Given a group G and a set S, we can define a group action. This is a function from G cross S into S with following properties. The identity property, if E is the identity in our group G, then ES is equal to S for all S in S. And associativity, if AB are elements of G, then AB applied to S is A applied to B applied to S. If a set S has a group action via this group G, we call S a G set. Now, we've actually seen these group actions before, although we haven't called them that. For example, if H is a normal subgroup of G and S is a set of cosets of H, then F from the Cartesian product into S, where F of G of AH is GAH, is a group action. Well, don't believe me, we'll verify those requirements. So first, we need to see what happens if we apply F to the identity and a coset. So first of all, by the definition of our function F, F applied to EAH is E applied to AH. Well, we note that E applied to AH less just a coset formed when the elements of AH are multiplied by E. But remember, these are the identity and group elements, and so when we multiply an element by E, we just get the elements of AH. Next, we want to verify associativity. So we need to check F of PQ applied to AH. So again, we note that PQ applied to AH is a coset formed when the elements of AH are multiplied by the product PQ. So these are elements of the form PQAH, where H is an element of H. Now, since the group operation is associative, we know that PQ AH is the same as PQAH, and so these products will be elements of P applied to QAH, and so associativity is also verified. Now, once we define these group actions, we can consider the following ideas beginning with an orbit. So given some element S in our set, we define the orbit as follows. It's the elements of our set S, where X is equal to GS for some G in our group G. Now, it's important to note that the orbit lives in our set S, but it's based on elements in our group G. So for example, let's consider the multiplicative group of integers mod 31 and the set of cosets of our cyclic group generated by the element 2. And let's find the orbit of the element 3H. So first, we find this subgroup that's generated by the element 2, and this is going to be. And now we can find our cosets in the usual fashion, and so we find. And this collection of cosets is going to form what we call S. Now, notice that the elements of S are subsets of the elements of our group, and this is an idea that will become important later. So remember the cosets are either identical or disjoint, and so we can try to produce a coset AH by multiplying 3 by something to get A. And so we note that 3H itself is going to be. And so obviously we can get to 3H, so 3H is in our orbit. To get H from 3H, we want to find X so that when I multiply 3 by X, I get 1. But since we're living in a group, we can solve this and we find X is 21, and so 21 times 3H is going to be H. And since H is something we can get to if we start at 3H, then H is going to be in the orbit. Similarly, if I want to get 5H from 3H, I want to find X so that 3 multiplied by X is going to give you 5. And again, because these are group elements, we have a solution X equal to 12, and so 12 times 3H is going to give us 5H. And since we can get to 5H from 3H, then 5H will also be in the orbit. And continuing in this fashion, we see that we can generate 7H, 11H, and 15H by an appropriate choice of multipliers of 3H. And so we see that the orbit of 3H is going to include all of our cosets. It's going to be our set S. Historically, these group actions are among the oldest parts of group theory. They appeared in Lagrange's work on the resolution of equations, and he applied them to the cases of multivariable functions and a permutation of the inputs. So let's consider our expressions that we can be formed by permutations of X, Y, Z, and W in X, Y, plus Z, W. So there's our set, and let's consider a group of permutations on 3 elements, X, Y, and Z. And so let's find the orbit of this element, X, Y, plus Z, W. And here we're assuming that our variables have all the properties of the real numbers. So we'll abuse notation a little bit and write sigma applied to X, Y, plus Z, W to indicate that we're applying the permutation sigma to X, Y, plus Z, W. Now, since we're dealing with sigma from the group of permutations on 3 elements, then sigma will only permute the elements X, Y, and Z. And then the elements of S we can obtain by applying sigma are the permutations of X, Y, and Z in X, Y, plus Z, W. And these are. And note that any other permutation on X, Y, and Z will produce one of these expressions. And so we find the orbit of X, Y, plus Z, W to consist of the 3 distinct elements. Again, it's important to remember that the orbit of an element of S is a subset of S. And so we note the following theorem. Let F be a group of action, and suppose S and S are primary elements of S. If the orbits have a non-empty intersection, they must be identical. Consequently, our set S can be partitioned into distinct orbits. But since S is not a set, there's not a lot we can do with this partition, at least not yet. Let's build up a few more ideas and abstract algebra.


I just want to start by saying, I've been working with HIV-AIDS since 86, and I, when I came back, and so that was the only life I knew, right? So when I came back to the country, this was in the US, and when I came back to the country, it made perfect sense for me to continue doing what I was doing. Which was advocacy and HIV-AIDS prevention. That's what I knew with every drop of my blood in my body. And I was so clear that that's what I was going to do. And so advocacy is something I have believed in, and I believe all of us have the potential to change what we think is wrong. So the law that Danish spoke about is the law that took up a decade of my life and Naz's life, and we brought that change. It was possible and it happened. But you know, what really threw me for a six was something that I was completely not prepared for. I was an advocate. I was seen as an activist. And I had never thought of children. I'm a single woman, never thought of her family, never thought about being alone because that was not part of my thinking. And in 2000, the strangest thing happened. Naz used to operate out of my home because we really didn't have the resources. So my parents were really supportive and said, okay, okay, do what you have to do, but just make sure you do it. So it was running out of my home. And a little kid, all of four years old, most gorgeous big eyes, was left at the office. And the only thing we knew is that he had an older sibling who was negative, was adopted by an uncle in the family. His parents had died of HIV. He himself was HIV positive. And the uncle who brought him in was a lawyer. I never met this man. I've never spoken to him.  And I went to Berserk because I didn't know what to do with the child. I definitely never saw myself as a maternal person. I was not a mother. But children have a stranger of changing things for you, you know. So I said, now what do I do? So I went nuts calling every agency. I could think of government, non-government, take this child. And every time they got to know he was HIV positive, the doors were shut one by one. So I said, all right, enough is enough. We'll take care of this child. What's the big deal? So I just thought it's common sense to take care of someone, right? So that's how it started. And over a period of time, obviously we got more and more kids and I got into a lot of trouble. From many sides, I was told by major donor agencies, you're doing a really wrong thing by starting an institution. So I'm like, what are you talking about?  You need to change the system. And my question, it just came out like this. I said, while we are changing the system, what do we do with those who really need the care? So we need to do something for them. These are children, highly vulnerable. So I'm like, all right, I'm not asking you for money. Just let me do what I have to do. Because what happens? I agree. Communities must respond. Absolutely agree. Communities must respond. But what happens to those who don't have those communities? What happens? You don't have parents? The criteria is very clear. You have to be HIV positive because no one will take you if you're HIV positive. You should not have any parents and no extended family support. So if that's the reality, where would these children go? So anyway, this, you won't believe it, this four-year-old and the other question was, what's the point? There's so many kids who need this and you're only taking care of 30-odd. So I'm like, all right, guys, I am not going to look at the big picture because very often the big picture can paralyze you. And that is why many of us, including me, have not done many things in our lives we could have done because we have a parallelized by the thought that the problem was too huge. I think, I really, really, and I really want you to believe this. All of us has that potential to take care of at least one soul in our lives. Just do it. Don't let what anyone says stop you from doing it. The third thing I was told was, what's the point? These kids, how long are they going to live? Listen, we don't know. I could walk out of here and get hit by a bus. What's the big deal? But the reality today is with the kind of drugs we have available, children are living much longer. Our oldest one is going to be nearly 20. The little one who was left with us, you will not believe it. You know what he's doing today? He's studying to be an engineer. He's this absolutely gorgeous, trapping young man. And I feel so sad for that uncle. I feel so sad for that family who never even called once to find out if he was dead or alive. It's beyond my understanding human being sometimes. But all I want to say is that I think I am one of those lucky few who went from being a single woman with an incredibly extended family, which I think many of us would love to have. So all I'm saying is guys, just do what it is that you dream of doing. Don't give up on it. Thank you.


All right, so hello everyone. Again, welcome to the library's workshop, how to evaluate sources. We're going to introduce ourselves really quick. So my name is Grace Darrell. I use she her pronouns. I am a student success librarian, and my job mostly focuses on teaching, helping students and faculty with research, and then online learning. And I work with public speaking students. And then Brittany will introduce herself. Hey everyone, I'm Brittany Norwood. I also use she her pronouns. I'm a common librarian here at utk. And so a lot of my job involves research assistance. So if you ever use chat, I might be the person helping you out. I do programming so things like distress for success and stuff like that. I also do teaching. And I help at the public services desk. All right. So today we're going to be talking about a few things related to evaluating information and evaluating sources that you might come across as you're doing research. First, we're going to talk about what makes the source authoritative. We're also going to talk about like specific techniques you can use to evaluate sources and what questions you should ask as you're looking at information. And then we'll also give you some resources that you can refer to. So I also just want to kind of acknowledge the state of the world today. I know that there could be some anxiety and just like feelings about what's happening. So if you need to take a break, or if you need to leave, just know that this is going to be recorded later on. And you'll be able to see it at a later date. So just reminder to take care of yourself as a person today. And I will turn it over to Brittany. Okay everyone so I want you all to take a moment to look at this source. And tell me whether or not you think it is credible. Anything, any context clues you might find when you click on that link that Aaron just put in chat to tell us about it. And so let's give you about the reading time is three minutes so let's go with two because you don't need to read the whole article. Oh yes thank you grace feel free to put your thoughts in the chat. Anything that you noticed anything like that. I'm just going to kind of scroll through so you can kind of take a look. See this terrifying drop bear in its habitat. So feel free like Brittany said to just put anything in the chat. Maybe things you notice basically just tell us like, do you think this is real. Does this seem like an authoritative source of information. Feel free to drop your comments in chat. And also say I don't know. That's always an option. Okay so I'm seeing a no, somebody doesn't believe that it's credible. Somebody else doesn't think it's trustworthy. Okay let's go back to it because I believe that most you have caught on grace can you go back to the slide please. So this is definitely a fake article, although it was published by a reputable source Australian geographic. This was actually in April full state prank. If you look down here beside the author by line you can see that was published on April 1. There was a big internet hoax going on a while back where I don't know what it originated from but I am almost certain it came from the fact that Americans like to say that everything in Australia wants to kill you. So there was this joke going around that koalas or one of those things and they started calling them drop bears, and there was this huge internet hoax about them. And so this pay this paper quote decided to go a little bit further into that. The thing is is that, even though this is definitely just a satirical funny piece. I don't think that could definitely full people who weren't in on the joke didn't know this is what being published on April Fool's Day, and who are not very aware about Australian wildlife. And so part of the reason that we brought this up with you all today is we wanted you all to first have a bit of an experience, understanding what it'd be like to evaluate a source. And also to give you a primer for what we're going to be talking about in this later, this lesson so how authority is constructed, how you can, what techniques can you evaluate a source and what questions you need to be asking. So I will bring it over to Grace to talk about authority. So I think one of the things that Brittany just talked about is thinking about the context of the information that you're reading, and that you're looking at and she mentioned that this was published in a reputable source but was also published on April Fool's Day. So thinking about just the context in which information is created is actually really important when we think about evaluating sources, it's not just the information itself, but we also have to kind of take a step back and zoom out a little bit and think about how the information was created where it's published, kind of the context for it and also who's creating the information. So when we think about what makes a source authoritative, you might be familiar with being asked to use scholarly sources or peer reviewed sources, and you might be kind of thinking about those as, you know, like quote unquote, the, the most authoritative sources or these are the only sources that you can trust and everything else you can't trust, but really all types of sources can be authoritative. And if you're doing research on a more recent topic, or if you're answering a question that might benefit from other types of information like personal accounts, or having like some general facts or information statistics, then it might be helpful to consider other kinds of sources like social media, like a news article or a different secondary source. So it's important to remember that whatever kind of source you use, you need to take a second and pay attention to who the author is or who is sharing the information. And think about what information you're getting from that person from that group from those people, and if they're qualified to give that information and if we really trust them to give that information. So here I have three different examples of sources that you might use if you were researching the Flint water crisis. So there's a Twitter thread, a news article and a peer reviewed study, and we're just going to look at these individually for just a minute. So with primary sources, like social media accounts or social media posts. I think we definitely expect to get more personal information and lived experience which is totally fine and can be really useful for your research. So for example, Mari Copini is a 14 year old who has lived in Flint, Michigan throughout the water crisis. And this tweet she talks about. They changed the water source when she was six. So it's been about half of her life that she's been dealing with these issues. So she talks about her experiences with that and she has lived experience there. She's also done a lot of activist work and is actually known for writing a letter to President Obama, which prompted him to visit Flint, and see what was going on for himself. So I definitely trust her, you know, to give me information on what the experience is like living in that water crisis, what it's like to have the water source changed, what all of that looks like. I might also trust her to kind of keep me updated on what's going on with this issue in terms of maybe like local policy, because she lives in Flint and she's really invested in that. I also will keep in mind that with any information she shares right she has the personal stake and what happens there. And so that's just something for me to remember. When we look at secondary sources like news articles, we may expect to get like more facts and figures than we would. And you know, for example, like an activist social media account. So this article is for NPR, and it was written by a journalist Merrick Kennedy she has 11 years of journalism experience. So she's been a journalist for a long time. She knows how to write about events. And she's experienced and reporting important information in a way that considers all sides of the issue. This doesn't mean that she has no personal opinions or no personal stake in the matter, because she's a person she's coming at this from her own point of view as well. But it means that I trust her as a news writer and as a general rule NPR is a pretty reputable source. I also think it's important to say that like I would not necessarily trust this article, if the author were making like her own claims about the amounts of lead found in the water in Flint. If she were like trying to do research, I don't know that I would really trust her to do that because that's not her expertise and that's not her background. But as a scholarly source though, I do trust researchers to be able to comment on the like specific scientific facts of what's going on, because we expect with scholarly or peer reviewed sources to find original research that adds to the conversation. So researchers have advanced degrees and civil or environmental engineering. And so that means they have a lot of knowledge about the subject matter, and then they also have an understanding of how to conduct scientific research. So, I definitely again would trust them to tell me about their experiment conducting research on Flint's water and explain the results their study, and I'm more likely listen to their claims about this because they have their that expertise. So really just essentially the important thing is to just again think about where the information is coming from in addition to the actual information that's being shared. There can definitely be more than packier but just kind of as you're coming in contact with information stop and think if the authors or creators of the information have like the expertise to be talking about those things, or if they have anything maybe to be gained from sharing that information. I want to help you as you try to parse out what to pay attention to what to share what to ignore, and what to use in your research. So now Brittany is going to just give you some more information about some of the specifics for evaluating the sources that you find. Thank you grace so I'll go over what techniques that you can use. So, the first thing you want to do when you're evaluating the source is to examine the source you're looking at so examine that page itself. Gather information from the document that you can fact check and look for context clues like you know the publication date. People places things events referred to in the paper, their authors and their authors affiliations so on and forth so forth. So in other words you're gathering information from the document. So that you can go to other places to see if it adds up. So this is a success to lateral reading. So this might be one of the most important skills that you can learn from this lesson. So lateral reading means getting off of your source. So getting off the page or the article you're examining and looking at other sources to see if they back it up. So one example of this would be if there's an image in the source you're looking at and it's claiming it's a street in New York. You could do a reverse image search to see if it actually is a street in New York or if it's somewhere in Chicago. Look at those people those places things events facts that were from your source and go to other places to see if different sources back those things up. So that checking what you found. And you want to also make sure that you're amassing enough evidence that's supporting your claim that you feel confident in using it. And on the flip side, if you're finding a lot of information that is refuting what the source is saying, then that should give you more pause and wanting to and saying if you're wanting to use it or not. So a good rule of thumb is the more information that you're amassing about this topic that supporting it, the more credible it likely is. And finally, you want to make sure that you are asking questions about the sources. So one approach that a lot of students use and this sort of in this topic is called radar and Aaron just put a link in the chat to an article that talks about radar. But basically it's an acronym that stands for relevance authority date appearance and reason. Now, this is a really good technique to use but I also know that not everyone likes these sort of mnemonic devices to evaluate this sort of information. So I've broken down different questions you can ask, and why you want to ask them. So if you could go to the next slide for me please grace. So one of the first questions you want to ask is what is the sources purpose. Is it supposed to be serious. Is it satirical. Does it appear to be something that's very sensational eyes or could be propaganda. Now, we all know the person who has posted you know the piece from like the onion or satire from the New Yorker on to their social media account, and they think it's real and they're outraged. So this is what this question is getting at you want to make sure that the sources you're using are one being serious and to match up with what you are trying to study. Second, you want to ask what biases are present in this source. So something I want to consider are do the authors have a special interest in this project that could have impacted how they published it. So for example, are they working for, let's say a company that is producing toys, and this article is saying that. Oh yeah this toy has tons of developmental benefits for kids. That's okay she might want to give it some pause. So just because to authors might be doctors, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are doctors in a field that would make them an expert. So say if they are have PhDs in economics, but doesn't necessarily mean they know what they're talking about if they're trying to write on biology. And then think about how funding for this research could have impacted how the authors presented their findings. Now, we librarians here all the time about how these diet companies are can fund different research. And suddenly this research seems to point towards the diet having these amazing health benefits. Well, it doesn't necessarily mean the diet doesn't have amazing health benefits. But it does mean that if they are funding this research, then you need to find some sources that are not affiliated with that diet, or with opposing diets to see if the sources also backup what you're talking about. Ask if the source sites anything. Now, something you need to consider is that not every resource you're looking at needs a citation. Well, needs to cite things, what I mean. So for example, if you are reading an editorial by Anna went to work on her opinions on the latest Versace collection. She doesn't need necessarily be citing curavit articles to give you her opinion on this topic. Also, think about if you are examining lifestyle bloggers, and they are prevalence and the culture. And you are looking at a specific blog post that was very popular. If she this person is just you know talking about her day to day life she doesn't need to necessarily cite things or talk about what she's done. So that being said, a good rule of thumb to think about whether or not what source you're looking at needs to have cited things is to consider if it's listed any facts or fact based claims. If that is the case, and these fact based claims are not you know common knowledge, or based specifically on the research that this author has done in that particular source. So they need to be citing things. And if the source does have citations are the sources that this paper lists real incredible have the sources are listing been retracted or debunked. Is this is the content of the citation being accurately represented in this paper. So there's a whole host of things you can think about for that. I also want to ask how current the source is. So, could the information in it be outdated. Is it to need to be supported by others. And that doesn't necessarily mean that you can use a source, but it does mean that you should probably find some more sources in the middle ground that will help flesh out your paper. So if you ask if the source click bait or overly sensational, because if that's the case, then it's likely that they're trying to make you feel overly emotional so that you won't question what you're reading. And you also want to ask if the conclusions in the source are supported. So, you know, I can argue on and on about what two plus two is, but if I tell you in the conclusion that the answer is five, then, you know, obviously those things don't add up. I want to make sure that what the author is arguing does end up lining up with what their conclusions are. And now Grace, could you need to the next slide for me. Thank you. Now, I know that this can be a lot taken and can be overwhelming so I've linked this infographic here. It goes over a lot of what I just talked about like sensationalized headlines or misinterpreted results. I'll put a link to it in chat, and it's also on our information and media literacy guide that we'll be putting it in the next chapter in the next section. But basically this lists a bunch of things you consider when you are examining a scholarly source for information credibility. So something that you also might want to consider when you become more comfortable with your topic are whether or not these statistical analysis papers have used actually relevant to what they're wanting to search for. So things like if there's an unrepresented sample, or there's an a control group, so on and so forth. So, this sort of guide will act as a great reference for you moving forward. And now I will bring it on to Grace so she can talk about some different resources you can use that you can refer back to when you're evaluating your sources. All right, so, like Brittany was just saying, we have lots of different resources as you are evaluating as you're researching and trying to figure out. You know, if you have a question about a source, trying to figure out if it's a solid source for you to use. So here's some different resources that you can use for that. I do want to let you know that evaluating information and like asking these questions going through these methods can take, can take time and it might be really overwhelming and that's completely normal. And if you have like remember that this is like what Brittany and I are trained to do. You know this is what we get paid to do. We have a lot of training in this and this is kind of like our one of our areas of expertise. So, don't feel like you have to do this perfectly there is no perfect way to evaluate a source. These are just some different resources that can help you as you are working on that. Always feel free to ask us as librarians for help as you're working through this, we will talk about that again, and just a couple of minutes. But you know your approach might change based on the sources you're working with and the research you're doing and again it might just feel really unfamiliar you might want some support so feel free to, you know ask for help with evaluating sources. We definitely get asked to help students like form research questions and find sources, but we can also help you with evaluating your sources as well. So just a nice reminder that this is what we're here for and we're here to help you out with those kinds of things if you need. So, to end we're going to take a look at just a couple more sources just to kind of see if you have any, if you have any thoughts about any of these sources to kind of flesh out or flex those evaluation muscles. Erin just put links to all of them in the chat. So feel free to kind of look around see if there's anything that stands out to you if you have a question about any of these feel free to pop it into chat, and we'll just give you a minute to look around. And yeah, see if you see what questions you have about these or what like what you notice thoughts and feelings, if you can try out one of those questions that we talked about earlier to just take a minute. We also know that you only have, sorry. We also know that you only have a couple of minutes left so if you don't have feel like you have enough time to go over it right now. Just feel free to save these links do them in your spare time and you can always get back to me, and I can help you through it. I am just going to pull up the tree octopus, and we can maybe focus on this one because it is Brittany's favorite and Brittany introduced me to the tree octopus so. If you want to just look at one you can look at the tree octopus. Any thoughts, feelings, things that you notice from this page. This image right here is pretty intense. So interesting to pull up something that looks more scholarly. So thanks, Brittany for including a more like scholarly example. So just as a reminder, again, like this kind of thing happens with scholarly sources peer reviewed sources as well. I actually don't think that the source is peer reviewed but if you do like a quick search for any of these people. Actually was doing this because I had never heard of this so I was like well I actually don't know if this is I don't know anything about this kind of research I don't know if this is accurate or not. So just a little Google search and Wikipedia actually tells you that this specific paper, I googled this author right here that this paper has actually caused a lot of issues and problems. So that's the kind of thing again, like just a quick Google of an author or something can save you a lot of time, especially if you're looking at a source, and it feels completely overwhelming and you're like I don't even know where to begin to know if this is credible or not. So, yeah, so a big thing with this one is, if you look at the author's credentials. None of them really have expertise in this topic they were writing about. That's very true for all in economics and business, and they mentioned economics I think at the very end and their conclusion they talk about like the economic implications, but you know, it's not always just because somebody mentions their area of research doesn't always mean you know what they're talking about. So, again, just some examples for you to think about. We are always here to help you with evaluating sources any stage of research, whether you need to look for sources or evaluate the ones that you find Aaron just put the link to chat in her. Yeah, the link to chat in the chat. You can chat with librarians. Both Brittany and I both work on the chat. So, you might, you might be chatting with us at some point, but we can help you out with evaluating sources. You can also schedule one on one research help look at FAQs we have an FAQ list there text email call basically, however you prefer to get in touch. That's all we've got for you today. We're going to put the link to the survey and the chat as well. So if you need attendance record. That's where you will get that. Also, if you're watching this recording on YouTube this link will still be up so you're welcome to go in and give us feedback. If you have any questions, any of that. And we will stop the recording and go into Q&A.


What's up everyone it's your girl Kenzie here from Layton Sports Cards and I'm ripping a personal for Trista X We've got two twenty twenty-two Panini obsidian football hobby boxes. All right best of luck Trista Thanks so much for hopping in see a color blast. Good luck 2022 obsidian first up. We've got Derwin James, Jr. Base And color blast Kenneth Walker the third There you go Wow Spoke that one into existence congrats on that one nice hit card collector That's sick. We'll get that one in the mag for you orange edge of Kevante Turpin 4475 and Steve Young on the obsidian tunnel vision First into 125 trifecta material of Dak Prescott Cowboys We have to 199 rookie Otto Titans of Julian's Chestnut to 199 rookie Otto Garrett Wilson. What a box Fantastic box Gonna make that uh color blast And to 175 rpa Romeo Dobbs. Wow. That was a great box Color blast nice rookie autos and nice rpa there All right box two Box two. What's up, Tony? How's it going? We've got Russell Wilson No freaking way. Oh my gosh. What is this? Aiden Hutchinson color blast now What the heck back to back color blasts two boxes two color blasts Yeah Wow, we'll make that one too Uh purple edge to 100 Wilmak rookie and a supernova of Devo Samuel. That is going to be 16 of 50 On that supernova. Oh, here's why it's a 99 rpa Tyrian Davis price Niners maybe it's just That's the second time i've seen Um two color blasts in one case We've got to 100 cutting edge kyler Murray And to 175 how about another Romeo Dobbs rpa?  Thanks so much for your patience for hopping in. We'll get these right out to you


Greetings, gentlemen. This is James P. Madonna of Megalife 21 and Progressive Discussions. And I would like to show you something that I proved was a great success.  I'm sure many people will agree, male and female alike. It's not the most glamorous, enjoyable, fun task. And the worst part about laundry, in my opinion, especially for the men, for the men, is doing socks.  You have to match the buddies with the right sock, unless you end up with all of your socks being the same, the exact same shade of navy blue, charcoal gray, or black, you know what I mean, or whatever. And they match exactly. Then it doesn't matter. But if you're like most men, you have various socks. OK, this is my solution, and it worked. I've done this so far for, I say, a couple of months. I put a safety pin. OK, here's the entire sock. OK, I put a safety pin, as you could see, on both ends in the center of the sock. OK, these are safety pins that I got from the dollar store. OK, you're better off getting large ones. If you happen to be somewhere and you don't care about paying more than a dollar, get the big ones. I just happen to be in a dollar tree at the time. OK, so we got a safety pin. I mean, I have larger ones, but unfortunately, the dollar store safety pins have three different sizes, large, medium, and small. So anyway, I got one there, and then I got one on the other end. And then what happens is, before I put them in a washing machine, I make sure they go in the washing machine with the safety pins on. And then when they come out, I dry them with the safety pins on. And then when I take a clean pair, I remove the safety pins. I put them in the box where they originally came from, wear them.  OK. And they stay together. Now I don't have to find the buddies. I don't have to pair them up, OK, because they're attached. Now if you're not Mr. Magoo and you're not blind, you could see them. And both ends in the center of the sock. That's it. I don't want to go on and on and talk about socks, OK? Take care. The efficiency of modern living, applying common sense.


George was a pioneer in genome sequencing and still is in genome sequencing and you've seen that drop in price and speed. So we are now doing things much faster and much more cost effectively. You've co-founded several companies in the space, Veritas Genetics, Nebula, Genomics. So teach us about what's happening because you're specifically making a big push to the idea of open access mechanisms because there's a lot of silos of data and we want to be able to leverage open access to data in safe ways that make it easier for medical research. Yeah, exactly. So there were two components from the very beginning for me. One was the technical part of bringing down the cost and we've pursued most recently fluorescent next gen sequencing and nanopores to help do that. We brought down 10 million fold in cost. But in addition to that technical part, there's a social component which is convincing people it's safe and that it's effective, that it does something that they care about. And the problem is it's kind of a seat belt situation where even after the seat belts were installed in your cars effectively free and even there were laws and so forth, to really get people to pay attention, you had to have a circuit that since your seat belt was sealed and then it would shut off the annoying sound. And I think we have a similar thing here where about 1% of the people are at risk for genetic diseases and they sort of feel like, well, I'm exempt because there's nobody in my family yet. But the thing is, that's almost always the scenario is there's nobody in your family until there is one. So what Veritas and Nebula do is Veritas brought the price down to $1,000 and started getting it out to closer to regular people, but Nebula brings it down to $0 and starts making the connection to researchers like pharmaceutical companies much more friction-free simultaneously making convincing arguments that there are two things that worry people. One is, is there data secure and Nebula can use in combination of blockchain and encryption, we can guarantee that the data is only used the way you originally wanted it to be used. You can secure it so that your physician can't see it, insurance companies can't see it, can't be subpoenaed because you never had it, nobody else has it. It can only be used for a list of things that you approved in advance that could benefit you and nothing that could be held against you and you don't need, you can even protect it from yourself so you don't learn anything that you don't want to learn. So that's a breakthrough and then the breakthrough of getting the drug companies to pay for your genome and maybe pay possibly paying you for the education and time completely blows away the $1,000 genome with making something where you could potentially profit from your genome without ever actually selling it to anyone.


All right, it is four o'clock. I will call the city plan commission meeting to order. We'll begin with the role. Uh, Ryan's asthma, Brayden, Kim, Mallor. I cannot hear anything. I can't either. I can't either. I can hear you guys. We've already reconvened from the recess. We went through roll call just to recap for those that could not hear previously. All members marked as present other than Jerry who was excused with that, we can move on to item number two, the pledge of allegiance. All right, do we have any conflicts of interest from the group today? Seeing none, then we'll move on to item four, the approval of the minutes from the January 9th plan commission meeting. We have a motion to approve in a second. And I will note, Kim, we were able to hear earlier that it sounds like the motion to adjourn from that meeting was listed incorrectly. Correct. Good, and we will. Would you consider a friendly amendment to also ask the staff to update that in the minutes from the last meeting? Yes. In the second? Perfect. All right, then we have motion to approve. Okay. Staff update the adjournment. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye. The ayes have it. And the motion passes. That takes us to item number five, which is general ordinance number 35 of 2324 by Alderperson Ramey annexing territory to the city of Sheboygan, Wisconsin parcel number<PHONE_NUMBER>2. Is there anybody that would like to speak to this one? I know we, Jeff, I believe you were in at the last meeting and presented already. And the right up was attached. Are there any questions from members of the commission? If not, we would be looking for a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve all staff. All right, we have a motion to second, then seeing no discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye. The ayes have it. And the motion passes. Next item number six is arrow number 96 of 2324 submitting a communication from Van Horn properties of Sheboygan LLC filing a petition for direct annexation by unanimous consent for land located in the town of Sheboygan 1.75 acres parcel number<PHONE_NUMBER>2. Same property as the last one. Any questions, comments from the commission? If not, we will be looking for a motion to approve on this one also. I'll make a motion to approve all staff recommendations to set up. All right, we have a motion to second, then seeing no discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye. The ayes have it. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the plan commission will be February 13th. And with that, we have exhausted the agenda and are looking for a motion to adjourn. Second. We have a motion and a second for adjournment. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye. The ayes have it. And the motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you.


Hi, I'm Dan Olsby. One of the foundation stones of our former government here in the United States, a democracy in our republic, is our First Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids any law by Congress or the states abridging freedom of speech or of the press, along with freedom of religion and of assembly. That has precluded the passage of a British-type official secrets act, which most countries have. Almost no other country has a law singling out the press as protected by our freedom by the First Amendment. And the British-type official secrets act, which criminalizes any or all disclosure of information protected by the government, by the executive branch, even disclosure to the public or to the press or to Congress or Parliament, is criminalized and subject to prison. We've never had such an act because of our First Amendment. In fact, one was almost inadvertently passed by Congress in the year 2000, but it was vetoed by President Clinton as a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. He cited in his opinion, accompanying that some of the opinions in the Pentagon Papers case of half a century ago. That had resulted from my disclosure of information that I had authorized possession of as a contractor to the government at that time, 7,000 pages of top secret documents about the history of US decision making in Vietnam, which disclosed a repeated sequence by four different presidents of lies and, in effect, violations of the Constitution, treaties, and, in particular, misleading Congress as the costs for war. I was facing 115 years in prison, but not for an official secrets act, which we don't have. It was an experiment by President Nixon to use our Espionage Act, which had always been directed and intended for use against spies giving information secretly to a foreign government, especially in time of war, had never been used, as it was by Nixon in my case, and substitute for an official secrets act for disclosure to the public, with no irrigation of my intentions there, but simply that holding doing that was a violation. That was dismissed on grounds of government criminality against me. And there never has been a Supreme Court decision on whether the use of the Espionage Act as is now facing Julian Assange as a basis for an attempt to extradite him from Britain to the US was constitutional. They've never received it, even though there have been dozens of cases since then, since my case, in which the act was used as if it were an official secrets act. In effect, making it a reliable substitute and withholding from the public any information the government doesn't want it to have, which is an enormous amount of information. Up until Julian Assange's indictment, the act, however, had never been used as an official secrets act is against other than sources, like myself, who had a possession of information, who disclosed it to the public that had never been used against a journalist like Julian Assange, although in each case, of course, of such disclosures or leaks in some form of media was involved, many, many people involved in that. But they had never been indigent for that before. Actually, if you're going to use the act against journalists in blatant violation of the First Amendment's denial of Congress's ability to criminalize acts by journalists, by the press, the First Amendment is essentially gone. As I say, we're almost the first to have it. We fought a war of independence and established a constitution, so we have a First Amendment. Britain does not know where Julian now is, and they have an official secrets act, which we don't. If we acquire that, we give up the main result, I would say, of that war of independence in the sense that we are no longer really a republic or a Democrat. We have monarchical powers, imperial powers, formally, and every empire requires secrecy to cloak its acts of violence that maintain as an empire to the American. It's a major form in our change and our form of government. The fact is that the Espionage Act is even broader than the British Official Secrets Act, and that's why Congress, any people in Congress who wanted to uphold secrecy have given up trying to pass a formal Official Secrets Act. They prefer the Espionage Act because the wording of that act so far, not used even against a journalist until during this time, and not used beyond a journalist to someone who simply receives the information or possesses it, maintains it, without giving it to an authorized authority. That is covered by the language of the Espionage Act. To challenge that, a year ago, I released a top secret document on the Taiwan Streets Crisis of 1958, that long ago, in which the US came close to using nuclear weapons to uphold the protection of Taiwan from mainland China, and if you wish, is now very much facing us this year. And I challenge that as someone who had held that and refused to give it to authorized authority for all these years in order to raise in court for the first time, whether one can take the plain language of the Espionage Act as controlling, as overruling basically the First Amendment. To go further this year in connection with the attempt to extradite Julian Assange, I also reveal the fact that I had been as subject to indictment as Julian all this time, since 2010, because I had possessed the information which he released to the newspapers before he did that. He conveyed it to me before he did that as a backup to what he was doing for the press. In the plain language of the act then, as someone who possessed that information and did not disclose it to a authorized person and retained it, I like actually every reader of the Times, the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde who received and published that information, every reader all over the world comes under the plain language of that act. I'm in effect saying with Julian, I am prepared to face a test of that act going up to the Supreme Court if necessary and restoring our status as a Republic. I call on President Biden either to indict me along with Julian Assange and others or to drop this unconstitutional attempt to extradite Julian. I wouldn't have to be extradited or to prosecute either of us in these courts. That is really the only way for him to restore our status as a Republic and a democracy.


It's time for some New York City factory footage. New York City factory footage without a crane-filled sunset from the construction going on across the street. This is Disney. They're still building stuff. This is where they house all of Scrooge McDuck's money. Or they will.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with LaytonSportsGuard, dripping two boxes of 2022 TopScrone baseball hobby for Ed B. So good luck here, Ed. Let's do it. We've got, of course, our two silver packs. Let's get right into it. It's waste no time. Good luck here, Ed. See what we can pull out of here for you, man. We've got a Jose Siri on the rookie prism. Nice one, man. Joe Musgrove. What's up, Peter? Peter. Jake Berger. Aaron Judge. And a Hermon Marquez. Peter, as you see, see what you hit? Oh, yeah. No problem, man. That kid is nasty. So nasty. Such a huge card. Tati. Jose Berrios Refractor. Buster Posey. Big time card for sure, Peter. Congrats again, man. Glad we hit it for you. Peter. Jose. Is that cranky? Just now? Awesome. Awesome, man. Kyle Seeger. Refractor Chris Sale. Just heard him right there. And Carlos Corre. Jets did look good yesterday, actually. Dude, Sauce Gardener is going to be an absolute problem. Sauce Gardener's a problem. Got Ronald Lacuna Jr. Nice one there on your prism. And Matt Chapman. Thank you, Sean. Sean, just drop you guys a link again as well for personal boxes. Nick Magical and JD. Stanton. Devers. Harrison Bader Refractor. Darth Vader. Darth Vader, I should say. So good, man. Sentian Hoy Park. There's a Wander. 87 throwback on the rookie. And Alexander Wills. Trent Grisham. Mies. Trevor Larnack. Yeah, all 30 teams play tonight. Yeah. It's actually kind of wild, Tim. Whitmerefield and Trey Manson. Hoping for a big Ravens game here. Laz Newpap. There's a Jazz Chisholm on the prism. Max Krannick. Juan Soto. Trey Turner. Hey, Oscar Hernandez. Katal Marta. Show it.  Yeah, I know. It's going to really mess up my slate, I think. Very cool. There's a Patrick Mazzico rookie auto. Nice one there. Congrats on that. Ed and Brandon Marcherookie. Yeah, me too. I hope Tashaun Jackson works out. There's Reed Detmerce. Max Scherzer. I'm going to be a lot cooler if we've got DJ Moore, but Prism. Jack Flaherty for the Cardinals. And John Lester. When do you have a second? This is just outrageous. Whatever you have. Oh, Orange. Oh, Orange. Orange. Caleb Walkson when you have an Orange. Rookie. Rockies. Ryan Belave. Very nice. Congrats on that. 19 out of 25. On the Orange Wave rookie. There you go, Ed. That's awesome. That's very solid. We'll take that for sure. And Koarai. Talk to me, Goose. How are the Ravens only favored tonight by a point and a half against the Saints? No Bateman. No marked entries. I still failed to believe it. The Ravens are going to destroy the Saints. There's no passing game. There's no passing game. That's the reason. I'm just telling you guys. It's a trap game. This could be a trap game. That's the lock of the week right there. That's all I got. Goose Saints. I can't stand this guy. Cow Raleigh. Carla Santana. Aaron Ashby on the refractor rookie. And Tyler Glasna. Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? Who dat? That's the team starting Andy Dalton at quarterback. Dude, the red rocket is a beast. Joey Vado and Jan Moncada. That's a beast. Yeah. He really does. But tonight, I hope he plays like a god. Ooh, redemption. Redemption, Ed. Well, let's go. Matt Beirling. Let's go. Rookie autograph for Fractor. Matt Brash. Nice one there for the Mariners. Congrats on the Matt Brash. We'll take that for sure. That's very true. Very true, Vaughn. Very true. So much voodoo up in there. Seth Beersack Thompson. Strasburg. Lubab. All right. That'll do for box one, Ed. Nice orange there, I have to say. Very nice orange. Couple more orders came in. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Got a few more, then I got to go collect again. Yeah, that's not really that big of a feat in my opinion if you're beating the Panthers, though. That really gets, like, it's annoying me now because now Joe Burrow is getting all this credit for back-to-back weeks. He beats the Falcons and the Panthers. Like the bottom feeders of the NFL. Shane Boss. DeGrom. Matt Beirling. Ciri. Flaherty. There's an Andre Jackson refractor rookie. And Lubab. Louis Heel rookie. Stuck to that one, too. Our O&8 playing the following week. Nice. What's up? You ever been to Mardi Gras?  And these are really stuck together. There we go. Jairan Durand. Nice one there, Ed. Brandon Marsh. Matt Chapman. That's a good stat. I'm very happy about that stat. They're O&8 after the week after playing the Panthers. Beautiful. Let's hope it's O&9 now. Let's change that tonight, boys. Cedric Mullins. We've got Miguel Sanchez. Going to the brew crew. Nice one there, Ed. On the teal wave. Otto. 127 out of 199. Yeah, that was a quick dinner, Kyle. Yeah, what's he got? Mac and cheese? What's going on? Sprinted back to the monitor. Joe Ryan refractor rookie. Nice one there. And Javi Baez. SG with another order coming through. There we go. Got to pull you that red alley.  Miguel Cabrera, yes I have. Alexander Wells, it is very good. A very good hangover. Man, you don't even have to chew. Yeah. Part of the city wants Soto, Joe Adele. Tony. What's up, Tony? Acunja refractor. Max Muncie. Lil Vita. I mean, it is better. It depends on what you're in the mood for.  You just, oh, eating with straw. Otani, Seeger, Lau and Wisdom. These are a little warped on some of these here, Ed.  It should straighten them out. One of those things like PSA doesn't take off for warped cards, but these are noticeably warped for sure. Giancarlo Stanton and DJ Lamejo. I'm down with that. Let me down with that. Let's do it. That's going to be Michael Brantley on the prism and Joey Vata. Well, mac and cheese and we'll go hit around at 18. I'm down. Yes. Yes. It'll be ripped tonight, Stefan for sure. Probably about an hour would be my guess. Yeah, you'll definitely be ripped tonight. That's right. What up, James? What's up, James? Refractor, Elon Moncada and Carlos Correa. I don't want to stack too much. Bonnie Marinated Mozzarella. I don't even know what that is, but it sounds good. Sharon Duran, 87th Throwback Rookie. John Lester. And Anise is good too. Anise is good. They have like white cheddar mac and cheese. That's very good.  It's good.  It's just like the Cheetos. Oh, gee. Bare and all the twirls. I don't like that. Redepmer's Refractor Rookie. I had a class now. I just want the original zit. Spirals of trash. You gotta branch out. They taste the same. No, they don't. There's going to be Carson Kelly on the prism. Orange coming up here. It's going to be Matt Manning this time. Another orange rookie. Congrats on that. 24 out of 25. Ed doing very well. That's right. That's right. Respect your elders, Sam.  Ooh, Neil Cruz on the negative. There you go, Ed. Congrats, buddy. That's awesome, dude. Tony Sansian Refractor. Yeah, I'm going to go read what Rory just typed out a paragraph here. Did he? Remarse. It'll be, I think the next one's Ultra High End Hit Trap 2K, a spot. A little bit of a second class by this pasturized process. Cheese product originally was made from real trees, but that's no longer the case. Oh, geez. Apparently, what'd you say, Velveeta? Is that Velveeta or Kraft? You were just spitting game about Velveeta. Yeah, don't ever talk bad about Kraft. Ever. There's Kraft Hooligans. Kraft Hooligans, Kraft Goons. It's like straight mafioso at the place. Honestly. God, Ed, no problem, buddy. Still got two Silverpacks, dude.  Ed. Taiwan Walker. Nice one there. Congrats on that for the Mets and Hermon Marquez. I would probably wait until the World Cup starts, Stefan. And then I would sell them on eBay. Yeah, eBay's probably going to be your best. eBay or Facebook or social medias are usually the best avenue to sell those kinds of things. Blasnow Refractor, Posey. Oh, it is going crazy. We're going, it's getting crazy in late sports cards chat, right here. Know it. Ashby. There's an Arosa Raina on the prism. And Zach Ranky, Apocas Finest. Let's go. APK's Finest. All right, good luck here, Ed.  Backward stuff here. Joey Vada and Josh Lowe on the refractor rookie. Yeah, that sucks, Paul. Yeah, it is going to be a little bit of everything. Devers, Contreras, Cabrera and Justin Turner on the Silver. That'll do it for your break there. Ed, thanks as always for jumping in, man. We'll get them right out to you, buddy.


Hi everyone, Joe for jazby's casebreaks.com coming at you with an pack of 1819 Chronicles basketball, fat pack break number 55. This is the last filler we got to do to unlock that basketball mixer. Actually there's still two full spots left but that's the only filler that's the last filler we got to do. We've got to move two full spots, we're in Brakesville. Let's make it happen. Big thanks to this group for making this particular pack happen and all the basketball teams are in. Let's roll it, randomize it, five and a one, six times for names and teams. Different dice roll for the giveaway part. In order to get Tiger you have to get him a driver, nice Rex, because that works on two levels, the car and the club. Five and a one, six times for the teams, one, two, three, four, five and a one, six in the final time. Alright there's the first half of the list right there. This is 1819, so Barry you got Dallas, so Luca possibilities here, not autograph possibilities but rookie card possibilities. And Robert you got the Hawks, so Trey Young rookie card possibilities. I don't think there's autographs in these retail hanger packs. Alright no trade window, let's print and rip. Oliver that sounds like that sounds like you're pitching golf lessons for me. Exactly Tiger Woods. I'll tell you what Michael, not to brag, but I was I was striking the ball at the driving range yesterday, or a few days over the weekend. I think I'm getting my seven iron pretty straight and consistently 135-ish, 140-ish around there. Just figuring things out. I think something just clicked. And then I went the next day, be like was it just a one day thing? No, still got it. So I'm getting there, getting there. There's Jalen Brunson. Back in the day when this product first came out, we called him not Luca because you know he was like no one wanted this guy. But now he turned out to be pretty good. So there's Jalen Brunson rookie card for Dallas. That'll be for Barry. Now let's see who's gonna win those three mixer spots. There's gonna be a lot of sad faces. Only three that we're giving away, but good luck everybody. There's one through 30. Let's copy everybody's names, put them into this new list. Let's roll it, randomize it, five into two seven times, top three after seven. One, two, three, four, five, six, and seven. All right, so from four is the sad spot here because, sorry Chris, very close, but just not quite. Four through 30. Thanks for giving it a shot. We'll get him next time. Top three, happy times for you because you're in the mixer. Oliver is happy, he's in the mixer. Chad is happy, he's in the mixer, and William is happy. He is in the mixer. There you go. Top three after seven. Congrats to you. I'll see you a little bit later tonight for that. Jaspeasecasebreaks.com. Bye-bye.