just vibrational feedback on the body. And we really believe that we can empower clothing with technology to do far more than it ever has for you before and to really give you control back of your life. That's amazing. So can you tell us more about the haptic, how it works and what the technology is about? Absolutely. So the haptics are integrated with accelerometers and they're paired through conductive pathways around the body. And specifically this is built for yoga in a line called Naughty X. And Naughty is spelled N-A-D-I. I know that I have a funny accent so sometimes it helps to spell things out. They connect and understand your body orientation and then from understanding your body orientation we pair that back with your smartphone and the app guides you with audio, how to move into each yoga pose step by step. And at the end we ask you to address whether you made it into the pose or not by reading the accelerometer values and then we give you vibrational feedback when to focus. And the accelerometer is what exactly? It's just a tiny device that, is it protrude or? I mean it says as invisibly integrated as we can get it so that we can make it washable and tumble dryable. So I know I rented a car recently, a big SUV with the family and when I started backing up or when I get close to another car it started vibrating. So is it that kind of sensation? I mean it was sort of a weird warning but then after a while I got used to it. It was kind of training me. Is that sort of the same thing? And it's just the pants or the leggings or is it the top as well? So it's built in through the ankles, behind the knees and in the hip of the yoga pants and then we will release upper body work as well. All right so let's just double click on it. So if I'm in a crescent pose and I'm leaning too far forward, will it sort of correct me or hit me in the calf and say put your heel down or how would that work? Exactly, so the audio instructions will give you exactly the kind of instructions you would get if you were in a class. And then similarly to what you would get if you had a personal instructor, the vibrations will show you where to isolate and where to ground down or where to lift up or where to rotate. And then at the end of the pose the accelerometer values are red and we understand whether you made it into the pose or whether you didn't quite get there and whether you were overextended or not. And then we ask you to either go back and work on the pose again or move forward and move on to the next pose. That is amazing. I usually have to ask my daughters or my wife if this is right and they'll just shake their head. But so now what do you do with the data? Do you collect the data and then can I review and improve, feed it back? How does that all work? So the base level membership which is free is you don't see your progress tracking as yet but we're about to release our membership where you pay $10 a month and with that you get progress tracking as a customer. Us on the back end we can see how often people make it into particular poses. We can also see which ones they don't make it into very well but we don't necessarily share that. And so it presumably attracts other things like frequency, duration of the yoga. Exactly, minutes of yoga precisely right. Different body parts or not necessarily. So the accelerometers are just giving us individual value and then we determine what pose you're in. So I don't know what you mean by different body parts. In other words, which parts of my body I'm working out or maybe need to work on? Precisely, yeah. If you're overextending a particular knee or an ankle we can eventually tell you that very, very easily. And how long have you been doing this? It's five years. Okay and so what have you learned so far from all this data that you've collected? Well, I mean, I'm going to start from a human learning first and then I'll give you the data learnings. The human learning for me is equally as interesting. The language on the body and how people respond to vibration was learning number one and we even did tests many years ago with a particular product, an upper body product with kids. So age between eight and 13. And I played a game of memory with them to see if they could learn and understand different vibrational sequences and what they meant. And it was astounding. They would get it every single time without fail. They would understand what the vibrations meant and they would remember it. For us, we are then trying to replicate that for yoga. And that has been a really interesting learning to see how people need and understand and want to have audio cues with their vibrational feedback. From a data perspective, the biggest learning for us is that people are actually spending between sort of 13 to 18 minutes inside the app. So they don't necessarily want an hour and a half class which is what we originally thought. They want short, quick, easy to digest kind of flows. And that for me was very much a learning. They're also using it at really interesting times of the day. So it's before 7 a.m. in the middle of the day between 11 and 3 and then after 9 p.m. And that just so happens to be when studios are shut. So it makes sense that they want to use something that's quick and easy for them whether it's early morning because they have a big full day or late night because they need to relax. Please. Yeah, it sounds like such a great social impact. Can you tell us more about like why you decided to make this? Yeah, for me, there was a personal problem. I was paying an extraordinary amount to go to classes. I was often in a class with another 50 people and not really getting any of the attention that I guess I thought I deserved. So it was frustrated. It was frustrated that I was paying so much money to go into class and not getting the attention. Had been working with haptic feedback for quite some time at that point. Realized that there was this language on the body that was being really underutilized and then had this opportunity to start looking at how we could do it for yoga. Don't get me wrong. I had several engineers tell me this wasn't possible about three and a half years ago and look at us now, we're shipping product and we're in retail and it's all working but it took some time. You're not an engineer, I take it? I am not an engineer. You certainly don't dress like an engineer. But you never know. Okay, what's your background? My background is in design. And I truly think that design for us has always come first. And I hope that it continues to be that way. I believe that designers have an ability to solve problems in, and dare I say, in a horizontal way. We can understand pockets of things that are going on whether it's the problem, whether it's ways to solve the solutions. And we can combine the two. It's not just about individual problem solving on a minute level, it's very much a macro view. And I hope that more and more designers go into this space because I truly believe that they have an ability to solve really interesting problems by asking empathetic questions. And how does the tech work? I mean, what do you need besides the clothing and the accelerometers to make this work? So we have a little device called the Pulse. And the Pulse has our Bluetooth module and our battery and a PCB. And that clips just behind the left knee. Now that's also the one spot on the body that during yoga doesn't get in the way. And we have tested that on everybody's shape, you can imagine, across five different continents because we wanted to make sure that the algorithms that we built to understand the poses were going to be fair for everybody. So in doing that, that little pulse, you unclip when you want to wash and dry. And is that connected to the app as well? Exactly, that's connected via Bluetooth to your app. That's great. So you have all of your data in your hand and you know exactly what kind of yoga poses you're doing, where you need to strengthen that. Exactly. That's great. And is it a full program? In other words, are there different yoga programs I can do? Or am I on my own for that? How does that work? So with the base level membership, you can choose different yoga instructors around New York that you'd like to follow. And then you can get progress tracking, you can get recommendations, and they are timed between that 10 to 20 minutes. If you want to pay the slightly more premium membership, you can actually build your own playlists. And that's something that our customers have said they're really interested in. It means that you can build a sequence of poses that is really defined by you, that is good for your body. So it means instead of going to a class where you end up getting a terrible teacher, or music that you don't like, you can actually build your own class and then share that with your friends as well. Is it a Spotify-like model where the teachers get compensation at the back end to figure out how does that all work? Yes, precisely. And what are your charge for this? So the pants are $250, and then the base level membership is $10 a month, and then the slightly more premium is $30 a month. If you think about how much you would spend for a yoga class, that actually seems like a pretty good deal. And trust me, when you start calculating, when you go to yoga at least once a week and it's $20 a week, and then you're like, oh, and I went every week this year, you realize that it racks up very quickly. Well, plus the convenience of doing it, I'd love having to be able to do it at 6 a.m. without having to go to a class, especially where I live in Boston when it's cold in the winter, you don't even want to go out. Yeah. So what do you think the future of the wearable industry is? This is a space that I get really excited about. I believe in a version of the future, which has been titled Enchanted Objects. And the reason I sort of put it in inverted commas is I think that often has sometimes a magical element to it that people think is a little too far forward. But for me, I really believe that this is possible. So not only do I believe that we will have our own body area network, which I like to call an app store for the body, but I believe that every object will have this. And there was a beautiful Wired article last month that actually described why the Japanese culture are adopting robotics and automation in a way that Western culture often isn't. And that is because the Shinto religion is their predominant religion in Japan, and they believe that every object has a soul. And if in believing that you're designing for that object to have a soul and a personality and an ecosystem, and dare we call it a body area network for each object, then that area network can interface with yours or mine or whoever's. And you can create this really interesting communication that is enchanted and delightful and not about domination. It's not about screens taking over the world and being in charge of you and us being dominated by them as often we see in culture now. It's about having this really beautiful interface between technology and objects. And I really believe that it's gonna be the version of the future. And looking good while you do it. Yeah, precisely. So you've got visions to take this beyond yoga, is that right, other sports, perhaps cycling, swimming and skiing, I can think of so many examples. Exactly, well for us, we're focused on yoga to start with. And certainly areas that I would say are in the gaps. I like to think of our products as being very touch focused and staying in areas of athleisure or sports that are around touch. So where you would get a natural adjustment from a coach or a teacher, our products could naturally fit into that space. So whether it is squats or whether it is Pilates, they're certainly in our pipeline. But in the immediate future, we're certainly looking at the upper body and in meditation and how we can remind you to roll your shoulders back and down and everyone sits up straight. And then longer term, we're looking at how we can move this into physiotherapy. And so as you mentioned, you can enter in that you have a left knee injury and we'll be able to adjust what you should be working on because of that. Is there a possibility of a breathing component or is that perhaps there today and such an important part of yoga is breathing? 100%. That is very much part of what we're working on. I would say more silently, but very much will launch soon. It sounds like it's going to have such a positive impact on so many people and that it's going to be in so many different industries. I hope so. Yeah, that's the plan. Well, Billy Whitehouse, thank you so much for being on theCUBE. And Dave, thank you. We're here at theCUBE NYC and stay tuned, don't go anywhere. We'll be back.


What are these updates that's gonna be about something R rated? I assume. Being like, milked should be a rest of the public indecency. Put an end to my misery. My good friend Mara over on Books Like Woe, when she chose Morning Glory Milking Farm for Blades and Bodice Rippers book club, she made it known that she had the hope, if not expectation, that I would vlog my experience of reading it. So, Mara, this is for you. Today, I will be endeavoring to read all of Morning Glory Milking Farm. The length part is very doable as far as I can tell. I think it's a pretty short book. I'm not holding it up because I have it on Kindle. I don't have a physical copy of it. And yeah, today is the day. Here we go. I don't really have a plan for how to structure this vlog other than to read the book and to tell you my thoughts as they occur to me. I may do some footage of me live reaction, you know, my face which has been known to express my feelings as I read on occasion. But yeah, that's the plan today. Me reading Morning Glory Milking Farm because Mara's making me. Let's do it. Also, please excuse the lack of aesthetic B-roll. My brother and I went to a rock climbing gym on Friday and then we went to Universal Studios yesterday. So I hurt everywhere. So the less moving and getting up and bending over backwards to get interesting camera angles, the better. I am going to be on my couch reading a wild book. The only acrobatics on the agenda today are those that are in Morning Glory Milking Farm. This is not a very long book, so I shouldn't be surprised that we have barely been introduced to the main character and her situation. We're already at the instructions for how to milk things. If you don't know what Morning Glory Milking Farm is about, I don't really know yet about meal. I mean, all I know about it is what Mara's told me, which is that it's about minotaurs being milked, industrial scale farming levels of it. It's mass milking of minotaurs. Am I milking? I hope you understand what I mean. The main character, the female character, is going to be milking, going to be hired or going to be working. That's all I knew is that that's the setup for this romance novel, is that a minotaur who is one of the milked and the woman who is working at the facility that does the milking, Morning Glory Milking Farm. Any hoosies. Yeah, so that being the case, I had assumed that the reason for milking, like the reason that this is being done in this facility would be because they want to breed because that's the reason, I mean, if you don't know, something akin to this already takes place for bulls in order to milk bulls so that they can artificially inseminate cows so that we can have baby cows, which, you know, I'm vegan, so all of that is to me anyway. But so yeah, I just assumed that in this universe where there are minotaurs, that the same is true, that they want to breed minotaurs or the female equivalents or whatever, but that's why they are milking them, to collect the milk in order to breed more. I did not know, I have just learned on like page three or four or whatever, that the reason is actually because minotaur milk is a key ingredient in a rectile dysfunction medication in this universe, so they're collecting it not for more minotaurs, they're collecting it for human use, for human erectile dysfunction, which is very, very different. It adds a very different flavor to the, to the, to the proceedings. What I find wild is that the main character did not know that this is what she was signing up for, that she is like at the, during the instructional video, is like learning this, which like for narrative purposes, I guess I understand, but like realistically for like, I don't know, I'm using the word realistically anywhere near this book, but okay, but for a job for you to have reached the instruction video portion, by then you would know what the job is that you've signed up for. Hey, that's not toys for kiddies. Uh-uh, stop it. Hey, stop it. Uh-uh, stop it. No, it's not for you. She's describing the phenotypic variety on offer from the minotaurs members, and so like some of them look like the, the coloring of their like hides, furnace, and others are pinkish and reddish, but the, the, the particular word used to describe this hue is bubblegum pink, not a thing that I ever would have thought to see associated. So the reason that she's considering this job is because she's a millennial in facing like the crippling student debt. So she's like, this job promises to pay really well. So, um, which like, okay, sure, whatever, do what you gotta do. But the thing that I find most unbelievable about this, because we've, we've gone through the instruction video or whatever, and they're like, well, you know, if a hand in glove milking is like, it's taken too long, and you needed a little extra help, then use this like mechanical device, which is like sucky and whatever, you know, that put that on and it'll do extra moreness and it's, and there's a, I have, I wasn't clear if it's the same device or it's, there's two devices, the other one is the collection device. They're like, once we've reached peak milking situation, the device that will then be the receptacle for the milk. And the thing that I find like unbelievable about this is not that minotaurs exist or that their milk is useful in for a pharmaceutical purpose. Fine, fine, fine. What I find unbelievable is that they would have humans, that they would have people that you have to pay a wage to do this. When, when nowadays, like, like I said, when this is done with bulls, you don't have people milking them. You don't even have people milking cows. For anyone who's laboring under the illusion that there is a dairy made with a bucket who is like, hand milking a cow and that's the stuff you're drinking, that's not the case. It's a machine that does it. So I just find it unlikely that this company, this pharmaceutical company, would hire people to be doing this instead of using a machine. Because the only reason you would have like concern about, you know, having a person do this or the experience of the milked would be if the milked are the customer. They are not as far as I can tell. So you know what I'm saying? Why is this like artisanal bespoke milking, you know? It would just, and then the fact that like if you were going to tell me, well, they can't because there's no machine that can do it like they can tell and they can only do it if it's like flesh to flesh. Well, it's not flesh to flesh because they wear gloves and there is a machine that they use that like if hand in glove is not working, use the machine. And I'm like, I don't understand why you don't just use the machine the entire time as like the first thing. You could have one person and hook up all of them to a machine and then go back and collect everything. You know what I mean? And then to say that this is a high paying job. That's why she's considering doing this instead of being a barista, for example. I'm like, if there's a reason you need a barista, a machine can't do that, even though they're okay, they are like coffee machines that like you can select your drink or whatever. But like, because people who go to Starbucks or something are like, I have this specific order with these specific combinations and measurements and requirements. So like at that point, to try to come over the machine that can handle the minutiae of those requests is more trouble than just hiring a person who can do that. So, but you know what I'm saying? Like I think it takes more technical skill to be a barista than to be a milker. But that's going to be a more high paying job, a job which I don't really believe would exist, assuming minotaurs did exist and that their milk could be used to these purposes, like buying all of that as realistic. I don't buy that you would pay at all to have somebody personally do this, let alone a high wage. So the world building on this is falling apart for me. For a second, I thought I got it wrong that like, okay, so the minotaurs are paying for this service or whatever. And that's why their pleasure is important. That's why we would do it, you know, in a way that pleases them rather than just in the machine. But that's not the case. It's just the word being used incorrectly, because they're talking about it as if they are a customer. They are literally using the word client. They're saying, some clients do this, some clients do that, referring to the minotaurs. But in actual fact, they are being paid, like human men who donate their milk to a bank. They get paid for that. And they get to service themselves in so doing, because they're whatever you got to do to get it out, then give it to us and we'll give you money. So here, the fact that they offer people to do it, it's more than they would need to, you know what I mean? And I guess you could argue, well, they do it because then these minotaurs will enjoy doing this and will come back. But they're not volunteering. That's the thing. If it was a volunteer thing, they're like, okay, well, we're going to provide the service where you're going to enjoy it. And what we get in exchange is like your milk, but you're not, you don't have to pay for it, but we're not paying you. What we do instead is pay these gals to service you. That's not the case. The minotaurs who are coming, they get paid by the ounce of what they donate. And it is really, really irritating me that they refer to them as clients. A client is someone who pays you. They are being paid for the naturally occurring resource that they have to give. They are not paying. So it's trying to draw this parallel. It's trying to introduce the topic of is this, is this sex work or is it not? And I'm like, it's not. Like you're making it that kind of for no reason because like we literally do this nowadays. There's no reason to handle this way. If they are unthinking beasts, you know, like shouldn't say unthinking, but you know, like if they are like bulls nowadays on farms, they get hooked up to a machine and it gets extracted from them because that's what they need from them. Now the minotaurs are sentient and speaking and they have agency. Okay. So like you can't treat them the way you would treat a bull on a farm. Well, I shouldn't, you shouldn't treat a bull on a farm like that either. But point being they can object to this. They have, again, agency and independence, et cetera. Okay. So then this, the comparison is that it's like a bank that human males use nowadays because it's not in order, it's not for pharmaceutical companies, but it is still for other people's use that they're donating it to. They get paid for it. And there's literally no reason why this is not functioning the same way. Um, and I get, I mean, the reason is so that we have this setup where like, she's there and he's there and it's a romance novel. And then you get to ask the questions of like, is this sex work? But you don't though, because the way you've set it up, if they'd made it where you volunteer and you don't pay them, maybe, but, but then I mean, like, then you're paying these gals to do this job. And I think that's the part that we've cut out in real world banks, you know, they're saying we're not going to pay somebody to do this for you, um, and have you volunteer to do it. No, we're just going to pay you the money and to do it for yourself. We just want what comes out. There's no reason it wouldn't function the same way here. They get paid money. So this company is not only paying the, the minotaurs for what they give, they're paying the gals to get it out. It seems extremely unlikely and cost inefficient. And that's why it wouldn't be done that way. And they are not, I cannot stress this enough, clients. They are staffers, contractors. They are, you know, they, they are receiving funds. They are not paying for services. They are not clients. That's not a client. This is really irritating me. I don't even care about the like, hanky-panky, which there's going to be for sure. But yeah, I just like, I feel angry that it's like saying like, oh, we're going to introduce this interesting conversation and debate about, is this sex work? And I'm like, no, you can't have that debate. Not with how you've set this up because the way you've set this up is not true. You are calling them clients and they are not clients and you're only doing it so that you can may have this like conversation that you want to have, but you have not, I guess, earned the right to have that conversation because that's not this book is about. There isn't an actually like interesting debatable gray area going on here. You've just, you've taken something that happens in real life and added an element to it that is unnecessary and unrealistic. And then you've also mischaracterized it by using a word like client inappropriately. So I'm just angry. I don't care. I don't care about the R rated nature of it. I don't care about the that. Like, that's not even what I'm thinking about. I'm just like, no, this is wrong. This is incorrect. You're using words wrong. So yeah, I didn't expect that to be my reaction to this book, which I guess is a spicy reaction, but it's not the one that I expected to have. Oh, so maybe y'all have fresh problems with that stuff. Like, in a different way. I'm really not letting this go. The client thing is really bothering me so much. Like, like, I think I've met the, the Minotaur that's like, the Minotaur of this like, romance story.  And they have a comment. He's like, wants to know if she's being treated well or if it's like a good job. And she was like, yeah, yeah, it's good. You know, we got good paying, good benefits, whatever. He's like, oh, I'm glad. He's like, they're very generous with clients. I'm glad that they're just as generous with employees. And I'm like, they're not generous with clients because you're not a client. You're getting paid by them. You're not an employee because like that's, it's not an employment relationship in the same way. But it's like contract work. You are not a client. It bothers me so much. And you could have the same story if the like fee structure was like, where these Minotaurs are paying for the service, but they get a discount that's proportionate to the amount that they eject and give to the facility. That would make sense. Then they would be a client. They would still be collecting it for science or whatever. But then it would make sense why these girls are hired instead of machines because these people are paying for the service. But like, then they're incentivized to give more, et cetera. That structure would make sense. Like as a business owner, as a pharmaceutical company. Why they are paying these guys for their stuff and also paying girls to make sure that the, it's pleasurable for these guys who are getting paid for it. I know. Just know. And they are not clients. It's really, really irritating me. So anyway, I hope his largeness is as wonderful as she imagines it's going to be when they inevitably do the nasty. It's not a client. I'm so mad. I have a new word to be irritated with. She's talking about not wanting to tell her family what she's doing for a living because it's embarrassing or she doesn't want any awkward questions or whatever. And she does technically work for a pharmaceutical company. And she's like, well, you know, she'll just be vague and just say, I work for a pharmaceutical company. But the sentence that she did here is a pharmaceutical company had a nice panache to it. That's not what panache means. Panache is like, like if she was performing her work with a certain panache, you could say that. But what she means is that there's like a certain ring to it, you know, that like, that has a certain cachet to it, a certain class to it, a certain, you know, a certain Genesequa to it, but you can't say a certain panache to it. Panache is to do with like a movement or a behavior. So you can again, you can do your work with panache, or if she was to explain something about her pharmaceutical work with panache. But you can't say that saying you work for a pharmaceutical company has a certain panache to it. That's not what that word means. I'm very irritated by this because I was already irritated by the repeated use of the word client. Every time I see the word client, I get angry. I'm very angry right now. They use it a lot. I don't like it. Anyway, one of these updates is going to be about something R rated. I assume that so far, the R rated stuff, I'm just like, uh-huh, okay. I'm irritated by you calling me a client. And another thing about them being clients, yes, I'm still on that. They leave tips for the milkers, uh, or like there were some of them do, which again is weird because they're getting paid by the facility. You know what I mean? Like, that doesn't make any sense. If they were paying for the service, then you leave a tip. But you're getting paid, so why are you tipping?  It's only there so we can have this sex work conversation. You could have made them pay for it in this scenario. I don't, why didn't you if that's the conversation you wanted to have? You know? Like, do egg donors, do sperm donors, do they tip the facility that they donate to and receive money from for donating? Not to my knowledge. Found something more to be annoyed about. I'm talking about interspecies relationships, which, okay, they're also talking about interspecies procreation. And it's, at first it was just her fantasizing about having his babies, him being the minotaur.  Like a dog can't make a baby with a cat. It's not possible. And you know why? Because they're different species. But so like having different species in a relationship, as long as it's consensual, and they're all sentient, and they're all fine with it, sure, go off. Do whatever you want. We get into the territory of bestiality, I guess, but whatever. Like, they're humanoid, they're whatever. It's like, if everyone's in for it and everyone's able to consent to it, then great. But that's one of the things that I love about radiance by Grace Draven, which we all know I love radiance. They can't have children together. Like they're married and they love each other. And they can have funsies together. But they can't procreate because they are different species, which like, yes, thank you. But I mean, other fantasies and other sci-fi does this as well. And it irritates me. I mean, if you are able to procreate together, that means that you are not a different species. And so I was like, well, I haven't used the word species so far. So I was like, I'm still annoyed about this. Because they typically refer to these as different species. But okay, they haven't said species yet. So as long as they don't use that word, I guess I can just assume that because they're able to procreate together, that this is just an extremely divergent, phenotypic variation of homo sapien that has developed horns and hooves and things like that, which like, then we can get into a conversation about how evolutionarily that would be impossible. Because you have to like, you can't evolve to have wings. Because it's not a thing that you have. You can like, things that you already have can become more pronounced or more exaggerated or less pronounced and less exaggerated. But you can't develop a thing you don't already have. But okay, I guess they're all homo sapiens. Just some of them are have horns. There's also other creatures in this universe. It feels like maybe, okay, okay, they're, they're all just different races of human. But no, but no, she used the word species. And now I can confirm that the idea of her having his babies is not just a fantasy of hers. It's not just her being, you know, just liking to imagine that even if it's not possible. No, because he's confirmed that his grandmother was human.  Unless he's a human, you know what I'm saying? I find that irritating. And this is not the only book to do it. There's, you know, other sci-fi will do it where humans and aliens are together and fantasy will do it where it's like human and elf, human and dwarf, dwarf and elf, orc and human or whatever. And it's always used as like an allegory for race and racism. But it drives me nuts because it's not the same thing. Race in humans, they are all humans. We are all humans. There isn't actually a biological difference, which is why racism, well it's not why, I mean racism would be awful even if there was a biological difference. But like to say that's the exact same thing as different species being together, it's not the same thing. You can't procreate, you can't. Just again, radiance, radiance got it right. They can be together. They can overcome prejudice of like their different species being different species and having different lifestyles, different diets, different cultures, different phenotypic presentations. But they cannot make a baby. It's not possible. So anyway, I hate it. And honestly like when there's lots and lots of conversation about the anatomy and its size and various fluids being involved in all that wonderful stuff that I'm assuming is why people read this or what they're reading it for. But I'm not even like, I don't even have like space to be either fascinated or grossed out or anything about that because my brain is just like, you wouldn't tip because you're not a client, you're not a client because you get paid and you can't make babies together because you're different species.  That's not it. That's not how that works. That's not what that word means. That wouldn't function this way as a business. It wouldn't be run this way. You can't biologically make babies together. I'm just like, I don't even care about the like banky stuff because I'm just too busy thinking about everything else. The admin if you will. So yeah. This ain't no radiance, but we already knew that. I have stopped reading in the middle of them doing things in a restaurant. Oh my god. I just, I just, it's just rude. They're in the middle of a dining room of a restaurant where they're eating sitting next to each other and she showed up with nothing on underneath her skirt. And she had freshly prepared herself for him. They haven't done it yet. You know, like not outside of the confines of her doing her job because I don't know. I didn't tell you they've started dating now because of course they have. I mean, that wasn't it. But in the middle of a restaurant, he's like with his hand um, you know, doing for her what she has done for him this whole time, except she was getting paid to do it in a restaurant with people around where they were their dining. There's other people dining.  It's my understanding that the like prohibitedness of like getting it on in public or in public spaces or whatever like the fact that like, you know, you shouldn't and that you could get in trouble is um, appealing to some folks.  Like in this book, you're living vicariously through the main female character, the milker. Her name is Violet. I haven't said their names. Her name is Violet. His names work. Great. But can you imagine if you were a diner at this restaurant and you looked over and the lovely Minotaur human couple who was having dinner a minute ago um, are now doing that next to you? Can you imagine? That's, that's horrifying. And I, I definitely do not understand the appeal of like that in general, like how that's a turn on to be doing it in public where like, you could get caught.  There's just like no call for this. And he's got money.  You live nearby. Go to your place. I just, it's unacceptable behavior. I already don't like this. And this is me.  In a dining room of a restaurant where other people are dining is worse than the other two examples that I just gave. The other two would also upset me. Don't get me wrong. But where there's food involved and these are services from which people will eat and services on which people will sit while eating and they are currently doing that next to you, like in a library. Again, I don't like this and like, say, well, someone think of the books, but presumably you've like gone to like a corner of the library where you're hidden from view because of all the book stacks and bookshelves. Like there's no one else there. You're like, someone could come around the corner at any minute, but like, no, there's no one else there. But in a restaurant, in a dining room, everyone can see you. You should be arrested for public indecency. Let me put an end to my misery. Anyway, I'm at 75% through the book, so too much longer to suffer. Again, still the same scene.     Oh my God, what's wrong with you? Stop it. Stop it. Get a room. I really wish they'd stop talking about them being different species. I was just saying about this. In Lord of the Rings, I can make could just be because they didn't really talk about species. We knew what species were before Lord of the Rings. Anyway, he talks about the races of Middle Earth. So you could think maybe they are just different races. Like, there's the taller immortal people world. I mean, it does seem like they're more like species, but they do say races of Middle Earth. So whatever. Anyway, and well, anyway, doesn't matter. So again, like, this is not how species work. This is not how evolution works. It's not how this works. But okay, you're saying, okay, it's a fantasy. So it is what it is. And just go with it because it's a fantasy. But then it's specifically going out of its way. She's talking to her neighbor who's an elf and that elf is dating an orc.   And I'm like, I mean, that wouldn't be legitimately a concern. Like, it's not her place to say that this bigoted stranger in the grocery store. But I mean, well, in the first place, this would not be a concern because you're different species. So there would be no orc child in the elf's body period. But let's say that was possible. That would be a concern. And it's not her place to say that. But it says, oh yeah, so then Violet is asking her elf neighbor, okay, but low key though, like, how does he like fit in you because you're like tiny? And then we're treated to this. She listened with an open mouth as the elf explained her species diminishing population and the evolutionary changes that had happened as they made it more and more with other species, which you can't do. They definitely don't teach us that in school, though. They want us making Elvish babies with other elves, which is the crux of why most of us are on anxiety medication. It doesn't work for me when you make species an allegory for races because they're not the same thing. And if you make it about love and about how they can love each other and about how they can have a sexual relationship with each other and about how they can be romantically involved with each other, sure, for sure. Many human relationships, it's not possible for that couple to procreate. And there's nothing wrong with that. That does not mean that's an invalid relationship. So again, a human and a minotaur.   But you are a different species. You cannot procreate. That's why this, this is an allegory for race just does not, that's when it falls apart for me. Like when they talk about stuff, how like, oh, it's just like cultural differences. So it shouldn't matter. And I'm like, but between different species, it, it's more than cultural differences. Like biologically, you have different needs. Like if it was even possible for you to procreate together, there would genuinely be concern if like it's a different gestation period for the different species. Like let's say an orc child requires 10 months to gestate, but elf children only usually gestate for six months.  Like things like that, you know, they're like legitimately, well, they're not, they're not legitimately concerned, as I said, because that's not possible because you're different species. And that's why it's not possible, because different species have different biological needs.  So when they are like, well, it's just like, there's literally a line that I didn't read where she's like, you know, it's just cultural differences that don't matter. And I'm like, if you're all the same species, but you're not. So again, that's not to say that you can't be in a relationship. If the point is you can love each other, even if you are different species as different as that. Sure, go for it. Love it. Love that for you. Have a great life. Cannot procreate. Okay, I have like, very little of this book left that I need to finish it. So see you in a minute. Okay, so I finished the book. And I hated it. For all the aforementioned reasons, like, I basically like if this kink isn't for you, I really don't see how you could possibly get anything else out of this. And there's just so many problems with this setup, which like I get is not the point of this type of book. But they're pretty fixable problems. You know, like she never gets pregnant, you know, she never has a baby or anything like that. So that's not like a necessary point of the world that like it's possible to have a kid, you know? And I frankly think it would be a much more interesting conversation and debate and, you know, moral situation question, whatever to have. If the thing was in this world, you know, that it's all these interspecies relationships. And the question of if these couples want to adopt the tensions that arise with, okay, so let's say it's an elf and an orc, since we had a couple like that. Let's say it's an elf and an orc. Do you adopt an elf child? Or do you adopt an orc child? Do you adopt one of each?  Because it's neither of you. And then that's like, you know, fair. Like if that was a type of thing, people were like, talking about and is an issue that people have to figure out. In this world where there's all these interspecies relationships. Now that would be an interesting conversation. And it wouldn't break this whole they are different species. And then we're like, okay, like you have this relationship. But then like, because that's, that's a if we are doing the races allegory thing, which is like what they always do. And there's no exception. It's a races allegory, which is just like, it's wrong. And I'm not morally wrong. But you know, like, like, that's just not how that works. And it's also a really a really lazy and boring thing to do with it. Versus what I just said, which is just so much more interesting, you know, my ideas are better. You know what I mean? Like that's more unique problem to present than just making it the same copy paste of like races problems, but just like chase swap out the names for fantasy species, like that's lazy. Is it a thinking, okay, what would be actual problems that might arise, like new kinds of bigotry, new kinds of division that would result from these species situations? Because and then, but then to continue the race allegory in a way that still works, is when we're talking about cultural differences, when you have interracial marriages or marriages between two strong cultural heritages and traditions, then it's that conversation of like, when you're raising your kids that you have, when you have kids, which you are able to have because you're both humans. Like, are you raising the kid in both traditions? Are you raising the kid in neither tradition? Are you picking a tradition one over the other?  And then like, kids will feel like they are part of, often have like part of two worlds fit in neither camp. Like those are like real things that people talk about and have to deal with. And that would be an interesting thing that would be happening if, again, like an elephant and orc adopted, let's say they, let's say they chose to go with, we're going to adopt one of each, we're going to adopt an elf kid and an orc kid. And then to have those kids, you know, grow up and be like older siblings, but we're not the same.  So then like that kid grows faster, and, and progresses faster through school, but they are siblings in the same household. And if there's like, you know, species identity celebrations in schools, like, well, your family is mixed species.  And they wouldn't mess with the whole your different species that you can't procreate thing, which irritates me so much. Apparently it wasn't irritating anyone else, because these stories keep doing it. But yeah, anyway, so back to this book. Yeah, there's just like nothing to the story. Because the only thing other than the kink that's there is this like lazy nod at an attempt to have a conversation about sex work. And I covered why this is not the conversation you think you're having, because of how you've set it up. And two, like the racial allegory, which also doesn't work, because they're different species. And the way you've set it up, it's not how that works. And you've done a really lazy copy paste, where you've not actually said anything new or interesting, or brought a new tone to that conversation by making it fantasy species or anything. You have it's very, very lazy. So reading it like if I'm not into this kink, which I'm not, there's nothing else for me to be interested in here. There's nothing out there isn't like they are not themselves, the characters, a rork and violet, they are not interesting or deep thinking or amusing or fascinating individuals, like they there's montages of like, and we got to know each other and we really got to know each other and we didn't immediately jump into bed with each other. And that's how we know that we work, because like, we like each other's people. And I'm like, okay, but you only showed me the jumping into the bed parts. So like, I'm glad I'm happy for you that you guys love each other as people. But like, I couldn't enjoy that part of the story either, because there wasn't anything about that in the story. It was just about you guys being hot for each other, which again, I'm happy for you. I'm happy for you the Minotaur and the human. And I'm happy for you if that's your kink and you enjoy it. But there are other books that will deliver on multiple levels. So even if the one part of it doesn't work for you, another might. And I would argue that Radiance, even if like, the the romance between Brish and Eldigo, the like, the physical romance between them is not something you're therefore or interested in, I would argue that Radiance still has good plot. It still has pretty good world building that doesn't break for any reason. And it shows Brish and Eldigo actually being people with personalities that you could be into divorced from their behavior in the bedroom. Like, that's why I always say I like reading Radiance because it feels like you're hanging out, I like hanging out with Brish and Eldigo, because they're not always talking about, in fact, they don't talk about physical stuff until much later, because they're not really interested in anything physical at first, then they genuinely do get to know each other's people. And so you, the reader, get to know them as people, and you get to know the differences of their cultures, as well as the differences in their species, because they are two different species.  In addition to that, you physically function differently, and like getting used to all those differences and negotiating those differences when you're just living together, let alone the bedroom. Like, that's all actually done quite well in Radiance, so even if you were not into the bedroom stuff, there is other stuff for you to enjoy. In this book, if you're not into the kink, I don't think there's anything else. Not. There's nothing, no character we're credo latch on to, no interesting conversation, no interesting world building. It's all like paint by number cardboard cutout stuff there to prop up the situation in order to have the kink be possible. Which again, like if that's what you're into, and that's your kink, then I'm really happy you have this book, and I'm happy you've been enjoying it. But it doesn't offer anything to someone that is not into that kink. So yeah, Kelsa Breeze, I did not like it. I had a smidge of hope, because it had been compared to Radiance. And I was like, I mean, I know it's not going to be Radiance, but to be clear, I did not go into this going, well, I expect Radiance, and if it's anything less than Radiance, that'll be, I mean, nothing's ever going to be Radiance. But I was like, okay, maybe, maybe if it's like Radiance-esque in some even small way. But it wasn't. It wasn't at all. Because even if it was like exactly the way that it is right now, with the same world building, the same problems I have with the species thing, the same kink, but we actually did get a feel for them as people more, where like, their personalities, they would have interesting conversations outside of the physical, then I actually have something, you know, that I'd be like, well, this is not my kink, and there's a lot of problems with the world building, but you know, like, I enjoyed like them as characters, and I enjoyed watching the development of their relationship, even if I'm not into the, you know, the hanky-panky part of it. But there wasn't anything outside of the hanky-panky part. I'm told that there is. And again, I'm very happy for the couple that, that off-screen, they had things to talk about, and they got along, very happy for them. I did not get to see it. I did not get to be a part of that or know anything about it, but I'm really happy for them that that occurred. Wish I could have seen it. So, but um, better luck next time, yeah? Better luck next time. What did you think of the cats? Did you like Morning Glory Milky Farm? You napped through all of it. Did you have a good nap? I think that'll about do it. I've read it. I have nothing further to say. I wish I'd liked it better, but I'm not surprised. No one is surprised that I didn't like it. That's it, I think. Let me know your thoughts if you've read it. Let me know your thoughts if you haven't read it. Let me know what you've heard about it. Let me know whatever you want to let me know. I post videos on Saturdays, other random times as well, but on Saturdays, so like and subscribe, try my Patreon if you feel so inclined, and I'll see you when I see you.