Go ahead. OK. Can you hear me OK? Yeah? Fine? OK. So thank you for being back. This is the second installment of this crash course on non-equilibrium quantum, say, thermodynamics of quantum processes. And what we did yesterday was basically focusing on these two objects, right? So on the work probability distribution, and towards the end of yesterday's discussion, we had a look at the characteristic function, the associated characteristic function. So the take-home message from yesterday's discussion was that in this non-equilibrium framework, work becomes a stochastic variable. Distributed according to this probability distribution, p of w, w is the actual amount of work that you are doing on the system or that the system is performing. And this is actually equal to the difference in energy between the difference between the two outcomes of the measurements that we have performed yesterday in the so-called two-measurement process or protocol. And on the blackboard yesterday, we went through the formal derivation of this closed expression for the characteristic function of work distribution. So just to somehow refresh what the ingredients of this expression are, rho g is the initial thermal state of my system. And I'm going to comment on this in a second. While u is the time-evolution operator induced by my Hamiltonian process, I remind you that in our framework, the environment has been detached from the system right before starting the protocol itself, right? So right before performing the first measurement of my two-step protocol, U dagger is the Hermitian conjugate of this time-evolution operator. H is the Hamiltonian of my process. And lambda is the, in general, time-dependent parameter that I change when I want to perform work on the system itself. And the way I'm changing lambda is completely arbitrary. I'm not setting any constriction on that. I'm simply changing from a value lambda naught to a value lambda tau in an arbitrary fashion. U is the conjugate variable to work that enters into my characteristic function. Now, yesterday afternoon, after the question and answers session, a couple of guys asked me about the assumption of initial thermal state for my system.  Do I need, so the question is, do I actually need to start from an equilibrium state of my system? And the answer is absolutely no. I can start from any state, and that will be absolutely legitimate and absolutely fine. The apparatus of building up, designed to build up the work probability distribution, would work with any, so it would work the same, the same fashion in the same way, regardless of the initial state of my system. The only need for starting from an initial thermal state is that, to some extent, it simplifies the calculation that I did on the blackboard yesterday. And on the second hand, on the other hand, this assumption we are going to see is very important for fluctuation theorems. And this is what we are going to see in a second. So this is somehow recapping what we have seen yesterday together, and we now move forward. So the plan for the next 45 minutes, at what time do we stop? Fabrizio, at what time am I supposed to end up? 10 past? OK, so 10 past, 10 past, 12, OK. So what we are going to do in the next 45 minutes, 40 minutes, is to go together through what are called fluctuation theorems, very briefly, and then assessing a way, say, a protocol that allows you to gather information about these two quantities that we have, these two objects that we have in this slide, the probability distribution for work and the characteristic function. And then towards the end of today's lecture, we dig into what Martin has anticipated this morning. So the implications are a brief discussion of Landau principle and the implication of these framework for non-equilibrium thermodynamics for the exchange of heat. So we are going to open the box into which we have placed our system. OK, let's start. So again, these two objects you know, and you now meet two of the most celebrated fluctuation theorems in this framework of non-equilibrium thermodynamics. These are called Yajinsky identity and the Tassaki-Krux identity, OK, or the Tassaki-Krux relation. Let's try now to. Yeah, so historically, Yajinsky found a relation for the classical stochastic case, stochastic thermodynamics case, and Krux derived this relation, again, for a classical process. Later on, and I think this paper is the generalization of Yajinsky to the quantum case, later on, Yajinsky extended the argument to quantum dynamics. And Tassaki proved Krux, the validity of Krux relation, also in the quantum domain. Now, this is my take of it. Now, I've met recently Al Tassaki in Granada, probably at the end of June.  What I did was simply to put together two papers. And I found the relation, right? So I didn't do anything. He said the merit is all on Krux. I still think that the contribution was interesting and relevant to me, as well as for the community, John. So yeah, it's typically portion, yes. In fact, that's what Al Tassaki says. So there is this paper by Krux and another one, and Krux one, that he put them together and he got the relation. So historically, these two relations were found for classical processes and later on extended to the quantum domain. Now, see, anecdotes apart, let's try and see what is the physics that these two relations entail. And then very briefly, I'll go through a derivation, a very quick derivation of Yajinsky's identity while I leave the derivation to the proof of Tassaki-Krux to you as an exercise. It takes two lines, two lines of calculations to do it. So, Yajinsky, so let's have a look at this relation, yeah? So it's pretty, not pretty elegant. An identity is nice. It involves the expectation value of an object. This object involves work, the work that you do on the system, this stochastic variable that we have introduced yesterday. However, it also encompasses an element of, say, exoticness, if you want. You have to take the average, not of the work itself, but the average of the exponentiated work, right? So the left-hand side deals with this e to minus beta w. Beta, I remind you, is the inverse temperature set by the bath with which the system was in contact at the beginning of our process. Well, the expectation value of this quantity is equal to e to minus beta delta f. And delta f is the change in free energy of the system, right? So a couple of points of notice. First of all, this object, the change in free energy. You open, again, not the usual standard books on thermodynamics. Change in free energy is defined between two equilibrium points, right, to equilibrium states of my system. So these entails that my system asks us that my system started from an equilibrium state, should end into an equilibrium state, right? In order for me to calculate this quantity in a meaningful, in a meaningful fashion. However, as I said yesterday, and I repeated it briefly, five minutes ago, I'm not prescribing anything about the way I'm kicking the system, right? So I'm not putting any constraint, any requirements, on how gently or hardly we are pushing the system that we want to bring out, that we want to let evolve. So more generally speaking, my unitary evolution, so the unitary evolution that we subjected the system to, can occur in finite time. So it's definitely not necessarily a quasi-stactic transformation, which will take an infinite amount of time, not a very slow process that takes your system from an initial to a final configuration, leaving it at thermodynamic equilibrium every time, right? It's not necessarily like that, which means that if I now borrow a standard cartoon that you would see in all of these papers on non-equilibrium, non-equilibrium stochastic thermodynamics, both classical and quantum, well, say if this dot represents my initial equilibrium state, right? So this is the thermal state at time t equal to 0, not the initial state that we have prepared in our protocol. And if this meaningless line means not the evolution induced by my unitary process, right? This is the kick that I'm doing to the system that I'm, say, subjecting the system to. In principle, and this observation was also somehow hinted up by Fabrizio yesterday, I end up into a state rho at time tau, right? So the arrow of time is here. This is the final time of my experiment. This is the initial one. Can you see it? Yeah, guys? Down there? Yeah, or up there? Yeah, fine. In principle, there is no guarantee that this state is the equilibrium state at time tau, right? So there is no guarantee that this state is an e to minus beta h at time tau over the partition function at time tau. Yeah? Why should it be like that? I'm kicking the system, and I'm doing it in an arbitrary, in general, an arbitrary way. So I could be doing it very, very abruptly, or extremely gently. It's still allowed, right? So it's both cases, both sides of the spectrum of kicking, so to say, and compassed by the framework that we have illustrated yesterday. So this means that there is an equilibrium state somewhere in this abstract and stupid space of states that differs, in general, from the final state of my evolution. Well, this change in free energy, this object, delta f, this change of free energy is defined between these two points. So it's the change in free energy between the initial equilibrium state of my system and the hypothetical equilibrium state of my system that would be reached by a perfectly adiabatic, so quasi-static transformation. Makes sense? Yeah? So I'm dealing with three enemies here. The initial state, the final state, the true final state of my evolution, and the hypothetical equilibrium state of the system at time tau. The change in free energy is defined between these two guys. It doesn't involve rho tau because I cannot use rho tau. Rho tau is a non-equilibrium state. It doesn't make sense to use it to calculate a free energy change. So the right-hand side of Yajinsky, it's a fully equilibrium statement. It involves quantity well-defined at equilibrium. That's it, full stop. The left-hand side, on the other hand, well, I mean, I'm taking the average of a quantity, right? So I don't need to do that. But I'm just writing explicitly what this quantity is, right? So this is e to minus beta w, the forward probability distribution for work, dw, right? So I'm taking the average. Please. I apologize. I'm deaf. I didn't hear you. What average? What average? What temperature? What temperature? Sorry. Yes. Very, very relevant question. Is the same temperature of the initial bath, of the bath that I've used at the beginning of my protocol? So somehow, Yajinsky is hiding under the carpet the assumption of an isothermal transformation. OK? I pre-empt the question, can I go beyond this assumption? The answer is yes. And I can look at transformations that are not isothermal as well and come up with modified different alternative versions of fluctuation theorems. And tomorrow, we would see also different quantifiers of irreversibility based on this fluctuation theorem. OK? Very good. Very good. The answer is, to some extent, yes. But the framework becomes extremely more involved. And in general, what happens is that you have a fluctuation theorem with a correction term. So these two terms stay there, are they, in principle? But you have to add another term here, to this right hand side, that accounts somehow for the exotic nature of your bath. OK? So the answer is a partial answer. And I cannot go more quantitatively than what I said. But the answer is that, to some extent, you can't treat non-equilibrium environments. I think an explicit case was a recent one. It's a paper by Parondo Zambrini and someone else, which I don't remember. They're looking at a non-equilibrium process of an harmonic oscillator in a couple to a squeezed bath. OK? And they derive the explicit form for the corresponding fluctuation theorem. OK, so if I can go back to that, this is the left-hand side of my fluctuation theorem, which means that I have to account for the probability distribution for work. And this probability distribution for work encodes the, in principle, non-equilibrium nature of my transformation. So in general, yes, Martin, the average is, of course, encompassing all the possible trajectory connecting the initial two. The probability distribution accounts for all the dynamical trajectories, because it puts together all the possible processes, say, all the possible transition probabilities connecting your initial equilibrium state to the state that you reach at the end of your dynamics. Let's look into that later on. I think is that clear so far? Yeah, OK. So I have something that is explicitly encompassing the possibility for non-equilibrium and something that is defined as equilibrium. So what this relation is telling you is that on average, so that quantity to minus beta w would be entirely determined by equilibrium properties of my system. The non-equilibrium nature of my process gets washed out somehow by the average. And what matters are the equilibrium properties defined between this initial state and the hypothetical one that I will reach by a quasi-static transformation. Second relation, so the Tassaki-Krux one, on the other hand, is a little less intuitive now and introduces explicitly the backward process. The process that we, yesterday I intered at, but we didn't go into detail. So we know already what Pfw is. What is this Pb of minus w? This is the analogous probability distribution, but for the backward process. For the process where instead of starting from this initial state and evolving, so to say, according to this evolution and ending up on my final state tau, the backward process is the one where I start from the equilibrium state of my final Hamiltonian, evolve according to the time-reversed evolution operator towards a new final state. Does it make sense? Yeah? So this time, so this is forward, so to say, and the backward one, the backward one would entail the preparation of an equilibrium state of the final Hamiltonian, precisely this object, time-reversed, with the application of the time-reversed operation to it. The evolution according to, well, I shouldn't do it. I shouldn't make it to similar to the previous one. OK, the evolution, well, why not? The evolution according to the time-reversed process and not which will bring you, which will lead you to another final state, right? So associated to this process here, there is a probability distribution Pb of w, which you can define in an analogous way to the Pf that you have there. No, you have to account for the transition probabilities from a given eigenstate of the final Hamiltonian, which now becomes the initial one, to eigenstates of the formally initial Hamiltonian, which becomes now the final Hamiltonian for your backward process. So what the second crooks are telling us is that, say, the probability of performing work in the backward process is somehow exponentially suppressed by a quantity that depends on w, the stochastic value, the value that the variable takes for that specific trajectory and the change in free energy. For those of you that are interested in irreversibility, these are very nice implications for the concept of time reversal. So it doesn't seem to be symmetric. It doesn't look like a symmetric statement when you reverse time. You pay in a different way. The forward and backward process allow you to pay in different ways. OK, these two relations are very elegant, extremely nice. By the way, you can rephrase them in terms of the characteristic function for work distribution in a pretty easy way. And we are going to see it in a second. So given that pf and chif have the same predictive power, so to say, they contain the same information on the process itself, you can restate these two relations, these two identities in terms of chi. So now, in a minute, let's try and have a look at how we can indeed make sense of the Yajinsky identity in a formal way. So what I need is that, why don't I use it here? So what I need is this quantity. Now, if I want to evaluate this left-hand side of the Yajinsky identity, what I need is this quantity here. And now what I want to do is to notice the similarity between the quantity e to minus beta w average and the characteristic function for work distribution. So if I look at the characteristic function for work distribution, I have that. If I replace u with an iw, right? So if I calculate chif, sorry, no, iw, i beta, if I look at chif of i beta, chif of i beta is precisely integral of minus beta w pf w dw. Yeah, trivially. So chi of i beta is precisely the expectation value of e to minus beta w. Let's dig a little bit more into what chi of i beta is. Because I have not in this slide, but what we did yesterday and what was in the previous slide is that chi of u can in general be written as the trace of u e to minus i u h naught times my equilibrium state at time t equal to 0, which I'm calling rho eq naught, times u dagger, times c to i u h final. Guys, can you still read it? Yeah, are you OK? Yeah, OK. Now I want to replace u with i beta in order to work out another expression for this quantity, right? So chi of i beta, according to this expression, will be trace of u e to beta h naught, equilibrium 0, u dagger. And then I have e to minus beta h final. And now what is the equilibrium state of my initial Hamiltonian? So I write it here is e to minus beta h naught over the initial partition function. So I can plug it into this expression. Again, I do something that I shouldn't do. No, I'm doing it on this expression. So I'm deleting this guy and replace it with e to minus beta h naught over zeta naught. And of course, z naught is a number, so I can take it out of my trace. And then what I do is that I can notice that these objects and these objects simplify with each other. There is h naught in both. So this expression just gives me a 1 over zeta naught trace of u dagger e to minus beta hf. My process is unitary. So these two guys cancel. It should give me the identity. So I get the trace e to minus beta h final, which is the definition of the partition function for the final Hamiltonian. Is it the wrong one? With the, what do you mean with the wrong one? What is z? This is precisely the zf, no? So zf over z naught is what I get. And now group picture, shall I leave it? Yeah? And now, by definition, the free energy is defined as 1 over beta, the log of the corresponding partition function. So what I have is that the free energy of time tau is this object, the free energy of time 0, given that I'm still at the same temperature. Is this object so I can get, no? I take the exponential left and right-hand side. And what I get from these two conditions, from these two equations, is that the ratio between zf and z naught is precisely the exponential of minus beta times f tau minus f naught, which is my delta f. So on one hand, the characteristic function, and this is still kf, so I forgot to put the label there, the characteristic function at i beta is given by this e to minus beta delta f. On the other hand, kf of i beta is equal to the expectation value of e to minus beta w. So you put the two things together, you get Jajinsky. From this non-equilibrium starting, from this non-equilibrium framework, and the two measurement protocol that we have used. And when I said, for Jajinsky, it is actually very important to start from an initial equilibrium state. Well, you can appreciate it from here, from my new passage, right? So the passage that allowed me to replace this guy with my e to my Gibbs distribution, no? OK. So to say, these are not the only, the only statements, the only factation theorems that you can draw. There are other versions, but historically and also somehow, operatively these are the two that are most celebrated and somehow very useful for considerations that we are going to make later on, later on tomorrow. OK. I would like to raise one point, no? And the point is the following. So it's actually not my own question, but it is a question that was raised by some of the people that came up with the paper that we commented upon yesterday. And also, fluctuation theorem work is not unobservable. So the basin group, the Osberg group, is people, say, pointed at something that was right before your eyes. So the fact that it is, in general, difficult to infer the probability distribution for work, the characteristic function, so to get the statistics of this non-equilibrium quantity. This is, in general, a tough goal. And in this sentence, in this paper, in this review paper, they claim that, say, the major obstacle for the experimental observation or verification of the work fluctuation relations is posed by the necessity of performing the projective measurements of energy. And also, in the two-measurement process, you have to measure on eigenstates of two different Hamiltonians, non-commuting Hamiltonians at the beginning, in general, at the beginning and at the end of your process. And if you think about, say, somehow, the paradigm for a working medium, which is a complex system, in general, for instance, a many-body system, right? And if you want to not think of a gas, and if you want to export that into the quantum domain, you might have to project onto many-body, in general, entangled states of this complex working medium. So it might be, on its own, a very difficult task to accomplish. And truth was that, truth is that up until a few years ago, there was a substantial body of experimental work on the classical verification, so the verification of fluctuation relations at the classical level, but very little done at the quantum level, experimentally. Theoretically, there were proposals. There were a few, say, most noticeably, one by the group of Eric Lutz and Schmidt Kalle dealing with trapezoid ions, trapezoid ion technology. So precisely, the context that was illustrated yesterday by Christoph, the proposal brought about some difficulties was rather involved, a bit far from what they could do at that time in the lab. And it did see light in a way or another, not in a, say, changed version more recently by a Chinese group. But until a few years ago, there was no, basically, no verification of fluctuation theorems at the quantum level. And the difficulty was precisely, put your hands on the probability distribution for work or the characteristic function. So the question I want to raise is, how can we reconstruct for a given process, how can we reconstruct the work probability distribution for a general process, for a general process undergone by a quantum system? And the answer, a possible answer, a possible answer comes from this scheme, from this diagram. Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with quantum circuits, but we are going to, I'm trying to illustrate what the ingredients of these circuits are in a second. So let's have a look. I should stress this is not the only way of putting your hands on the characteristic function of work distribution or on the probability distribution for work. In fact, I say another case that you might be interested in is provided by the group of Juan Pablo Paz in Buenos Aires, where they made a very nice observation, which is that the two measurement protocol that I have illustrated yesterday can be actually understood in terms of a single generalized measurement performed on the system. So not a projective measurement, but a generalized measurement. And they come up with a protocol for the inference of the probability distribution by starting from that view point, from that standing point. So we are sticking with the two measurement protocol as far as this slide is concerned. And this is the way, the proposal for the reconstruction of the characteristic function of work distribution. So for those of you that are used to quantum optics, you can understand this guy easily in terms of a very standard, I mean, very basic interferometer, nothing else. This is actually a phase inference protocol or circuit, nothing else, phase estimation protocol. So what do we have here? S stands for my system. So the system upon which I want to perform work. So it's the guy that I've kicked so far, so to say. A is someone, it's a secondary system, which we call an ancilla, so an helper, someone that helps us performing a given task. So from this point on, I'm not just focusing on my system, I'm looking at the system and the second subsystem that will help me reconstructing the probability distribution, actually, the characteristic function for work distribution. And the general underlying assumption is that I can do anything on the ancilla. I have the freedom, the luxury, so to say, to prepare it in any state I want and to measure it, to measure it on any basis. So I can do what I want on the system. I also have, say, allowing myself the capability of engineering these weird object g. So besides the exotic drawing that you have there, g is nothing else but a joint unitary evolution. So it's a unitary operator that combines the degrees of freedom of my system and the ancilla. So this is a unitary operation that lets the two guys interact, makes the two guys interact and evolve in time. On the other hand, h here, now these two guys is not for the Hamiltonian, now stands for what is called a Hadamad gate. A Hadamad gate is, again, is a transformation that allows us to create superpositions of logical states of a qubit. So here I'm assuming that my ancilla for convenience, that my ancilla is a simple two-level system. So A lives in a Hilbert space whose dimension is two. So I only have two logical states, and I'm labeling them as 0 and 1. Precisely as Martin did. H, what H does is that it acts on 0 and transforms it into a superposition of 0 and 1. And what it does on 1 is that it prepares the orthogonal superposition. And this is called Hadamad transform. So what I'm doing here is that I'm starting from a fiducial state, right, from a state that I know I can arrange easily in the lab. And I create one of such superposition. I create 0 plus 1 for convenience. Of course, you can replace this all first block here with the preparation of this state only. And that will be perfectly fine. And then what I do is the following. I prepare my system S in the initial thermal state that I was interested in, or in the initial state that I'm interested in, in case I don't need a thermal state, right? So S is prepared independently on its own initial state. And after I created coherence in the state of the ancilla, I let these two guys evolve together in a specifically arranged manner. So let's have a look at what G is. And I'm writing explicitly the fact that G depends in general on the time tau, my time of my evolution, and on the variable u, the tension in my characteristic function. So this is the conjugate variable to work. So let's have a look at what G does. Suppose that the ancilla is prepared in 0. Suppose that the ancilla is in the 0 state. Then if the ancilla is in 0, then the system evolves according to this part of G. Suppose that in the other end, the ancilla is prepared in 1, then the system will evolve according to this other bit of my joint operation G. So in an even more cartoonish fashion, what I'm doing is that I'm splitting. So this initial point is put together system and ancilla, each prepared in its own state. After the Adamard gate is as if I'm performing two different evolutions of the system depending on which logical state the ancilla is in. So if the ancilla is in 0, then the system will evolve according to u e to minus i u h i. And if the system, sorry, if the ancilla is in 1, the system will evolve. Again, this is the system only. The system will evolve according to e to minus i u h final times u dagger. No, times u itself. Yes. So here I need the initial Hamiltonian. Here I need the final Hamiltonian. And then what I do is that I do, again, an Adamard transform. I redo my Adamard transform. What the second Adamard transform does, I mean, it's completely immaterial, but it's there simply because it's nice somehow, is to recombine, not let it interfere these two path, these two evolution path at the end. So it's just like some form of interferometer that people, for instance, in quantum optics labs would implement, in optical labs will implement, in an optics lab will implement. So the system evolves into different madness depending on the state of the ancilla. At the end of the protocol, and this is the nice part, I don't care about the system. I discard the system. I don't even look at it. So here you can put your bin and throw the system into the bin. So mathematically speaking, I trace out all the degrees of freedom of my system. And what matters is only the ancilla. So what I do is that I measure, I try to reconstruct the state of the ancilla. And if the ancilla is just a qubit, that is a pretty standard operation to perform into the lab. So I can reconstruct with experimental uncertainties, but I can reconstruct with some confidence the state of the ancilla. So I'm bypassing somehow the problem of inferring the properties of the system into the reconstruction of the state of the ancilla. In some cases, this might be an advantage. In particular, if the dimension of my ancilla is low, right? OK, so we have five minutes before the lunch break. Is the lunch break from now? No, there's another. Oh, there's Christoph Lecture. Yes. So in these five minutes, I would like to go through the calculation that allows me to show you that at the end of the protocol, or maybe I'll just bypass it, and you believe me, and you trust me, and if you are interested, we can go into the details together. So at the end of the protocol, so when I discard the state of the system, when I don't look at the state of the system and I reconstruct the state of the ancilla, I notice that the state of the ancilla, in the basis 0 of 0 and 1, in the basis of 0 and 1, can be written in this manner. So let's write it explicitly as a matrix. I don't need this diagram. So if I want to write down this density matrix, rho a, what I find is that it takes a 2 by 2 matrix because I have assumed that my ancilla is just a qubit. What I have is 1 half here on the diagonals, and this is the identity, right? Then I have this quantity, not this Pauli matrix, sigma z, times alpha. And alpha is the real part of my characteristic function. So what I have here is a real part of chi over 2 and minus real part of chi over 2. While on the off diagonal elements of the density matrix, I have a beta, unfortunately, sorry guys, this might be confusing. Here beta is not the inverse temperature, but is the imaginary part of the characteristic function. Sorry, I'm noticing it here after three years. Sorry. So here I have minus i over 2 the imaginary part of chi and i over 2 the imaginary part of chi. OK, so the state of the ancilla, the state of the ancilla encodes information on the characteristic function. If I reconstruct what is called, say, the longitudinal magnetization, which is the expectation value, basically of sigma z, and the transverse magnetization, which is the expectation value of sigma y, I have full information on the characteristic function for work distribution. So by simply acting on the ancilla, by simply reconstructing the state of the ancilla, I would be able to get full information on a protocol that is arbitrarily complicated. So u is given there. When I implement this object, I don't have to worry about what u is. You gave it to me. Make sense? So no matter how abrupt my process is, how violent my process is, or how gentle the kicking is to the system, so no matter how stronger the non-equilibrium features of this guy, I will be able to reconstruct them through this procedure. And this has been used in a couple of experiments that were in the quantum domain, inferring the statistical properties, the non-equilibrium properties, of a quantum system. So I think I'm on time. Fabrizio, shall I stop here? Yes, it's 10 past 12. I'm done. I think I can stop here, so it's a good time for getting. Yes, I think they are. It's a physical state, say. It's a legitimate state. I mean, no, no, no, no. Kai enters basically as a phase in your state. Yes, in fact, say, OK, just if I can add, if you avoid the second Adam R, then you write everything on the basis of z of plus and minus. It's a lot more clear, so that Kai appears as a phase. Yeah, I'll stop here. And questions?


Next question is from Adam Pullman fit. How has incorporating and vocalizing your personal opinions and details about your lives? positively or negatively affected the brand business and your personal lives you guys remember Adam right Adam was I think it was Colorado where he came out to the live event tall tall good-looking fit guy He has his own podcast. He's probably interviewed both of you. You don't even remember.  Yeah, yeah He's on video you can see his face No, I'm saying like I'm saying your your face is on camera I mean, I might be calling it out, but he looks confused as shit as he says Hmm Justin doesn't remember the tall handsome guys like you do He was next to that attractive girl, you know what I have some very strong opinions about this because I think times Have changed a lot when it comes to this in the past I think it's safe to say it was not a smart idea for anybody in media To talk about their personal opinions on a lot of different things. In fact PR agencies used to tell celebrities all the time do not talk about politics Do not talk about personal opinions. Don't do any of that stuff Just stay general because it could screw you one way or the other these days With a cancel culture. It's a little bit different. Okay, if you say the wrong thing Or you do the wrong thing or you act in a way that whatever pisses off the mob They could literally destroy your career now my opinion and I think you guys will agree with me And if even if this wasn't true, we do it anyway because that's another part to this But in my opinion if you build your business Saying what you're gonna say and being who you're gonna be then you're somewhat protected of that in the future Because if something happens and something comes out and they're like, oh Sal said this about politics We people are like he's been saying that for yeah, since they consistent.  I thought he was yeah He talks about that all the time. It's not a big deal like I think if you're gonna build a business in new media Then you need to be you need to be somewhat authentic and real because at some point someone's gonna see something or whatever They're gonna come after you maybe and if they do What are you gonna do come after me? I've been this way since day one. I've been honest since day one So I think that somewhat protects you. Yeah, I think these days is just different like the days of portraying yourself in a certain light and You know having the Lambo behind you and like whatever like staple of success looks like I think those days are you know, it doesn't do as well as it used to I know it still does well for some of these guys out there that can kind of portray themselves like that but I just feel in terms of a long-term strategy to get as close to your authentic self as possible I mean it it it is what it is like either like me or you don't at a certain point I think we've been getting slowly more comfortable with the fact of like this is who I really am And so like I don't really know how to be anything else and I think people appreciate that at the end of the day Well, I think this is I actually think this is necessary, right because at one point if you try and you know Only talk about the things that you think that everybody wants to hear about and you're not being your authentic self and you're holding back Your opinions and your values and your views then you and let's say you actually build a successful business Then you got to get up every day and you got to be this person that isn't completely you and so even if it's doing well Financially and it's growing You don't get to be yourself.  There's no more buffer Yeah, so you're screwed exactly So then you got to get on your social media every day and pretend to be this character that you really are not and you know This was a conversation that we all agreed very early on it's like we're gonna be you know Raw and real and ourselves and and here's a deal with what's neat and why I think this is important today And you and you definitely can still get away even with cancel culture culture is there's a very good chance There's a million people out there at least in the internet that are just like you that think like you that Similar in age similar in values and views So don't be afraid of the you know of the other hundred million that are totally not like you Don't care your goal is to find those million people that and you don't even need a million But I'm just throwing that out there.  Yeah, we've throttled hard Yeah, if anything we've kind of backed off a little bit and so we wanted to make sure okay Our core audience is definitely they've got just as dark of a sense in we do they're okay with profanity. They're all those things Otherwise you wouldn't have been paying attention to us And so we don't have to deal with a lot of that bullshit Yeah, and the truth is that it's not going to guarantee you success It might hurt your business, but so what then you're not in that situation where you're either acting fake or Vulnerable that's the thing that you got to be careful with is you can make yourself very vulnerable You know I was talking about Kevin Hart earlier in this episode about his comedy thing and he said how He had announced that he was gonna go plant-based and then a couple days later He was eating a Big Mac and some lady with a cell phone took a picture of him I got you and then he's like oh man now. I got to apologize all these people or whatever And so that's the the world we live in there's cameras everywhere people all around you It's not gonna guarantee success. It might hurt you who knows but at the end of the day in my opinion There's only one way to be successful through media and that is to be authentic. That's the only way I can do it I don't want to walk around looking over my shoulder.   That's just who he is


Doing something a little different today, not just with the light. And I just want to take a moment to set it up before we get to it. So this will be a podcast that I'm going to be doing with my friend, Eustace Hansen. You might already know him from his Instagram account. We'll talk a little bit about this in the actual broadcast, but I met Eustace for the first time in person in London when we were both there for an activation with Jeje LeCoultre. We became very fast friends. I obviously love his style. I was really impressed with his passion and real knowledge about style watches and many other things. So I just want to mention that because I don't typically make those types of connections at that level and that quickly very often. So fast forward almost a year and I texted him about this idea to do this podcast together to which he responded that he had been thinking the exact same thing. So we recorded our first one, which you'll see today. We wanted it to not just be a typical podcast audio product, but also something that you could watch. So because he is in Germany and I'm here in the States, there were some challenges to doing so in terms of filming it and syncing everything up and did a great job by the way. We were not without a couple small issues though. I had a problem with my connection about halfway through and then we had a video issue on Eustace's side. So for the last like five minutes or so, we just put up his photo. So instead of doing a whole thing over because there's a lot of good stuff, we just decided to roll with it. This is something we intend to keep doing. So please drop your suggestions down in the comments about things you want to see, ways we might improve the visual part of this. So open to anything and everything and looking forward to that. Show notes are down below in the description with time codes. So if you want to jump around, you can do that. I think that's enough setup. So let's get to the conversation. Okay, sweet. Hey, what's going on? We just fixed the camera. There we go. That's a good start. And to this, what's I'm just going to jump right in a lecture. What's the hardest part been about this whole thing for you about what you'll think it's sheltering in place, quarantine, COVID-19, whatever I see. That's what you mean. Yeah, that's what I mean. I honestly, I think the most most difficult part was I can't go to the gym. And I'm in the gym, too. Huh? I'm missing the gym, too, for sure. Yeah, everybody doesn't that. That's that's very, very annoying to me because, you know, I'm I'm not at the risk group, so I'm very I can be very lucky about that. So I really got minor issues that really annoy me here. And that's why, to me, it's the gym and not seeing friends, not socializing, not going out, actually not wearing outfits. That's why I'm wearing like a suit and a tie today because it was the second time I was going out and was like, I'm going out and going into the city. I can can just wear a suit up. Yeah, there was no reason at all. And that's what I said on stories, too. There's no reason for me to wear a suit at the moment, but I just felt like it and felt so good. I thought about doing that, like in the very beginning. My wife wanted to like take portraits. So she got dressed up and we took some photos of her down in the studio. But I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I don't know. Maybe I should. Maybe it'll make me feel better because I think that's probably like one of the reasons that we like to dress up as it makes us feel feel good. But it's been kind of hard to do that. Do you have like a in the in place of the gym? Is there something that you're doing like at home to work out? I've got like I'm getting sick of body weight and resistance band, but that's all I got right now. So I'm making it work for me. I bought some equipment, but to be honest, I just I just can't work out at home. It doesn't feel right to me. That's why I like going to the gym. That's why I miss it so much is I want to go outside and know I'm going. I got this 10 minute walk to the gym and I just need these those 10 minutes to mentally prepare for going to the gym and working out. And yeah, putting my body under stress. And that's what I that's what I feel like. I go out outdoor and I tell myself like, OK, I'm going to hit the gym now. I'm going to put my body under stress. And once I'm there, I'm going to redress again. I'm like, OK, I'm going to like I'm doing doing sports now. Yeah. So I need this kind of mental, mental step to get there. And like just working out next to my next to my bed is I just don't feel it. You know, it's tough to get into a routine. And that's actually been one of the biggest challenges for me is not having a routine or having my routine completely disrupted. I'm someone who really loves to have a routine. And then I don't know, maybe it's a fault of mine. But it's when I get into a routine, I'm really in a groove and I'm feeling really good about myself. But then when that gets upset, I just it takes me too long to kind of re-adapt to whatever the new thing is. And that's really how I've been feeling here. And also, like, if I take a break or pause between between the reps, I'm like, I look around, I look at people. I also get motivated because maybe sometimes they're girls around the stuff that kind of to be honest, or other guys just lifting weights and being you see the progress of people, too, you see like a guy. There was one guy he just started. Like I saw him coming to the gym and a month or two months later, I saw him was like he was ripped and everything. He was really, really feeling it. And that's part of it, too. And that just felt like around my room, there's nothing. There's nothing to do, nothing to see. Also, everything's quiet. We have a flat chair, as I mentioned before. And so he just hears me working out.  I do mine. What is something that you do every day to kind of keep yourself sane? Um, what I really like about the quarantine at the moment is those routines I get. And the first thing and the most important thing for me is getting back to reading, because I noticed doing that. I love reading ever since, but I think like the last two or three years, I didn't really take the time. And I used to say to people, like, I don't have the time to read. And a friend of mine said, you don't, you never have the time. You just take the time if you really want to. And that's what I didn't quarantine now. Like, of course, I still got my stuff to do every day. Um, but I'm just taking the time one hour in the morning to just read. Right. Yeah. You really have to like physically make your own routines and carve out time for yourself, because I feel like before everything was sort of structured in place for you. And now you're left to your own devices. And if you're not making your own schedule, then it's really hard to kind of get into any kind of groove at all. What are you, what are you reading? At the moment, I'm reading, um, Zappians by, um, a short story about humankind by Herari. It's fascinating. I'm also reading it in English. That's why I'm only reading 10 pages a day because he comes up with so much vocabulary. I've never heard of that. I got to look up at least two words a page. Oh, really? Yeah, but it's fun. It's fun. It's, I'm learning so much. I'm trying to remember the last book that I read every around like the holidays, like Christmas time. I always say, I'm going to start reading again and always start like the same books. And I never, I never, I never really get through them. It's been a long time since I finished the book.  But in the end, you don't do much different. Like that's what I've realized. Like I get to take so much stuff with me, but I mostly don't use it. I'm ready to, to kind of get back into the groove of, of eating. Well, it's just, it's been too easy not to, I've enjoyed the time that we've had at home, but more time to spend with the dog and walking around and, you know, my wife and I get to take walks with the dog together and we're cooking. And it's just like we have more time and it's, it's nice. So that's hunting the good stuff. That's one thing that I'm enjoying about it. And actually one thing that I've been doing every day, it seems kind of mundane and I don't know why I never did this before, but I've been unsubscribing from like almost every email list that I get because I don't know if it's like the same for you, but I get tons of junk email and I'm like, why, well, number one, like, why am I even on this list? I don't care about this. Uh, so I thought it was just going to take one day because I get so many, I'm like, oh, just like methodically going through unsubscribe, unsubscribe, unsubscribe. And then, but it's still like three days later and I'm still unsubscribing from things. One thing I thought I was wondering, like, okay, I get all these emails, but and I'm unsubscribing and it's going to make me feel good because I don't have to delete like a thousand emails every day. But then I started thinking, like, am I going to be sad now that I don't get all these emails? Like all these people aren't thinking about sending me an email. It hasn't happened so far, but no, anyway. I do the same. I also got this from, it's called GoJack. It's an app you can, you can, I use on Bali to order stuff. They, um, you order something in a store and they just send someone with a scooter. He just brings it to you and then you pay. It's really convenient. It's like, we don't have that here. It's called GoJack. GoJack. G-O-J-E-K. Yeah. And, um, I still get emails from them, but I tried unsubscribing, but I can't because it's in their language. I don't know what language called it's Bali needs or whatever. Oh, okay. I can't unsubscribe. And so that's very clever of them. I still get their emails like twice a day at least. And I just can't unsubscribe. Some of them don't have ways to unsubscribe, but I think that's illegal. There, I got four emails to, I've, there's like different emails for Peaceburg style. And there's like questions and contact and advertising. And I think somehow they just found every single email address that was available. And I got like 10 emails from the same brand.  That's why I think they, they, they get away with it. Right. There's like, there's so many other things going on in the world. Why are you going to sue us over spam email? I think people might be wondering how this is happening right now. And we sort of talked about it and we, we texted over WhatsApp and I think we kind of had the same idea at about the same time. But one thing that was striking to me and we've, we've talked about this previously, but I think it's a really, really interesting topic is the perception that you have of someone who you might only know via their Instagram feed versus the reality of who they are. Oh yeah. And a lot of times, at least in my case, and it's not always the case, but I say more times than not, I form a opinion of someone of who they are based on the photos they take and what I see online, which as, as you know, is, is not always, you know, the most authentic picture of who they are and how they live, especially in photographs. It's hard to see and tell stories.  Um, so we met for the very first time in person in London, we were both on a trip for Gégère Lecoultre and we were sitting next to each other at the Royal Academy for the Gala dinner. I was after they did, uh, what was it, Benedict Cumberbatch, something live, stories live. What was it called? They were, they were, um, that's, that's a good question, whether we were telling stories of Oh, letters live. It was Benedict Cumberbatch and the thing was called Letters Live. Yeah. Clark Peters was there. He plays, I don't know. Do you know the wire? I've, I've watched the wire. And I just, I watched the whole series, but it just, I didn't like it to be honest. No, everybody loves it. It takes place in Baltimore. That's, uh, that's where I'm at. Yeah. Yeah. I remember, I liked the, the time I watched, uh, I watched the wire was, um, I was expecting something different because everybody was like, Oh, have you watched the wire? It's the best series ever. And at that time, to me, that was, um, breaking bed, for example. And I kind of expected something like this. I didn't know that this was kind of the first series ever made. So I didn't, I haven't had the, the view on it as I maybe should have. So it's, it's, it's a Godfather of all serious. And I didn't, didn't see it like that at that point. So it probably had to be lower pace. Uh, and it takes time to get into, but you really get invested in the characters. We're getting off on it. I didn't hear it. Anyway, we were at the Royal Academy, the Letters Live, and we were there with JLC and they sat us next to each other. And I had only known you through your Instagram and, and, you know, I, I had no idea what you were like. And typically, um, uh, when I meet people, not all the time, but the image I have formed in my head is not who they are. And then when I actually talked to them, I'm like really disappointed in some way. Oh, I thought you were like this. And I was talking with Robin, my wife about this last night, and she said, it's like, you know, no one wants to meet their like idol or this famous celebrity that they know and then be disappointed because they're not what they, who they thought they were. I remember seeing that. I remember seeing Jillian Anderson. I loved Jillian Anderson on the X files.  And then I was so disappointed. I saw her on like a late night show. She was such a, a dits, but, but you, so I, I didn't know what to expect. And then we had this deep conversation about watches and you're so knowledgeable about that. And I wasn't expecting to click and hit it off with you quite the way that we did. It's rare that I find that kind of synergy with someone who also is in this world of whatever it is that we're doing. So absolutely. I don't know what were your perceptions of me before we had met? That's a very good question. Since you're asking, I was thinking about that the last minute, but I genuinely, genuinely can't recall. I can't recall. I just, I just know you were there. I saw that you once made a, made a blog post about me. That was a very, um, I love that. It was very, very, very nice. The rules of style, according to. Yeah. And you took quite a lot of pictures. So I was really, I felt honored. It was an honor, but still I can't recall what I was thinking about you. But I was, I was amazed afterwards because you were so, you were into so much topics just like now. You're doing a podcast, you're doing YouTube, you're doing Instagram. Can't do everything. It feels like you're doing everything. I do my best trying. Yeah. That, that's why, like, um, I'm usually always surprised of people like positive wise. I rarely get, um, negative experiences from people, to be honest. But with you, it was a peak. Interesting. 100%. I didn't expect that. And that's why it's so, so it's cool sitting here now talking to you. I think, um, is it different in Germany? The whole, I mean, let's just influence or whatever it is, is the scene. Are there as many people? I feel like there's so many people in the States who do this kind of thing and new people are always popping up and it's, you know, easy to, in a way, especially with Instagram, to be something you want to be and let people think that that's what you are. Is it the same in Germany or is it different? I mean, I don't know. 100% the same, I think. It's probably just, you just downscale it because we're just 80 million people and you're like 250 million. Something like that. And it's the same, but in a smaller scale, it's just the generations that they picked up on it, the new generation that they really see like, okay, you can, you can be someone. You know, I mean, for me, it was like, I'm just a random guy from a small town village and people start knowing me in the US. Like the first time somebody came up to me saying, hey, I know you. That was in Seoul, South Korea, 2016 and like 40,000 followers. And there was a group of Spanish guys saying like, hey, I know you. I was like, you do not. And I think people just love the idea of, yeah, of making something, of getting famous on platform without being a TV star or, or a singer or something. That's why people start picking up on it. And that's why there are quite a lot of people. Do you think, do you think things will shift? I mean, they always do.  Or that's what you needed to have. And then Facebook as well. But Facebook wasn't that popular anymore. So everyone shifted to Instagram. And do you feel like Instagram has had its day? It's a very good question. I mean, it's still my main platform. So I definitely don't want it to be like that. But I kind of feel like because there's so much more social platforms coming up like TikTok. Yeah, I can't do TikTok. That's that's just not my my jam. Personally, I've never looked up looked into TikTok. I've just seen some some videos on Instagram that have this TikTok logo and at the bottom right. But what I've what I always see is that people are imitating music, music stuff. And I don't see myself doing that. I don't see my I don't see myself putting out my content on TikTok in an entertaining way like everybody else does. I wouldn't know how like that's why. But this is another platform that just shares the the attention of people. And that's why like there's got to be something coming up that again gets the attention of people. And then you have a variety and you have to choose from which app you open. If you're in a public transport from A to B. Are you a YouTube guy? Are you an Instagram guy? Are you a Facebook guy? Are you a TikTok guy? It's already four platforms. It's hard to do it all. And you said you think that I'm doing everything like myself. I'm not. I have like a team of people who help out, especially with the video. But one of the things that was really hard to do was to make that shift because I put a lot of time and effort into the website. And you know, I sense that things needed to change. Actually, if you need another book to read, I could recommend for you. It's called Only the Paranoid Survive. Yeah, write that down. Only the Paranoid Survive by Larry Grove. Am I getting that right? I got to look this up because I don't want to get it wrong. Paranoid only. I can just can just Google the. Yeah. Andrew Grove, excuse me, Andrew Grove. He was and he talks about he was the head of Intel, the computer company. And he talks about, you know, there were all these businesses like that, like Intel back then. And they were I think they were all vertically integrated or not. I can't remember. I got it backwards. But anyway, the main point is that there's a thing called a strategic inflection point. And it's not something that's written in stone. It's just, you know, something's changing in the world and how you adapt and position yourself and prepare for the next thing will determine whether you succeed or fail. There's a reason that we still talk about Intel and we know Intel these days because he was a very forward thinking individual and he first saw these changes in the industry and they adapted quickly and they were like, you know, at the, you know, edge of the tip edge end of the spear. And all these other companies who just kept doing what they were doing and not changing or adapting or doing anything different. We don't talk about them anymore because they disappeared because they weren't ready for the next evolution. I feel like there's something of that nature going on now. By the way, if you read that book, you can totally skip over the end because it talks about the Internet. Like it was written, I think, in the nineties. Yeah. Times change so fast. I mean, from from the day they they brought up with the the mobile phone from from that day to the iPhones now. That's just years. I mean, how long it took for us to get electricity and everything going. And now we're here talking on a on a liquid crystal screen. And it's pretty incredible. What I think what I was saying earlier was that making the switch like you have to prioritize. I can't do everything myself. And I deprioritize the website. Well, I was taking a risk in a way and focused wanted to focus not so much on Instagram. I mean, you kind of we do Instagram using stories more now. But shifting to YouTube was what I thought was important for me because I feel like it would be a place that I could really speak to people. They could see who I was and have a voice put a voice and to the face. And, you know, it growth didn't happen right away. But like anything, you know, you have to be consistent and put out quality in that that that helps everything. So. Justus or justice or use how do you say it? It's actually it's up to you whatever is more comfortable for you because I don't think it's it's you can really pronounce it in a German way. We pronounce it used us. You use us. I think that's pretty good. You used us. You still use us. Just us. Just us. Is there an umlau on it now? No. Darling. But yeah, my I mentioned before that my teacher in the U.S. I lived in the U.S. from 2001 to 2003. Cherry Ann Wendling, she she pronounced it used us. She was from Texas. You used us. Yeah, she was from Texas and it was fun. So I don't mind it. A lot of people think my name is a justice. Just because of because of the F on Instagram. But it's actually Justice F underscore Hansen because for my second name, my name is used to Frederick Hansen. So that's why the F is there and people kind of miss miss see it. I think I knew that from your email. And I get a lot of used to for you. So the the Turkish version. So I don't mind. Have you seen do you drink cocktails? I can't remember if you had one. I now I don't drink cocktails. I what what I really like is gentonic. That's what that's. Oh, and call that cocktail. So that that's you don't drink the gronies. Yeah. No, that's too bitter. And I don't know. I was talking about negronies because I was going to bring up the Stanley Tucci negroni thing, which I had a reaction to. But since you're not an negroni person, we can we can we can scratch that one off the list. I can't drink. I can't drink beer. I feel disgusting after I drink a beer like bloated. But is it only the idea that you like?  Every once in a while, like I'm in the mood only like in the summertime. A lot of people in the states drink these really heavy beers like porters and like the craft beer industry here is ridiculous. But I was into that maybe like 15 years ago. But then I liked IPAs and things just got completely bonkers. They were way too bitter and I'd be parched the next day if I drank one. But every so often in the summer, I feel like drinking a very crisp cold cheap beer. I will really only drink one beer at a time. And I probably throughout the year, I might drink six total. And they're like cheap beers. I'm talking like Mick ultra Michelob ultra or what else do I have in the fridge? I literally will buy like a six pack of beer and they'll sit in the little fridge we have in the garage for years. But no, I really I don't really drink beer that much. It's not. Yeah, so because I only drink one, it never really bothers me. But yeah, no, not my not really my thing. I always get that ask because I'm German people like oh, your beer drinking like like what's the best German beer? Oh, I mean, there's there's opinions. Personally, I if I drink beer, I like becks. It is very bitter, but I don't I kind of like that bitterness. Yeah. I like becks. We have becks here. Becks really good and and Rothaus. I think it's got the Rothaus. It's from from the south. It's really good too. But I mean, we have so many beer, like sorts of beer that I don't really I don't I haven't tried enough to give you an educated answer to that. Yeah, people are listening to a couple of beer experts here. No. So obviously there's been this whole COVID-19 thing has changed so much about everything. I think that's the understatement of the year. What do you think or predict will be some of the bigger changes in the industry that you and I find ourselves working in? I think the the digital digital life kind of just got boosted because everything else is on hold. Even magazines, we don't really know if all the magazines survive and the journalism itself, if that survives. So I think in that case, budgets will be will be switched to social media to digital, let's say digital. I think that could be positive in a way for our industry. But at the same time, it could also be different because people are still in shock. And if we have recession coming up, that could also affect the whole situation. So I really don't know if everybody nowadays is like a hobby virologist and hobby economists. So it's you put kind of a positive optimistic outlook on that. Things going more digital for our industry. Yeah. And I think that's a point I'm going to offer a counterpoint. So everything's moving online. Everyone is doing things online. Like every time I open up Instagram, there's so many people doing these live conversations. Oh, yeah. Right. It's almost like market saturation in my point, in my view. I don't know how do people rise above? How do you cut through the noise? I guess is what I'm trying to answer for myself or asking you. What do you think it's easy being niche? Niche. Yeah, because if if everybody does the same, I mean, what I what I what I found the last couple of years is that there is a certain starter kit to all people think there is a certain starter to being a blogger and that kind of is as like you use the same vocabulary. You are everybody craves. That's also one of those words. Everybody craves the same things. If it is cars, flats, travel destinations or just mindset and politician politics, then standpoints. That's why I think if everybody does the same, you don't know who to follow. But if there's someone that just has a niche and only talks about that niche, for example, suited racer, this guy is genius. He just does his thing and you can you can tell by his by his his choice of words that he's a very intelligent guy and he just exactly knows how to put himself out there and he's a guy you will never get tired of. And that's why he really stands out and that's the way I think you have to do it now. And also for us, it's the same like if if you think if somebody asked like, do you know a guy on Instagram that wears that's good in suits. There's just us. And if you ask someone, is there someone who's good at fitness? There's so many out there. So we are kind of a niche. I mean, there is the potential is kind of small for us to grow to millions. But I don't mind. We still have have the audience and I think that's a way to stand out. Yeah. Yeah, we made a decision speaking of niche to kind of go more luxury a few years ago, not that, you know, a part of my style has always been to be attainable and approachable as well. Like luxury, I think it can fall into the trap of being like exclusive. If you don't know this or you can't afford this, you're not in the club. And that's not what I'm all about. But in terms of the business focusing on that niche and making content, I think that kind of exemplified that helped to position us in a different in a different way. We take great care with every kind of content we make and it's very deliberate. So anyway, but yeah, what I also wanted to say is the market can be oversaturated. But if you have a true following, if you build up the true following for years, then I don't think you're really affected. That's why I think it's always important to answer people to interact with your community in a way that everyone feels like he means something.  Buy your socks? What kind of socks do you wear? You really want to know?  There were some people like, hey, nice socks can I buy them? I must admit that I am not good at answering DMs on Instagram. Part of that, I answer so many comments on YouTube and I feel like I have a really great relationship with my following on YouTube because of that. But I think part of the reason for me is that I don't like to type with my thumbs. I prefer to type with my fingers. I know what you mean and I got to that point as well. That's why I got really bad at a private conversation to be on. What's that for example? I just don't reply anymore. People start complaining. I'm like, I'm really sorry but I just don't want to be on the phone the whole day. So to me it is my job to answer direct messages because I don't have that many platforms as you do. That's why I can focus on Instagram and I have to. So it is my job to answer questions. What's great that you do that and that's why your audience is so engaged. I hope so. But yeah, like in personal life I don't like texting anymore. Yeah. So I get your point. I can't do it. I'm less likely to answer a DM just because I'll have to type with my thumbs. If they could move it online that would be easier. I could just type. I just so much faster. You know, I don't... Yeah, you can only use Instagram via your phone, right? You can't even use the iPad for it. Upload something by the iPad or something. It doesn't work. I don't know if you can do... Let me look right now. I'm going to see if I can... I know I can look at Instagram on the web, but can I reply to direct messages? Did I know? I don't think so. Well, something to explore. Well, I think this has been good. I know you've got a phone call. You've got a run-to. Oh yeah, that's in eight minutes. You're right.  We haven't really worked out how to end this. This is something we're going to be doing. It's also the first time I've ever doing a podcast also. It's in a foreign language, so excuse some mistakes I made. I didn't hear any. Okay, that's good. But the thing is we just do it the way it comes. So, yeah, like right now I've got the phone call I have to take. And I think it's doing it like very, very amateur-wise. It's also kind of cool because there's so many people out there doing it so professionally. I have to get comfortable with the whole situation too, so that's a progress. At some point we should ask people. We should do like an Ask Me Anything, put out something on Instagram and line up the questions and go down. Yeah, and also I'm interested in getting feedback. With topics people want to hear us talk about philosophy philosophies. Philosophy. Exactly. That's what I mean. It's a language barrier here. All right. Well, I think that's a good place to leave it. Your English is wonderful. I think you should be ashamed of it at all. This is a good first session and we'll check back in, I don't know, in a week or two and see how it goes. Perfect. Sound good. So we got a clap now, right? To stop the whole audio. I don't think so. You can clap if you want. Well done. Hey, stay well and we'll catch up soon. You too. Thanks. All right. Bye.


We've got them in the end. We've actually made some progress We're gonna have to spend an extra day on this job, but these things happen The skip is really cost us time Tomorrow We're going that and that again those two lentils in getting that stealing day three So the plan for today is actually make some progress So as you know from yesterday, we got the skip and we've just had a big clean out of here today yesterday Sorry, so today First thing dad's gonna do is he's gonna finish off That he's going to do the brickwork on the other side Which very nice first time seen this properly. So he's gonna do the brickwork on the other side and we've cleaned off some of the extension brick so you use back there, so it's a better match and While he's doing that I'm gonna finish getting this side out get all them bricks taken out get that crappy installation throw away and I'm going to get this stealing I think I think we're doing that first and then we're gonna do that because in that way All the rubbish can get taken out from this side and the accros won't be in the way with that steel being up. So That's the plan So plan in general get these steels in maybe try and get that door at least cut out and put in Fingers crossed hopefully, but we are ready to go. We have our Bruce my water's in the other side, but big. Thank you to the customer. I go with keeping us there hydrated and Once dad's finished having a little gather up brick prices We will get cracking You ready? Yes rocking in the aware M store gloves. Yeah, thank you very much M store These ones are nice and skin tight I think so yes, I'm still thank you again So who's taking the camera I'll take the camera because snuck in the wall down, isn't it? Yeah, you know the song and dance with that So send you over to dad after lunch court to one welcome back Alex's got this side down So this is all open. That's ready for the steel going in. He's just started on the door We're not propping this because it's got render above it No, and we'll see how we're going with that. So he's dropping that I'm gonna move the sales back up And I'm in here with him now. I'm just gonna I've just finished doing the brick work on here We salvaged some of the bricks out of that wall Because it was a it wasn't Dot and dabbed it was it was lime with battens so the bricks were clean on the knee So we've cleaned these ones up to get a good match. So once Robby's done the the patch in there look great So that's all finished. We've got a bit of tidying up to do Not a bad job with the coat motor color. It's a light brown that but I've put a bit of black with it Just darken it down a bit So I'm tired of this up and head up in there So let's go make a mess well, this is a Strange find there's a cabin tray up here, which I've yanked out and then a few courses do more down We've got a lot of shoes of steel so wonder if this is a for meter boxes or something, but very strange Might have to get the grinder on that because it's a Must be in a few more courses. So a few more brick even but it's a Weird fact I didn't think I'd find something like that in the wall be honest with you And then there's one of these too like what goes up there But yeah, so there's a little Strange update for you. I'll throw you back up on time. That's that's two Out of four holes made That won't put up a bit of a fight But once I got to around here, it was just popping off course at a time then so that was Nice and satisfying and again as I show you the weird cabin tray and a lintel for the Me meter boxes and whatever you but so now is it steel time now Yep Yeah, so now We're going to try and get the steel in Like months dead. So once we've got this bloody network of cables sorted out, but Next step is the steel so Let's actually just keep keep this momentum going a bit of a scary one that Is uh, obviously we've not had much That's been our support systems But as you listen on time, that's a bit of fiddling around and a bit of knocking And we've got it in and it's in Plum as well. We must get we've plundered up before we got it stuck to the top. So Yeah, like it's it's only just going to turn three o'clock. So we're doing all right for time for this deal at least so And it's held up with two acros so it's nice and secure So dad's gonna get all this sorted now get the padstones in whatever you I'll just start throwing some more crap away So I'll uh, I'll keep you on dad then while I sort that out. Good afternoon Steve rex all golden oldies are in so it's getting on for our thing We're leaving it for today whatever happens because I think six o'clock last two naturally left Then anyone who's been instagram will see the rain yesterday. That was a proper bouncing down So give you a quick turn and Yeah, it still looks like a bomb's at it, but we're gonna have a tidy up We're actually gonna come back tomorrow We're we're gonna come back monday with robbie and robbie get the front done, but there's still so much left to do Padstones are in now or All nice and tight Link the acros are staying in tonight These ones are coming out because the steel's holding the joists up now So it's all nicely in position We'll be solid tomorrow So like I said, I'm taking these out Having a good brush out so it's tidying here Well, doesn't have to be perfect because all this is all this is being thrown in this way so we can get out of the door So I'm not going through the hole and into the hallway Pasting it the fancy front door So, um, yeah, that's that's where we're at so far Um We're gonna have to spend the next day on this job, but these things happen The skip is really cost us time Um, plus it's always harder than you expect so, um Yeah, um I'll see you back on time. That's why we get this bit tidied up. Alex is next door in the other room Getting all that plasterboard just about there because we're getting that spotless ready for propping so, um yeah See you in a bit. It's tidied up a bit and Does took the out cruise down while I was away so Here we go. That's one stealing and I'll take you around here real quick. I've uh Got the majority of all that swept up and put away so Tomorrow getting those two lentils in getting that stealing because Robbie came back on Monday to fit that window for the garage conversion. So We're coming back tomorrow to get them finished So that way on Monday, we just come in get that brickwork and block it up We've got them in the end. We've actually made some progress. So we'll uh, we'll catch you tomorrow