Live from the JSA Podcast Studio, presenting Data Movers, showcasing the leaders behind the headlines in the telecom and data center infrastructure industry. Hey everybody, welcome to a very special edition of our Data Movers podcast. It's part of our greener data series. So welcome, welcome. I'm your host, Jamie Scott Okutaya, CEO of JSA. And along with me is my fabulous co-host, Mr. Evan Castel, top V2B social influencer. Hey, good to see you again and welcome everyone to Data Movers, where we sit down with the most interesting and influential men and women of today's modern data center and telco world, supporting the infrastructure requirements of this new normal. But first, Jamie, let's talk about you. We're always talking about our guests and your clients and other interesting things. But I think our viewers, listeners would be interested to know how did you get into the marketing and media world? Like what was a young Jamie Scott-O doing in her twenties to kind of build up her brand and her career? Like what was that like? Ah, a little bit of luck. A lot of late nights studying up, I guess. In short, I was going to NYU for my graduate degree in writing and I was writing my thesis and my friends that I lived with were like, you need to go out. Like come for a drink with us.  And so I actually, when I was sipping in cocktail at this bar was sat down right next to a gal who was hiring for MSNBC and she was hiring writers and my friends introduced me as a writer and I remember thinking, I don't know if you can call me a writer, like, you know, big names, Shakespeare. That's a writer. I'm just Jamie. But it kind of was an upward spiral from there. I was writing for MSNBC. I was a journalist there, got really interested in the journalistic perspective. And then my next move was to go into PR and I wanted to be representing the companies pitching their news to the news, to the news broadcasters. And I found myself at Telex where I was head of marketing in PR and that got me into our industry. And then once I understood that this is this core network infrastructure that powers all of our communications, all the ways that we stay safe and secure, all of our economies, our ways of entertaining and educating and learning. I just, I was hooked and decided, hey, what I did for Telex, I could do for one or two more logos. And that started JSA in 2005, 17 years. Wow, 17 years. That's amazing. What a great story. My main takeaway is spend more time at bars talking to strangers. Also get go to amazing graduate school programs. But yes, well, enough about that, but that was fascinating to hear the story. Let's get on with our incredible guest. Yeah, actually, who wants to talk about me? I have, especially when in the wings, we have the most amazing speaker friend. I'm so blessed to say he's also one of our contributing authors for greener data. But with me today, please welcome Mr. Brad Meisner. He's the product manager for global large diesel generators at Kohler. Welcome, Brad. So I was actually really excited to talk about plumbing, but we can talk about large diesel generators too. Very, very much into work, but just kidding. You must get that all the time at Kohler. But your background is actually in engineering as is mine, I have a double E and you worked in lots of engineering projects outside the data center space from I'm seeking Bayer belts, I heard solar panels, control systems, maybe a Kohler bathroom installation. I don't know, what else do you have going on outside in your past and how does that relate to our sector data center? And what are some of the commonalities when you think about engineering and design thinking and that kind of thing? Yeah, well, first of all, thanks for having me on. Jamie, it's always great to be with you, Evan. First time meeting you, fantastic to be here. So thank you. As I jump into your question here, first of all, yes, I'm on the power side of the Kohler business and it's very much a B2B market for us and not as familiar to most as our plumbing products, but we're actually the third largest standby power producer in the world. Lots of expertise in this space. And as I jump into your question then about, what's the difference between engineering products for a data center customer versus some of the other things I've done? The really big difference is how technical and how much knowledge the data center space has when you think about that customer base, they know the product as well as you do, they have lots of hands-on experience and they also come to the table with a lot of preconceived notions of it. So I just try to educate the customer and it's a different type of education that you're trying to give. But ultimately it really ends up in this really collaborative space of how we develop product, how we deploy generators and becomes very intentional about how we do things which is a lot of fun. How it's similar though is there's just this common thread across engineering about innovation and continuous improvement and always trying to strive to bring a new capability to the market. And that's always the fun part of it for engineers like myself. Wow. All right, I gotta ask. I'm gonna ask the big elephant in the room question, I guess. Of course, you Brad are in charge of the environmental policy and sustainability for Kohler's diesel generator division. And so on one hand you have the enviable position of being one of the biggest suppliers of emergency backup power for data centers around the world, huge. And then on the other hand, the technology you're championing is well notorious for its negative ecological impact. So how do you reconcile the two? How does Kohler approach these seemingly opposing goals? Yeah, yeah, it's a great question.  You're describing my dad's Volvo back then. That was exactly that. But I think we've come a long way, right? Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna say if you look today on the on-road truck technology, no longer are seeing that black smoke coming out of it and it's much cleaner. And a lot of the technology that we're rolling into our diesel engines for our generators are all things that have been applied to on-road truck technology. So certainly there's delicate balance between the long-standing history of diesel engines and the emissions and pollutions that come from it. But it's also the most reliable and power dense and easily deployed product in the market for any of these data center sites. So it's absolutely critical to the infrastructure for everything that Jamie described there of powering our entertainment, our life safety systems, all of that. So a lot of it comes back to that education piece, but that's also making sure that we're striving for better and better with the product. So there's a lot of things that we can do from a continuous improvement standpoint, a lot of things that we've done. You look at our engine technology over the past 20 years starting back in like 2000 and the improvements that we made to reduce pollutant emissions and the things that we continue to do today around introducing after-treatment systems onto our product and looking at alternative fuels for the diesel engines that are gonna significantly reduce our carbon emissions that I'm gonna talk a lot about later in this podcast. So interesting. And speaking of education, I understand you're enrolled in an MBA program at Purdue, one of our great institutions. I'm curious in a modern program like yours, do they talk about sustainability and environmental impact in the way they're educating future business leaders? Yeah, yeah, and thanks for pulling in the piece about me going back to school, I always love talking about it. So certainly we're talking about environmental aspects, we're talking about social aspects. And really this idea that businesses have to be more than just a vessel for creating a product and making money. We have to be every single stakeholders that our business impacts has to be thought of and considered. So environmental impacts through our products, through our supply chains, through our manufacturing processes, all of that needs to be considered. And really what the teaching is focusing around is how do you balance these demands as a future leader of business and of industry? So there's no like sustainability course per se that we're taking as an MBA, but it's certainly kind of interwoven into everything that we're doing now in business. It's also thinking about our chapters in greener data and your experience so international and colors reach in the data center world, of course global. How do you see that the issue of environmental protection really differ from market to market in country to country? What's that like? Yeah, yeah, great question. So when I think about sustainability as a whole within the power generation industry and even in the data center in distress, the parallels, a lot of it starts out of two locations around the globe. One is California and in the US and the other one is Europe. And those are really the two thought leaders in the space. And what happens is as those regions adapt new standards, drive new technologies, new requirements, the other areas quickly look and start to pick up on those and those ideas. A great example is one that came out of California recently affects both the generators as well as the data center industry. So right at the end of 2020, it was like a Christmas gift for all of us. The Bay Area of California, which is the Silicon Valley region, lots of data centers sitting there. They released new regulation that requires all diesel generators being installed in that region to be tier four compliant. So basically near zero pollution. And what that did is it showed that demonstrated the industry that yes, this can be done. And now you see areas like Phoenix, Virginia, all of them starting to gravitate towards this requirement. And that's usually what you see. You see it either come out of Europe or out of California, they institute these new standards and new requirements that drives the industry forward towards a more sustainable future. Awesome. And you're a co-author chapter in the new greener data book by a JSA is about a lot of emerging tech, really exciting stuff in the new green tech world from hydrogen fuel cells to sustainable fuel sources and more. So of all those emerging technologies, what innovation do you think is most promising for our space in the data center? Yeah, yeah, it's a great, we kind of set it up as this evolutionary or revolutionary because we're pursuing technologies in parallel. And when we think of what's the revolutionary stuff on the horizon, that's typically thought of as like batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. And then the more incremental that evolutionary type changes is things that we're doing to internal combustion engines like diesel generators that we can start implementing today and much faster. And when we think about the biggest things that are happening around the diesel space, it's really around alternative fuels. And there's two words out in the market for it that we're seeing a lot in the data center space. It's HVO and renewable diesel. HVO is typically talked about in Europe, renewable diesel is the name for it in the North America region, but they're really the same product. And what it's doing is it's taking and capturing waste streams of like animal byproducts, basically any byproducts of making food, which is very plentiful. And it's used as a process mixing with hydrogen. And you end up with this really revolutionary fuel where you have basically net zero, a carbon impact from it, because you're taking that carbon impact from the waste stream, repurposing it into a fuel. And that's where the renewable name comes from. So you think about how we reduce carbon at a data center. It's a really revolutionary technology that's gonna drive to near zero carbon at a data center and without having to use these revolutionary technologies. That's one that's certainly there. The other one is just advancements in engine technology. Like I've been talking about and then I think we'll talk about it more later but there's this push in the space also to think differently. How do we operate these generators differently? How do we deploy them differently in order to reduce our footprint from emissions from carbon? When we talk about those revolutionary pieces, when we talk about batteries and fuel cells, there's a reason why they're seen as revolutionary. They're not ready today to replace a generator on a data center site. Batteries that's very large, the footprint it's gonna require, when you consider the entire life cycle of a battery, actually creates a lot of carbon to create that and then also to recycle it. Short period of time that can provide backup power. So there's these hurdles that it has to overcome. Hydrogen fuel cells is probably the more promising the two technologies in my opinion. But the issue with the hydrogen fuel cells is your source of hydrogen. So today, hydrogen is primarily made from natural gas and that actually creates a lot of carbon. When I'm comparing it to a diesel generator, but actually the same from a carbon perspective, when you factor in the renewable fuel, it's actually cleaner to run your diesel generator. As more renewable technologies come available for our energy grid, I think solar, wind, electric or hydroelectric dams, those types of technologies will drive us more towards a process called electrolysis, which will allow us to have green hydrogen. But you just think of what it's gonna take to build out an infrastructure around that. Think of how long it took to build out infrastructure of all the gas stations and trucks that transport our diesel today. You had to build all of that up for hydrogen. So the earliest we would really see a green hydrogen revolution is gonna be 2030. And even then I think there's a lot of question marks still that need to be answered around it. So very important, you know, coalers attacking both sides, that revolutionary piece and the evolutionary piece and continuing to drive the best products out into the market that we can. So fascinating and actually speaks to how your coaler brand just so much more than what we might initially think about and we think coalers so innovative, a hundred year brand, right? I mean, phenomenal. But getting back to thinking differently in the chapter, Guino data that you authored, you called it a sustainable thinking, you know, really wanting data center designers to adopt to the sustainable thinking to move forward. So tell us a little bit about what is sustainable thinking? What are some examples of it? Why is it important? Yeah, yeah. So, you know, I mentioned how knowledgeable the data center operators are and these data center engineers are. At the same time, they're also very risk averse. Sean Farney is one of my mentors in the space a long time participant in it. And he always talks about how hard it is to get people to think differently and think new. And one of the reasons I think that is, and he's reinforced this with me, is a lot of these operators are incentivized by uptime. So why think differently? If I'm incentivized by uptime, why try something new? And it's kind of breaking that mold and really thinking of sustainability as right there with as important or even maybe being more important than these uptime pieces, which might be crazy to for some people to think about. But taking these safe risks within how we do things in order to be more sustainable, how we operate a data center site, how we exercise our equipment, how we build our equipment, how many pieces of equipment we put on a site for redundancy, all of those things that we can drive towards. And so, of course kind of done is mapped out this, I think of it like a staircase. So this is how much pollutant I have today. I want to step that down by taking these incremental steps of how I test things, of how I build my product. And we kind of roadmap this out much like we do like our product roadmap. So just these incremental improvements that we can do and start deploying. And we're finding industry leaders and thought leaders throughout the world who are interested in doing this with us. And we're starting to put some of these ideas actually into practice and testing them so we can prove them out before we take a widespread. Fantastic. And have you put together a sort of 10 or year or long-term view of where you see diesel engine tech being in relation to data center environmental issues? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. It kind of goes back to that incremental, that evolutionary piece versus the revolutionary piece. One of the things that we're going to see happen with internal combustion engine. So today it's primarily all diesel, but you think about an internal combustion engine that can run on natural gas. They can run on a hydrogen. So there is also this roadmap, this process of taking our engines and evolving them into a hydrogen, which will allow us to run zero emissions just like a fuel cell would. Then how do we take these assets that are sitting on data center sites, right? In 20 years from now, when fuel cells or other technologies are developed, we're still going to have these assets that are still very viable on these data center sites that we need to convert. And that's a roadmap to also get those converted. Yeah, amazing. I'll tell you, Brad, I say to you, and I just, I feel the futurist coming out.  And we really appreciate your brilliance, your insight. So let's go ahead and get to the more relaxed, fun, rapid fire section of our Data Movers podcast. This is where we just ask you some goofy questions and get a little bit more data on what makes Brad tick and especially on his off time. So let's start with, what's your favorite dessert? Oh, great question. So my mother-in-law is a fantastic cook. She's also very giving. And she asked me every year for my birthday, what I want for a birthday cake. And she makes this fantastic eclair tour, which if you don't know, it's like this mixture of graham crackers and I don't know if it's like vanilla pudding, but it's very, very good. And that is absolutely my favorite. And every mother-in-law right now is thinking, there, that's the guy right there. Like perfect in love. Yes, awesome. So what's the first thing you do in the morning after waking up besides eating the eclair tort? What's next? Man, if I could wake up every morning with a eclair tort next to my bed, I would just be in heaven. I should suggest that to my wife. As I think about it, probably the thing I do, because it's always to an alarm that me and my wife both wake up to, I basically say the same thing every morning, I ask her how she slept. So that's probably the most boring thing, but yep, that's, it's always interesting the response I get to. I think you have a really good knowledge, like that's pretty cool. So when you were a child, what did you want to be when you grow? So I wanted to be a mechanic. So I'm a mechanical engineer, so I kind of do that by background. Of course, I moved into marketing now, which is like the dark side. But yeah, I wanted to be hands-on, fix cars, fix equipment, those types of things, but yeah, my parents, I have a knack for math and science. So they pushed me to go to engineering school, which has been a great fit for me. Yeah. Well, there's always a second career. We need more mechanics. So you never know. I understand you sing karaoke. What's your favorite karaoke song? I absolutely do not sing karaoke. As you can probably tell, I'm an engineer, right? So I'm very monotone.  So I have no talents in music. I can't play an instrument. I can't sing. That's why you need to sing karaoke so we can make fun of you. No, no, I've got to. We're gonna have a karaoke episode, Jamie. We're all gonna sing karaoke. I don't know, I don't get ratings. Or maybe not. They'll be like, turn it up. I'm with you, Brad. It's like, you know, no one wants to hear me on a mic trying to sing. But so what is your favorite superhero? Iron Man, right? He's a brilliant engineer. Yes. He has this fantastic suit. They get to fly around the world. That's always been cool to me. Magical card course. I can see all the correlations, yes. Yep. What about pets, Annie? Do you have any, one to Annie? I don't. Trying to think if my daughter still has her goldfish. Nope, right now. I've got two daughters that keep me totally busy so I do not need a puppy in the house or anything like that. Good strategy. Keep it that way as long as you can. Trust me. And all right, my last fun facts question. What is your favorite place on earth? Colorado. I love the mountains. I love the snowboard. I love the fact that, and fun fact about Denver, I think they get like 310 days of sun a year and you have the mountains right there. It's just this great place. A lot of active people, things like that. Everybody's friendly. So yep, my favorite place on earth that family didn't live in Wisconsin, I would be in Colorado. Nice. Awesome. Well, thank you for joining us, Brad. Really interesting. I had no idea that there was so much innovation happening in diesel generation and power generation. It's like, well, it blew my mind. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And Brad, again, thank you so much for your time, your energy, your brilliance. We so appreciate you. And I'm so excited to also be able to promote your chapter in greener data. And guys, if you enjoyed today's Data Movers podcast as much as we did, go ahead and check us out at jsa.net slash podcast for upcoming episodes being released every other Wednesday morning. Yeah, and follow us on Twitter at Jay Scotto and Evan Kirstel and follow Jamie on TikTok for her karaoke songs. And we'll chat to you later. And as always, stay safe, think green and happy networking.


I would like to invite James to come up and also Lincoln, who has traditionally been our panel moderator here to spend a few minutes with both of them. Who has the most provocative question to start us out? Go ahead, Caleb. So the question was in early Utah Mormon history, were there women that drew on heavenly mother in the way that they advocated for their positions? Suffrage, et cetera? Yeah, it's a great question. I think I have this. Yes, so I can just use this. I will say, so I think two data points. So the quick answer is, we haven't come across anything that explicitly relies on the doctrine of heavenly mother to justify or to support their suffrage claims. What's interesting is, you may have noticed, I didn't mention Eliza R. Snow today. Eliza, of course, it was the ground-dome of her generation of Mormon women in terms of those that were of age and leading the pioneer entrance. Some of you may know that Eliza, who of course penned on my father, was actually not unequivocally pro-suffrage. She was a great mentor to a number of the women that we've been talking about. But she also held a very fine line between supporting the development of women through her restoration of the Relief Society here in 1862, and also holding very fast to a patriarchal observance. You know, there have been a lot of theories that have been put out about Eliza's experiences being sealed to such powerful men in her drive as a childless woman to support their power, to uphold their power. The experiences that she had had with men in Missouri. I think we have to take all of that into account when we look at Eliza's position on this. She was first and foremost dedicated to the patriarchal line of revelation through her prophet husbands. So we have statements from her in which she, for instance, chastises Emma Lyne who's younger generation, but she chastises Emma Lyne for being subject to the causes of men rather than the causes of God. So I think Eliza's fascinating. I haven't studied Eliza personally as much as I've studied Emma Lyne because I get very frustrated with her. She really was trying to have it both ways. I understand that impulse, right? As somebody who works in the contemporary church, as a bridge-builder trying to bring more. Somebody said to me today that I'm the person that their parents can talk about with them, and I love being in that position. I'm very much of a middle-roader, and so while I understand why Eliza was the way she was, it's also frustrating to me that she didn't grasp onto that Heavenly Mother concept. That said, she probably had a vision of Heavenly Mother that was very patriarchally deferential, right? I mean, there's nothing in my father where she says they're equal beings. She just says she exists, right? We don't know what the relationship is, and Eliza never expounds on that. I will say, however, that in May of 1895, after Eliza's been dead for eight years, Susan B. Anthony comes to Salt Lake. She comes as part of a Western tour, and the timing is really fortuitous because the Utah Constitutional Convention has just happened, and they've just decided to include suffrage in the Utah State Constitution. Susan comes as part of this Western tour to congratulate the people of Utah for being the third state to enter the nation. Emeline organizes a conference where she brings in women from Colorado and Idaho and Wyoming, and entertains Susan and Anna Howard Shaw for three days, and what is the opening hymn that they sing at the beginning of that conference? It's on my father. I have to think that somewhere in Emeline's mind, I just think that there's something significant there that she picked that hymn as the great leader of women in Utah at that time, maybe as a differential gesture to Eliza, but I also think, of course, that that doctrine did mean something to them, and she wanted to put that doctrine out there as a kind of, maybe in knowing Emeline, she probably wanted to put a little say, hey, not only are we not the oppressed polygamous women that you thought we were for the past 25 years, but we also believe in Heavenly Mother. I just like the image of her choosing that hymn for very deliberate reasons.  What's your reaction to what Nyland has been talking about, both in her response now and her general presentation, and secondarily, beyond just your initial gut reaction to this stuff. As somebody who knows what the MTA is about and stands for, how would you recommend that we leverage this aspect of our culture? The aspect of gender politics, and the history that we've inherited? Well, I was just reflecting on this question about how theology affects the status of women, or vice versa in society. I remember when I was a teenager, when I became a feminist and started reading radical feminist literature in the late 70s, there was a theory prevalent at the time that there used to be a matriarchy and that it was overthrown by the patriarchy, and you could tell this by looking at statues of women, goddesses, and things like that. And I think the dominant view, probably then and today, is that that's really not the case, that the majority of all hunter-gatherer societies have been patrilineal, patrilocal, patriarchal. And if you look around the world, India, every god has a female consort, and some of them are quite powerful. Kali is a very powerful goddess. Didn't seem to have very much of an impact on Indian patriarchy. Chinese gods and ancient ones have female counterparts. Didn't seem to have much impact on their patriarchy. Depending on how you look at Europe, Europe is probably the most feminist part of the world, and it's either Christian or secular. If it's secular, then the answers get rid of religion, but if it's a patriarchal religion, Protestantism there seems to have given birth to a society that's relatively egalitarian for women. So I think there's a very, if there is a relationship, it's a really complicated relationship between how we think about gods and heavens and all of that.  But when they joined the Buddhist order, the Buddha put 17 extra rules on them that they had to be subordinate to the monks that they had, that there were menstruation things, things that were specific to women. And so you can either look at it as, well, that was a step forward because these women, and they wrote wonderful poems, the Terigata as a text of women who had achieved enlightenment under the tutelage of the Buddha. And they said, I used to just cook and clean all day and my kids were driving me crazy and then the Buddha came along and he said, leave your household and come join me. And then I did and now I'm free. And I achieved enlightenment. So you can either look at it as a movement that liberated women or a movement that just subordinated them in a different way. And I think it is an incredibly complicated thing. At any rate, your question about the MTA, I mean, I've been thinking about it. I'm a sociologist and been long fascinated by religion, obviously. And I think one of the dynamics that's been going on for the last 300 years is that every faith tradition has been grappling with the enlightenment. It's been grappling with the question of equality, the question of democracy, the question of science, empiricism, you know, and in many different ways and in many different little strands of conflict, you see this gradual modernization. You see the gradual weakening of biblical literalism and the adoption of metaphorical understandings and you see the equality between men and women and the getting rid of the notion of inherent differences between the races and so forth as we gradually modernize all of our faiths. So I see the MTA as a part of that tradition and you know, my take on transhumanism is that this is basically a modern enlightenment movement. It's enlightenment applied to questions of biopolitics and human technology. And to the extent that you represent that modernizing tendency within the LDS, I think it's fascinating and wonderful. And I see myself as a partisan of the same kind of arguments within Buddhism where, you know, it needs a lot of modernizing too. 2,500 years of modernizing. Thank you. Next question, Kathy, I think you had one. I'll repeat it. Okay, digital arts in the community now and yet we honor these people but there's a huge disconnect between them and now because we're not even teaching fine art in the schools anymore. We have a very limitedized program in the schools and so I just like to know how each of you feel about them and now. So to summarize the question, it seems, if I have understood it correctly and stopped me if I repeat any of this summary inaccurately, we are neglecting our history of arts in our state and what should we do to rectify that? Is there something we can do to rectify that? Is that a fair assessment of the implication? And generally. And I'll add to that a little bit. We've talked today about the importance of these artifacts as we look forward to the redemption of our relationships and redemption even of persons and communities in the future and so this question about what are we doing with this neglect of our arts feeds into a transhumanist vision of the future and our ability to redeem it. Thoughts on that? Well, I'll answer by trumping your story with an even worse example. Who's driven on I-15 and seeing the welfare grain silos west of downtown, right? There's a reason why we included wheat in our illustration of Emmeline Wells which is that Brigham Young asked her to create a wheat gathering program where she collected wheat from members of the church and she did this so well that it resulted in the largest sale of grain to the U.S. government during World War I. It also resulted in the creation of the welfare department of the church. So the gathering of wheat as an exercise of LDS women is now no longer identified as something that was either started or cared for by LDS women. It's now part of course the welfare department which lives under the priesthood department in the church administrative hierarchy. So when you drive past those grain silos you can think of Emmeline but her legacy and her influence in that particular area has been completely lost. Sharon Eubank actually from the Relief Society Presidency has been talking about that legacy in some church publications which has been heartening but I completely agree. I mean I think it goes to this example also of like the Richmond Park that mentioned this idea that we're not connecting the exercise of these legacy projects to their origins, to the people of their origins, to the intent of their origins. And I think it's the whole meaning and whole drive behind Better Days 2020 is that we feel like we need to have a greater stewardship over those projects and return to their roots and return to the impulses that drove them and the original intent of those collections whether they be of art or of wheat or of political discourse. So I think that's exactly what I feel passionate about and I am sorry about the, I mean they guess they renamed it but it doesn't really mean much if they've sold off a lot of the artwork so it's too bad about the Alice Merrill Horne collection. My wife would love to answer your question because she is a fine artist and a sculptor, teaches at University of Connecticut and she certainly thinks that we need more attention to the arts at all levels of education. I guess one of the things that has stuck in my mind from the anthropological literature is that the distinction between art and life didn't used to be much of a distinction. Just as the distinction between religion and science didn't used to be much of a distinction that it was basically the way that things work and the things that we do and some of the things that we do are what we would now call artistic but they had purposes. They were seen as meaningful in those societies. I think part of what we're living in now is that we've separated out these different kinds of activity because of the commercial nature, that you had to be an artist is to make something that then you can sell as art and if you don't get that kind of validation from the market, oh really what's the point? It's just a hobby, you know. And I think we have to really go back to that kind of unified world view that we had as hunter-gatherers and one of the reasons is that we probably are at the end of the last stages of having to work for our living as human beings. I mean we were talking this morning about technological unemployment. As we move towards a future in which work will slowly decline or the necessity to work to live will slowly decline. Many people are worried, what are we gonna do? We're just gonna sit around and take methamphetamine and watch Netflix all day 24 seven. No, I think we're gonna have a human impulse to do things, meaningful things with our lives and part of that will be creativity and art. And so that also reflects on the kind of education that we need. In the short term, yes, we probably need some education that's still specific to job skills, especially if you're paying 70 grand a year to send your kid to university, you wanna make sure that they come out with something that will make something back. But we also want to have education for life. We want education to be meaningful so that they understand themselves as human beings and have those creative capacities. We know that that's important, too. Thank you. Pleasure, Andy. No, intentionally so. I didn't think about it. I know, I know. It would be solved by transhumanism. We just don't have a population anymore. We just have pleasure. We have relationships between individuals, who are individuals, whatever they want. What they want from us, right? Pardon? No. No. No. No, no, no, no. It's all optional. It's everything's optional. It's totally optional. You have things that way if you want. So I decided to radical, optional, social, consistent. I think this is a very religious idea. A very transhumanist idea. I think we're facing it now. Who got it? Yeah, please do. My simple question for you, like what you asked was, why did she leave family, children as big as the great legacy of women? Did I get transhumanly moving on from whatever a casual state where we're radically thinking about very relationship and social life being changed, not directly improving our lives? All right, so to repeat, I'm going to narrow this down to two things and you tell me if this is fair. A question to Nyland about why did you leave out the legacy of children from your list of ways for women to sustain their legacy? And then I'm going to translate a question to James and that is James, Randy has proposed a characterization of transhumanism and maybe even a characterization of certain concepts of heaven that gets beyond messiness to summarize. What do you think about that? So we'll go Nyland first and then James. Well, let's start with James. Oh, okay, let's do that. Well, I'm very sympathetic with your question. I argued strenuously with my wife and my daughter that when my daughter was 12 or whatever it was, that she didn't have to menstruate and I showed them the research that showed that the majority of our ancestors for millions of years probably did not menstruate that often because as soon as they were able to menstruate, they were sexually active, they would get pregnant, then they would lactate for the children and that would suppress their menstruation and then they would get pregnant again and so they may have menstruated half a dozen times in their life before they died at 35 or whatever and that the consequence of continuous menstruation for contemporary women is a higher rate of endometriosis, cervical ovarian cancer and it's uncomfortable for many. So I argued with them and they said, I want to menstruate because it's a rite of passage, it's a, you know, Mark, it's not, it's natural whatever the arguments are. Now, that argument's neither here nor there but I will point to an essay that George Dwarfsky and I wrote 10 years ago called Post-Genderism. The basic argument was there's only so much that you can do as long as we are a sexually dimorphic species, there's only so much that we can do to overcome the gender inequalities that exist and I was influenced and think about this by a woman named Shula Mith Firestone who wrote a book, The Dialectic of Sex. She argued that the oldest form of inequality in human society is the inequality between men and women and that it arises from the vulnerability that women experience during pregnancy. I think it arises because men can beat women up and have done so for millions of years but yes, they're even more vulnerable during pregnancy and they were pregnant a lot and she argued that the way to overcome that was to create artificial wombs so that women wouldn't have to bear that particular burden. I took her argument in Post-Genderism one step further and said, we're in a period where we can imagine making analog all of the digital differences between men and women, how we dress, how our bodies work, what kinds of appendages we have and even theoretically what kinds of brains we have if there are gendered brains, there's a lot of debate about the gendered brain but if there are gendered brains we could probably fix that in the future too and go in directions that we can't even imagine, have alternatives to this gender binary that we're trapped in today and I think that's the most challenging because you talk to a lot of transhumanist guys around today, they're mostly guys and you say, oh, what's your vision of the transhumanist future? I wanna turn the universe into beer cans and dance at the heat death of the universe and it's like, okay, so you will still exist and what do you think you will be like?  This is much more exciting than a history conference. You know what, Randy's my neighbor, he knows where to find me. I'm gonna take a stab but it's not gonna be nearly as interesting. I think by thinking was that the literal transfer of genes has both, it's been used as the justification for leaving women out of history first and foremost and it's also the way women are left out of history in our official records and so I didn't really want to give it anymore, I didn't want to feed that beast anymore by saying I wanted to look beyond that rationale and look at other ways that we can live beyond our lifetimes and what I mean by that is that as we've talked about the genealogical records that don't include women at all, I mean part of the reason that they do that is because the idea of gene transfer has been in some cultures and in some times thought of as entirely, is patrilineal, right? So it only depends on who the father is, right? I mean you've got naming rights that come through patriarchal lines, you've got property rights that come through patriarchal lines, in many cases that woman's genetic fingerprint is not on that person at all, right? In the way that they function in the world, now my mind isn't going to three trillion years in the future, so I'm just thinking like the way women function in the world, their genetic fingerprint has not been on their progeny in the way that we record history in the way that we record a woman's impact on our communities and so I think it's unfair then to say that she does have this big advantage by passing on her traits, it's not any more of an advantage that a man has and he gets all of the, he's had all of the property rights and the naming rights and the financial rights on top of that. So it's really nothing special for a woman to be able to pass on her genetic code because it does benefit the man equally. Of course we do have exceptions to that, the Jewish matriarchal line, for example, but I just think women have been trapped so for so long in this idea that it is their domestic and reproductive abilities that have imprinted the next generation and give them claim on the next generation that I just wanted to move beyond that. That was really it. Let me. I understand that, but how does a woman transfer more valuable or more influential genes than a man? She doesn't. Well, you can put that under mentoring, Randy. But like I said, I didn't want to, I didn't want to, we're at a place in the discipline of women's history where we have to look beyond that influence because we've just relied on, we've just fallen back on that as an argument for women's influence for too long. And it's not to diminish it at all, obviously, but I just think we need to challenge ourselves to look at other ways women are alive in our communities beyond just there. Just briefly on your question of will we poop in heaven or in the future? And I think you're onto something that most people's conception of the divine life, whatever it might be, does not involve going to the bathroom. I mean, Read out a miller. But there aren't very many transhumanists who are thinking about solving that particular problem yet, maybe they should. But I think when you think about what it might mean to upload into a more durable body than the biological meat sack that we have to carry around and that we definitely can't go to space in because it will just get cancer and fall apart immediately. So we will have to come up with something better than this meat sack and that probably won't involve pooping, but it will have some kind of waste because it's hard to imagine a living system without waste, waste heat maybe. I've been given permission for one final question for both of you and because we wanna move on, I'm hoping that you'll give us a punchy short response. So here's the question. Imagine yourself 1,000 years in the future. Do you as an identifiable person exist in some way? Yes or no? And if so, how do you imagine or hope that your sex and or gender will be expressed? Yeah, I need a... Well, I kind of... I don't live in this world as much. And I gotta think about that one. I think I touched on that this morning that for me as a Buddhist, which the fundamental philosophical thrust of Buddhism is to deconstruct the notion that there is a continuous discrete self that once you let go of that illusion that that's a liberating thing to let go of and that you can be a lot happier when you do. And so I think a lot of transhumanists carry around this notion that they can rescue the notion of personal identity in the future, that there's some way to lock it down, reinforce it. And they may try, but there's the inevitability of change and the erosion and death of some kind. If it's the heat death of the universe or something sooner. So I don't think... So for me, it's not about...  But for me, it's not about... The whole project is not about the persistence of my personal identity. And it's really not about the persistence of my personal gender identity. I mean, if I had my druthers, I'd rather look like Christina Aguilera.  But I think hopefully in the future we'll be able to play with all kinds of identities and gender expressions. And already we are. I mean, the number of people who are non-binary in our society are growing exponentially, so. I don't know what to say. I'm stuck. Well, I'm just real. I mean, I'm realizing being exposed to your expanded philosophies here today. My vision of myself, my vision of my independent soul is shaped almost exclusively by LDS doctrine. But at the same time, when I think about it, it doesn't have that intensive agenda component. So I love the idea of the perpetuation of relationships after our death. And I believe that I hope that I have an identity. I like myself enough, I think, that I like the idea of having a consistent identity and a perpetuated identity. But when I think about my role in a community in the future, it's not necessarily gendered. And I don't think of myself, first and foremost, as a mother of future souls, for instance. That doesn't hold a lot of interest or weight for me. I want to be with my children that I have now. And I want to be with my family, but I don't, my husband always says that his great philosophical question about the afterlife is, are we a mosh pit or are we sitting around a dinner table? So in other words, do we have a discrete family unit with our relationships intact or are we just kind of this interconnected web, kind of like a chain mail where we're linked together by similar bonds that create a network in which individual family units are not as discreet as we may think they are. And I definitely fall into the mosh pit category or the chain mail category or whatever analogy you want to use. But within that, when I envision that, I don't know, I'll have to think, I'll come back and report. I'll come back and report. So I guess the first part is I definitely see myself as myself in a thousand years, but I hope I put more credence on, I put more hope and weight in my communal relationships than I do particularly in my gendered, binary gendered relationships. Thank you both. And thanks, Lincoln, for moderating. Thanks.


What is a job? Most of the time you're using Kubernetes as a platform to run long processes where the main purpose is to process requests and provides a response. But Kubernetes also lets you run processes that execute some logic and then dies. For example, other than visa schema or triggering a batch processing. Kubernetes jobs are tasks that execute some logic into a pod and when this logic finishes, the pod is terminated. To create a job, we need to set the kind of job, set the name, and then in the container section we need to set which container we want to run and the command we want to run inside that container. Now, let me do keepCurlApply, means f, apps, keepFiles, will say job. Okay, now it's just setting this job, it can do keepCurl getPods and you see that the container is being created. It's still being created. And then it's completed. Okay, because it just created, run the command and finish the container. If I do a keepCurl blocks of this pod, you'll see the command that has been executed. But it's even more if you want, we can create a cron job. It is like a job but is executed using a cron expression. So I can do keepCurlApps, app, jobs, cron job, and see that it's exactly the same but there is a cron job. And in the schedule, we set how often we want to run this job. In this case, one every minute. I can do keepCurlApply, means f, apps, keepFiles, will say cron job. And now, if I do keepCurl getPods, you see that this is the previous one and we need to wait one minute. Okay, because we schedule this container to repeatedly execute every minute. Notice that you can use a job for a specific task. As I said before, for example, for updating the database schema or you can use a cron job. For example, to make some kind of backup copies or batch processing every day at one specific time. Let's see if it's executed. Notice that now here, the will say cron job has been executed. And of course, I can do keepCurl, lots of this one. Wait, now, sorry. And it is the job. And if now we wait it one more minute, we will see that a new pod say will say cron job menus and a number will be triggered. That's it. And here it is. Now you see that after one minute, another job has been. Thanks for watching and don't forget to like the video and subscribe to the channel.


The best part about having my implants is that I get to hear a lot of people and that I get to hear music. When I was four, I got my first implant. I like to dance, I like to play with my friends. I entered because I really wanted to have a chance to go to Europe and like meet a lot of new people. I invented a kind of like a cochlear implant so I want my whole processor to be in my ear and then the magnet and the cord to be invisible and I also want it to be rechargeable. At first I got my implants and I liked it and I could hear but then I wanted to get a second one so I could hear a lot more.


Welcome to George H. Smith's Excursions into Libertarian Thought, a production of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute, narrated by James Foster. Neoconservatism vs. Libertarianism Part 1 If you ever read a sentence that starts with, Neocons believe there is a 99.44% chance that everything else in that sentence will be untrue. So wrote the Neoconservative columnist David Brooks in a New York Times op-ed, January 2004. Many Neoconservatives, a label coined in 1973 by the socialist Michael Harrington to express his displeasure with supposed liberals who were defending conservative ideas and policies, insist that Neoconservatism is not a monolithic system of thought and they point out that Neoconservatives disagree among themselves on significant issues. According to James Q. Wilson, Neoconservatism is neither an ideology nor a movement. An ideology is systematic worldview and there is nothing systematic about Neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is more accurately described as an intellectual orientation, impulse perspective or mood. Similarly, Irving Crystal, the godfather of Neoconservatism, dubbed Neoconservatism a persuasion. Even these assertions, vague as they are, have not received unanimous assent among prominent Neoconservatives. Mark Gerson, author of The Neoconservative Vision, the best overview of Neoconservative thought and editor of the essential Neoconservative reader, claimed that Neoconservatism is a comprehensive outlook on economics, politics, culture and society linked by common principles and a distinctive vision. Although it may not signify a set of doctrines and so not qualify as an ideology in the strict sense, the term Neoconservatism does in fact capture a genuine political grouping with a coherent and distinctive ideological orientation. If prominent spokespersons for this orientation, impulse or persuasion or whatever we care to call it, cannot agree on what Neoconservatism is, or in some cases even if it is, an outsider, especially a libertarian who comes to criticize rather than to praise, may perhaps be forgiven for indulging in generalizations with which some Neoconservatives may disagree. The best he can hope for is to capture the essence of this elusive creature. It is customary in a survey of Neoconservatism to mention that some first-generation Neocons were Trotskyists in their early years, a fact that does not merit the attention that some critics have given it, after which they became New Deal liberals with a fiercely anti-communist bent. These founders moved gradually to the political right, especially in reaction to the student rebellion and counterculture of the Vietnam era. By the early 1970s, Neocons were giving what Irving Kristol called two cheers for capitalism. As he put it in an oft-quoted remark, a Neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. What is the political philosophy of Neoconservatism? One way to approach this issue is to contrast Neoconservatism with libertarianism. Some Neocons have used this comparative method as well, but more often than not, their characterizations of libertarianism are merely caricatures. Time and again we are told that libertarians are economic determinists who are oblivious to the crucial role of ideas in social and political change, that they ignore the moral and cultural foundations of a free society, that they favor and anything goes type of moral libertinism, that they regard the outcome of every voluntary market transaction as indiscriminately praiseworthy, that they are social atomists with no appreciation for the importance of families and communities and so forth. These misrepresentations are so egregious and systematic that one must question the reading and comprehension skills of Neocons or their intellectual honesty. A notable exception is the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak, author of The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism and Other Works. Neoconservatives typically dismiss advocates of laissez-faire as utopian, that is, unworthy of serious consideration. It is idle, wrote Irving Crystal, to talk about returning to a free enterprise system in which government will play the modest role it used to. The idea of such a counter-revolution is utopian. The welfare state is in itself perfectly consistent with a conservative political philosophy, as Bismarck knew a hundred years ago. Leave it to a neoconservative to offer Bismarck's authoritarian welfare warfare state as a positive example. Americans need and demand governmental assistance, so the only interesting political question is, how will they get it? In their quest for a conservative welfare state, neocons often employ the law of unintended consequences to criticize specific programs not to their liking. A liberal and compassionate social policy, according to Crystal, has bred all sorts of unanticipated and perverse consequences. This does not mean that neoconservatives oppose welfare programs as such. Rather, in the words of James Q. Wilson, if something ought to be done by government, it is necessary to do that something cautiously, experimentally, and with a minimum of bureaucratic authority. The rub, of course, comes in deciding what a government ought and ought not to do. For libertarians, a key factor in resolving this problem is the fact that governments use coercive means to attain their goals, in contrast to the voluntary cooperation that we find in social interaction. The question of the proper role and limits of government therefore reduces to the question of when is it morally proper to coerce others? This emphasis on the moral difference between coercion and persuasion has typified the libertarian approach to political philosophy for centuries. John Milton, writing in 1644, declared that the great art of political philosophy is to discern in what the law is to bid restraint and punishment and in what things persuasion only is to work. John Locke expressed a similar idea several decades later when he noted that it is one thing to persuade, another to command, one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties. This distinction, which is fraught with profound moral implications, lies at the heart of libertarian theory. Yet, according to many neocons, libertarians have ignored the moral foundations of a free society. A curious soul might therefore ask what is the neoconservative position on when coercion may legitimately be used in human relationships? Neocons, for all their moral posturing, rarely if ever address this problem in a straightforward manner. It seems this question is too ideological for their tastes, so their answer is buried beneath verbiage sufficiently vague so as to tax the patience of even sympathetic readers about democratic institutions, community, and bourgeois values. According to Mark Gerson, freedom is an essential good, but it must serve the larger end of societal virtue. Freedom is not an end in itself, it is a means to serve virtue which is nurtured and developed through communities. Although few libertarians would claim that freedom is an end in itself, whatever that is supposed to mean, they do insist that individual freedom is the highest political value and that governments should be assessed as good or bad to the degree they protect and preserve this value. Neoconservatives occasionally come close to saying the same thing, but they frequently go on to attack the libertarian view of freedom. Individual freedom, they claim, should be balanced with the freedom of communities to determine their own values. Several decades ago Richard Newhouse and Peter Berger warned that an unbalanced emphasis on individual rights has seriously eroded the community's power to sustain its democratically determined values in the public sphere. Of course, these democratically determined values include the prohibition of pornography, prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes that neocons might find personally offensive. Should a community decide to prohibit activities of which neocons approve or should a community vote to legalize activities of which neocons disapprove, one can expect neocons to show considerably less enthusiasm for democratically determined values. Generally speaking, neocons favor freedom in the abstract. It is the exercise of freedom in particular cases that they have a problem with. According to Adam Wolfson, neoconservatives object not only to the libertarian critique of big government, but also to its cramped understanding of liberty. Libertarians defend every conceivable type of freedom except that of self-government. And what precisely is the freedom of self-government? It is the freedom of a community to decide which values should be coercively imposed on members of that community. Hence, according to Wolfson, in defending the individual's right to choose, the libertarian seeks to forbid individuals from acting together to determine what laws they shall live under. Translated, this means that libertarians deny the freedom of some individuals, including a majority, to violate the equal freedom of others. John Locke and other classical liberals frequently referred to this kind of freedom as license and even as tyranny. But neocons prefer to call it democratic freedom. This neoconservative notion of freedom is more congenial to the tradition of democratic totalitarianism, such as defended by J. J. Rousseau, than to the tradition of limited government, such as defended by Thomas Jefferson. Few neocons would agree with Jefferson's call for a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned. Neoconservatives sometimes speak of cultural contradictions of capitalism, a phrase that comes from the title of a 1976 book by the sociologist Daniel Bell, who described himself as a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture. The themes developed by Bell are complex, but as boiled down for popular consumption by neoconservatives, they reduced to the claim that capitalism tends to generate a culture of hedonism by catering to the subjective wants of consumers. And this, it is further claimed, undercuts the values that are essential to the survival of capitalism itself. In the ever-changing dynamics of a capitalistic society, people who no longer feel bound by the moral authority of tradition have both the freedom and leisure to rebel against the values of this society and participate in an adversary culture. Thus, the major question of our age, argued Irving Kristol, is how we can prevent the moral and cultural values essential to capitalism from being eroded and eventually destroyed by the personal freedom which capitalism offers. Mark Gerson tells us that capitalism can breed degeneracy bred by affluence. If a healthy culture is to be maintained, a democratic government must regulate and prohibit some of the more unfortunate cultural outgrowths of capitalism. These might include pornography, prostitution, gangsta rap music, and other potential economic goods that often serve to undermine the bourgeois values upon which capitalism relies. Capitalism cannot survive without a traditional culture that sustains bourgeois values. What are these bourgeois values and virtues? The answer to this question depends on which neoconservative you happen to read. Here an alphabetical order is a list compiled from a handful of neoconservative writers. Concern for family, called familial socialism by one neocon, deference towards traditional religions, delayed gratification, diligence, firm moral convictions, foresight, a reasonable concern for distant consequences, frugality, honest ambition, humility, industry, the willingness to work hard to improve one's condition, justice, regard for the rights of others, lack of the expectation to receive something for nothing, non-utopian expectations, order, piety, probity, prudence, punctuality, rectitude, reliability, resolution, respect for law, self-discipline, self-reliance, silence, sobriety, and temperance. This list, which reads like an unabridged version of the Boy Scout credo, raises an obvious question. Which of these values and virtues should be enforced by the coercive arm of government and which should be left to the voluntary interaction of individuals? The libertarian answers this question by distinguishing between crimes and vices. A crime is a violation of the rules of justice, a coercion that violates the rights of another person, whereas a vice is a personal failing that, though it may affect others adversely, does not involve coercion. This is essentially what Adam Smith had in mind when he referred to that remarkable distinction between justice and all the other social virtues, and insisted that virtues other than justice cannot, among equals, be extorted by force. Justice is the main pillar that upholds the whole edifice of social order. The other virtues, in contrast, are ornaments that embellish the building and which are therefore sufficient to recommend but by no means necessary to impose. Neocons take exception to this approach. Indeed, Irving Crystal claimed that Adam Smith was unduly complacent about the moral virtues needed to sustain a free society, believing that the self-interested actions of individuals would somehow produce desirable outcomes automatically. Never mind that Smith believed no such thing. Crystal, in an ideological tour de force, proclaimed that libertarians in general are unmindful of culture and simply don't understand the connection between morality and a free society. Many libertarian writers, such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Herbert Spencer, addressed the relationship between freedom and culture in considerable detail. Moreover, Ein Rand, one of the most influential figures in modern libertarian thought, wrote extensively on the moral and cultural foundations of capitalism, but she is rarely mentioned in the literature of neoconservatism except to be ridiculed and curtly dismissed as the founder of occult. It apparently takes a good neoconservative to understand that some immoral actions and tendencies, even those that don't violate the rights of other people, are social diseases that only governmental coercion can cure. So much for the bourgeois virtue of personal responsibility. Thank you for listening to Excursions. To learn more about libertarian philosophy and history, visit www.libertarianism.org.


One of the important uses of calculus is in the field of what's called numerical analysis. And roughly speaking, numerical analysis is how you solve an equation that you can't solve algebraically. And we've already seen a little bit of that when we use the intermediate value theorem to find the location of the roots of an equation. But a more powerful method uses the derivative and is sometimes called Newton's method or the Newton-Raphson method. And this begins with the following idea. Suppose f of x is a continuous function where I know that f of 3 is negative 1 and f prime of 3 is equal to 3. Using just this information and a little bit of calculus, we can find an approximate solution to f of x equals 0. And this ties together several important ideas. First, since we know f of 3 is equal to negative 1, we know the graph of y equals f of x passes through the point 3 negative 1. But we're also given the derivative at 3, and the thing to remember is that the derivative is the slope of the line tangent to the curve. Since we know f prime of 3 is equal to 3, we know the line tangent to the graph at this point has slope 3. And so that means we can write the equation of the tangent line. And since the tangent line approximates the curve, we know that the curve looks like not this, not this, but maybe something like this. And the thing to notice is that where the tangent line intersects the x-axis is close to where the graph of the function intersects the x-axis. So an approximate solution to f of x equals 0 can be found by finding where the tangent line intersects the x-axis. So we'll let y equals 0 in the equation of the line and solve for x. And we find x equals 10 thirds, which means that f of x equals 0 has a solution around 10 thirds. Now what's truly impressive about this result is how little we had to know. We had to know the value of the function and the derivative. But beyond that, we knew absolutely nothing about our function f of x. So what if we do know something about f of x? For example, suppose we have our function x cubed minus 7x squared minus 25x plus 61. By using an appropriately chosen tangent line, let's find an approximate solution to g of x equals 0. So let's think about the geometry. If g of x equals 0 and we're graphing y equals g of x, then y is equal to 0. In other words, we're looking for where the curve crosses the x-axis. But since we have calculus, we might remember that the tangent line is a good approximation to the curve through the point of tangency. Since the tangent line approximates the curve near the point of tangency, we'll want to find a tangent line near where the curve crosses the x-axis. And that means we'll want to find a point on the curve that's close to the x-axis. So how can we do that? Well, if you don't play, you can't win. Let's use the intermediate value theorem. We note that g of 0 is 61 and g of, oh, I don't know, how about 5 is equal to negative 114. So let's graph these two points. And since this is a polynomial function, we know it's continuous. And so we know that some place between 0 and 5, the graph crosses the x-axis. Remember that the tangent line is a good approximation to the curve, which means that wherever the tangent line crosses the x-axis, we'll be close to where the curve crosses the x-axis. So let's find where the tangent line crosses the x-axis. So at x equals 0, g of 0 is 61, and we'll need the slope of the tangent line. So we'll differentiate. At x equals 0, we find the derivative is equal to. And so we're able to write the equation of the tangent line. Now the tangent line will intersect the x-axis when y is equal to 0. And so that tells us that x is 61, 25ths. And since the tangent line approximates the curve, that says that x close to 61, 25ths is approximately where g of x equals 0. Now you might wonder how good of an approximation is this. Well, the answer to that is, well, if we can solve this equation and then compare our answers, well, wait a minute. If we could solve this equation, we probably wouldn't be going through this process anyway. So we must assume that we can't actually solve this equation directly, that we're using this as a way to solve the equation. So how can we tell whether we have an approximate solution at g of x equals 0? Well, the simplest way is to evaluate our function at 61, 25ths and see what we get. So we find a value of negative 27 point change. And our solution isn't that good. So you might wonder how we can do better. We'll take a look at that next time.