6 ways narcissists use baiting to provoke you Narcissists seek to manipulate you They seek to control you They seek to maintain influence and authority over you Because they want to get their needs met They want you to do what they want They want you to do what they expect you to do They want you to be what they need you to be The narcissist is like a fisherman They sit alongside a river Where they know the fish are going to be And then they try out different types of bait To see which one is more effective Their objective is to get you to bite the bait So that they can reel you in Then they can manipulate and control you For their own selfish interests and needs They will try out different types of bait To see which one works best with you Until they find a few personal favourites That they like to use often Here are six types of bait The narcissist will use to provoke you 1.   False accusations The narcissist may not even believe the false accusations they make about you They are just using it to get a reaction out of you They are just using it to keep you under their control It makes you want to defend yourself It makes you want to prove yourself to them But the truth is They don't really care about what they are accusing you of They are just using it to reel you back in They are using it to get your attention They are using it to keep you thinking about them But rather than trying to convince them that they are wrong You just have to accept that a narcissist is going to believe whatever they want to believe 6. Future faking The narcissist will lie and promise something about your possible future In order to get what they want in the present They will talk about the future With no intention of making it happen It's a distraction they use When they feel like you are starting to figure them out They will dangle a carrot in front of you They will persuade you to do something by offering a reward This type of bait is used to induce their desired behaviour It's used to make you do what they want you to do In the hopes that you will eventually receive something in return And it's usually based on whatever they think is important to you Or whatever they think you want But it's really nothing more than a fantasy In most situations They don't even have the means to fulfil their false promises It's just used as bait to make you stay They use it to keep you under their control You need to recognise the bait for what it is They are just trying to reel you in They are just trying to manipulate and control you When you realise this You may even be able to predict what their next tactic is going to be You need to recognise that there is no deeper meaning to this They are just trying to provoke you to react to them So they can try to feel better about themselves When you react to them It makes them feel powerful and in control But when you develop the awareness of what they are trying to do You will no longer react to them in the same way Instead of focusing on what they are trying to do Focus on intending to your own feelings and needs The narcissist will always try to get a reaction from you Even if you are not paying attention But once you take your focus away from them You will be able to regain control Thank you for watching If this video resonated with you Please like, comment, share and subscribe If you would like to donate My paypal link is in the video description Couching inquiries You can email me at CouchnetNarxify.uk Thank you for watching And I'll talk to you soon


This talk will be about the following problem. Does P equal NP? Here, this is a problem from computer science and P means the set of polynomial time algorithms and NP means the set of non-deterministic polynomial time algorithms. So I'll be giving an introductory talk on this where I'll first explain in more detail what P and NP actually are and give a little bit of a history and then explain the arguments for and against this question. So let me start with an example. Suppose you take the number 61669 and I ask the following question, does it factor in an untrivial way? So obviously I don't want to factor one time 61669. And if I asked you for the answer and made you do it by paper and pencil, you could do it. You would just check two, three, five, seven and so on as factors and it would be an extremely tedious calculation that you could do it. But what you notice is that this calculation, it's pretty slow. On the other hand, if I ask you for a different question, what is 743 x 83 and you had to do it by pencil and paper, that would be easy because multiplication is fast. And you would find the answer is 61669, which is the number we first asked about. So what we see is that it's pretty difficult to find this factorization 743 x 83. But once you've found it, it's very easy to check that it is a factorization. And now P stands for algorithms that are fast, roughly speaking. So this is not actually correct, so I'll put this in inverted commons. So that means it is fast to find a solution to a problem. So for example, multiplication is fast. On the other hand, NP, we will see that it is fast to check that a solution, a solution once you've found one. So the difference between P and NP is the difference between finding a solution and checking that there's a solution that somebody else has come up with is in fact correct. Well, the problem here is I've used this word fast. And the question is, what does fast mean for algorithms? And we want a sort of general definition that doesn't depend on what sort of computer you are using. It doesn't depend on whether you're using a pencil and paper or a computer that can do a billion operations a second. So what's the definition of fast? Well, there's no very precise definition of fast, but there's a reasonable substitute for it, which is due to Cobham who came up with this in the mid-60s, where it says that fast for algorithms is roughly equivalent to polynomial time. So let me explain what this means. Well, polynomial time means the time taken for an input of length n should be less than or equal to some polynomial in n such as a n to the a for some constant a. So a is some constant and n is the length of the input and the time should be at most n squared or n cubed or something. You notice that the n is the length of the input. So if our input is say 743 times 83, then n is equal to 123456, not 743. And similarly, if we are factorizing 61669, we don't want to factorize it in time that's polynomial in 61669, which should be really easy, but we want to factorize it as a polynomial in the number of digits, which is 5, which is very much harder to do. So fast algorithms roughly correspond to polynomial time algorithms, but you can find plenty of counter examples. For example, the simplex algorithm in linear optimization is a pretty fast algorithm in practice. In theory, it's not polynomial time because there are some very, very rare cases when it takes a very, very long time. But these cases are so rare that you can practice it's a fast algorithm, although it's not polynomial time. On the other hand, you can also come up with polynomial time algorithms that are not fast. If your algorithm takes n to the power of 100 steps, then that's polynomial time. But if n is 10, this time will be so long that it's absolutely useless. So for example, if we do multiplication, this is polynomial time, because if we take two numbers, if we take an n-digit number times an n-digit number, the obvious algorithm that people may or may not still learn in high school takes about n squared steps. Well, it's difficult to say exactly how many steps it takes, so we say it takes o n squared steps, where o means it's most of constant times n squared, and we can't be bothered to work out what this constant is. Actually, slightly surprisingly for such an easy and well-known algorithm, this is not the best algorithm for multiplying two numbers in general, there's a faster algorithm using the fast Fourier transform that takes about o n to the 1 plus epsilon steps, where epsilon is as small as you like. All these numbers like n squared and n to the 1 plus epsilon shouldn't be taken too seriously, because the actual amount of time your algorithm takes depends on all sorts of things like details of the hardware of your computer and so on. There are always extra factors of powers of log n and so on that people don't really bother putting in here, so you should take all these expressions with a bit of a grain of salt. So, polynomial time is usually denoted by p, so p is polynomial time, meaning you can solve the algorithm in polynomial time. Np stands for nondeterministic, which they've chosen a shorter word, polynomial time. So what does this mean? Well, this means you're allowed to make an inspired guess if you check it. So, for example, a nondeterministic algorithm for factorising 6, 1, 6, 6, 9 might go like this. If you look at your daily horoscope in the newspaper and your horoscope says, well, your lucky number is 83, so you divide 6, 1, 6, 6, 9 by 83 and you find the answer is 743. And you can do this division in polynomial time and that checks that the answer is correct, which is probably a good idea because I don't think astrology columns are really a particularly reliable source of information. So, the main question is, the question is p equal to np? So, if you can solve a problem in nondeterministic polynomial time by making inspired guesses, is there an honest way of solving it in polynomial time without needing inspired guesses? So, I'll just very give the history very briefly. The first person who asked such a question may have been Gordell in about the 1950s. He wrote a letter where he sort of asked, suppose you've got a mathematical theorem of length, mathematical theorem, can you test whether it's got a proof of length n in a time that's linear or quadratic in n or something like that? So, he was asking, can you find a proof of length n in polynomial time? And he didn't really push this much further. And the p equals np question is usually really dated to an article written by Stephen Cook in about 19, in the early 1970s, maybe 1971. And the notion of np completeness and the p equals np question was soon after expanded by Karp. So, in particular, they introduced the notion of being np complete. So, an np complete problem is a maximally difficult, it's a maximally hard np problem. What this means is that if you can solve it, and you can solve all others by solving polynomial time. So, the question is, so in order to answer whether np is equal to p, all you've got to do is to show that one np complete problem can be solved in polynomial time. So, let's see some examples of this. So, first of all, let's ask, is n composite? Well, this is certainly an undeterministic polynomial problem, because we've just seen if it's composite you can make a guess for the answer and check it's correct. Then we can ask, is it in p? Can we do it in polynomial time without guessing? And the answer is yes. And this was first proved by Agra, Val, Kaila and Saxona, who found an algorithm that would test whether a number was prime or composite and they were able to prove that algorithm could do it in polynomial time. Incidentally, the algorithm probably wasn't the first algorithm that would test numbers in polynomial time. It was the first algorithm which they could prove that it did it in polynomial time. There were some other known algorithms that probably factor in polynomial time, but the trouble is proving they factor in polynomial time requires using some unproved hypotheses such as the generalized Riemann hypothesis. So, telling whether or not a problem is in polynomial time can be really tricky and difficult to decide. Another example is, well, we first asked, is n composite? We can ask the second question, find a factorization of n. And again, this is an undeterministic polynomial question and we can ask, is it in p? Can we find a factorization in polynomial time? And this is a completely open question. It's one of the fundamental questions in computational number theory. And I'm not even sure which way I would guess for the answer. On the one hand, people have searched really hard for fast factorization algorithms and never found a polynomial time one. On the other hand, the algorithms are getting better and better and there are all sorts of really deep ideas that we haven't yet used. So I have no idea whether the answer to this is yes or no. Notice, by the way, that the algorithms to test whether n is composite, the fast algorithms don't do it by actually finding a factorization of n. They do it by rather more subtle means. Go and see a course on number theory if you want to know how. So now I want to give an example of an NP complete problem. The classical example of this is the traveling salesman problem. Salesperson or whatever. So this problem says suppose you've got various towns and a salesman wants to visit all these towns in the shortest possible way. So we ask the following question, is there a path going through all the towns of length less than or equal to k? So you might sort of guess that a path is going to go around like this. So this might be a reasonable candidate for the shortest path and this is obviously non-deterministic polynomial because if there's a path of length less than or equal to k, then you can just write down the path and check it's got length at most k and you can sort of, that basically takes linear time because you just have to add up the length. On the other hand, finding the path seems to be extremely difficult. So this is an example of an NP complete problem. If we could solve the traveling salesman problem in polynomial time, we'd be able to solve all other non-deterministic problems in polynomial time. So all you have to do to show that p is equal to NP is to find an algorithm for solving the traveling salesman problem in polynomial time. And so far nobody has managed to do this. So we have the following question, is p equal to NP? And there is no easy proof either way. There's no easy proof and no easy disproof. The first result suggesting that there was no easy way to do this was there's a result by Baker, Gill and Solovey. And what they did was instead of looking at algorithms, you look at algorithms with oracles. So an algorithm with an oracle means that your algorithm for doing something is allowed to stop every now and then and consult a wizard who knows the answer to a large collection of problems. And so they will stop and ask the wizard some question and then take the wizard's answer into account and carry on. And the wizard doesn't know the answer to actually every question. The wizard or oracle only knows the answer to a certain collection of problems. And what Baker, Gill and Solovey did was they found a special sort of oracle such that if you look at the polynomial time algorithms with oracle x, this is equal to the non-deterministic polynomial times with oracle x. And similarly they found an oracle y such that p of y is not equal to NP of y. So if you allow algorithms to have an oracle, then this question can be either true or false. And this is a bit disturbing. The reason being that most of the methods we know for proving theorems about speed of algorithms go through with very little change to algorithms with oracles. This means that if there was any proof using easy techniques of this question here, then it would also apply to algorithms with oracles. But that actually depends on which oracle you have. So the proof can't work for all oracles. So now I want to say a bit about whether... Let's look at the evidence for or against the question of whether p is equal to NP. So the first thing you do, if you've got an unknown question, or a subject you don't know much about, is to ask about expert opinion. So let's consult this. Well, the expert opinion for p not equal to NP, about people have done surveys and something like 90% of people working on it think the answer is that they're not equal, and for p equals NP about 10% think the answer is yes. Well, you've always got to be a little bit careful about expert opinion. If you wanted to know about some results and say parapsychology or astrology or something and asked for expert opinion, it might not be terribly reliable. The trouble is that any expert on parapsychology is probably chosen to work in parapsychology, which means they probably haven't yet figured out that parapsychology is complete bunk. So expert opinion is fine as long as your subject is non-flaky. Well, that's okay because computer science and computation is definitely a non-flaky subject. So expert opinion in this case is probably reasonably reliable, and the default assumption seems to be that p, we should sort of expect that p is not equal to NP, but there's a certain amount of reasonable doubt about it. So now let's, for another argument, let's observe that it's easy to prove upper bounds for the time to solve something. On the other hand, it's hard to prove lower bounds. And the reason for this is very simple. If we want to prove an upper bound, all we have to do is to check one algorithm. And we just have to show that this one algorithm is fast, and that gives us an upper bound for the time taken to solve a problem. However, if we want to prove a lower bound, we need to check all algorithms. Of course, we don't need to check them individually one by one, but we somehow need some argument that would check all algorithms because we've got to check that every single algorithm doesn't somehow cleverly solve our problem. So, upper bounds you only have to check one thing, but lower bounds you have to check an infinite number of things, so it's much harder to do this. This means if we are unable to decide how fast the best algorithm is, it's more likely to be quite slow because it's the lower bound that's hard to prove. So this suggests p is not equal to NP. Because if p was equal to NP, this would mean we have an upper bound. Showing p equals NP means we need to find a polynomial upper bound for an NP complete problem, and we haven't managed to do that, which sort of hints that maybe there isn't one. Well, let's have a counter argument. Well, the counter argument is that it's not always easy to prove polynomial upper bounds. So it can be very hard to find polynomial algorithms. So let's have an example of this. Suppose you take a planar map and you want to colour it with four colours. Now, Apple and Harkin showed that there is a polynomial time algorithm for doing this. The trouble is it's incredibly difficult to prove that there is a polynomial time algorithm for doing this. In fact, as far as I know, no human has ever actually read a proof of this. Okay, so how do you prove it if no human has read a proof? Well, the answer is a lot of the proof was done by computer calculation. You have to check enormous numbers of complicated cases to show that the algorithm they gave actually works. So it can be, you know, there may be polynomial time algorithms that are really difficult to find and prove. So the conclusion of this is that algorithms are really very poorly understood. So although this suggests that P is not equal to NP, what it's really doing is it suggests that either P is not equal to NP or that we're kind of stupid and don't really understand algorithms.  So there's some very weak evidence in favour of the fact that P is not equal to NP. Now I'll come on to something that I think is somewhat stronger evidence. This depends on the following principle, slightly informal principle, which says the only way to tell what a programme does is to run it. Well, that's for general programmes. I mean, most of the programmes you actually come across are specially written to make them easy to understand.  But these are very untypical of most algorithms. Most algorithms are almost impossible to understand. If you've ever tried to read someone's poorly written undocumented code, you will know what I mean. It can be really hard to figure out what code is supposed to be doing. In fact, there's a competition called the obfuscated C contest where people deliberately try and write code in C. That's as difficult to read as possible. I don't really know why because code in C is always a bit difficult to read if you're not trying to obfuscate it. And there are some really impressive examples. For instance, here is an example written, I think, by Brian Westley. And so, I have a problem with you. What does this programme do? And even if you're an expert experienced C programmer, if you look at this, you probably haven't got the faintest idea what the programme does and it would take you several hours to figure out what it does, even though the main part of it seems to be only two lines long and seems to be little more than a couple of definitions. What it actually does is it calculates pi by calculating its own area and then dividing that by its own diameter. You see that the programme sort of looks a bit like a circle. So that's just an example to show how difficult it can be to figure out what a programme does. Incidentally, that's one of the easiest programmes in the obfuscated C competition to understand. If you go and look at some of the others, they are absolutely bizarre.  There's an extraordinary amount of ingenuity and time wasting going into this competition. So the point is that this is that examining the code for a programme or an algorithm in general gives no useful information beyond what you can find by simulating the programme or running it. Another example of this is the 3x plus 1 problem. So this is a rather famous problem. Because you take an integer x and if it's even, you map it to x over 2 and if it's odd, you map it to 3x plus 1. And you keep iterating this and you can ask, do you end up at 1 for all integers? So this is a very simple programme. It's all hard to think of anything simpler than doing this to an integer. You just ask, you know, if you iterate that often enough, do you always end up at 1? And nobody knows. This programme is incredibly difficult to understand its behaviour. So even for very simple, clear programmes like that, it can be very hard to understand what they're doing. So let's have an example of an NP complete problem. Well, I gave an example earlier of the travelling salesman problem, but it's a little bit difficult to see that it's NP complete. It's obviously NP, but completeness is a bit difficult. So here's a problem that's almost obviously NP complete. So it's going to take as input a programme x of length n written out and it could be a Turing machine of length n or something. And you have to ask the following question. Is there some data on which the programme halts? In less than a way you could do n steps. So you fix a number n and you want to have an algorithm that takes most polynomial time in n, which will tell you for any programme of length n whether there's some data on which it halts. And this is obviously NP, because if we're given a programme and it halts on some data of length n, then we can just write down this data by randomly guessing it and check by simulating the programme that halts in most n steps. So it's obviously NP, we just simulate our programme. It's a little bit more difficult to check that it's NP complete. And the point is that since we're allowed an arbitrary programme here, we can just choose the programme x to simulate any algorithm. And from this, if you can answer this question in polynomial time, then by using x to simulate any algorithm, you can basically check whether any algorithm halts on some input in polynomial time. So in some sense, this problem here is the archetypal example of an NP complete problem. Well, suppose we try and answer this question deterministically. So we can see whether some data on which the programme halts by guessing the data. So here's a deterministic solution. What we do is we run x on all possible data of length n. And we check for each of these to see if x stops. So we can certainly check to see if there's some data on which x stops at length at most n. Deterministically. And you notice we only have to run it from data of length n because if we're running the programme, we want to check to see if it stops at most n steps. So it can't read more than n data points. And how long does this take? Well, it takes about 2 to the n steps because there are 2 to the n possible choices of the initial data of length n, assuming the data is in binary or something. And we notice the problem. This is not polynomial in n. So the obvious way of solving this problem doesn't run in polynomial time. Well, what can we do in polynomial time? Suppose we use only n to the a steps, which is some polynomial. Then we can check all inputs of length less than or equal to about a times log of n, which is certainly far less than the inputs of length n, which our programme might use. And so what we want to do is find a polynomial way of checking all inputs of length n. And as we've seen, the obvious polynomial time algorithm only checks inputs of length at most a times log of n. So the problem is can we do it faster? And in order to do this, we need to understand all programmes of length less than or equal to n. And we need to understand them well enough to see where they stop in inputs of length n. And this just seems really unlikely because it sort of violates this principle that you can't tell what a general programme does except by simulating it. And here we're asking a question about all programmes and this strongly suggests we can't tell what they do except by simulating them on all possible input data. And we don't seem to have time to do this. So this sort of suggests that p is not equal to np. But of course this argument isn't watertight. I mean I've been waving my hands vigorously at various points in it. So what you can do is you can say that p not equal to np is a sort of quantitative version of the principle that we cannot understand programmes except by running them. So roughly speaking, if p was equal to np then we would somehow get some understanding of all programmes on input data. And we would have to do that in a way that was faster than just by running them all on the input data. Conversely, if we could understand programmes without actually running them then this might give us a way to prove that p was equal to np. So this seems to me to be quite strong evidence in favour that p is not equal to np because it's just encoding the well-known fact that it's really hard to understand what a general algorithm does but there's no easy way to make that argument watertight. So let's come to argument number four. Suppose p was equal to np. Well, this would imply that we can check for a proof of length, less than or equal to n of some theorem in polynomial time and polynomial time is sort of usually fast. Well, this has a rather unfortunate consequence. The consequence is that mathematicians would all be unemployed because our job is to find proofs of theorems and if there's a fast way of doing this just by getting your laptop or something to run an algorithm in polynomial time then we'd all lose our jobs. So this provides... Well, maybe it's not exactly an argument for why p is not equal to np but it may be an argument for why we all hope that p is not equal to np because otherwise we'd all get fired. As a counter-argument, mathematicians seem good at finding really long proofs. The most spectacular example of this is the classification of finite simple groups and the proof of this is about 20,000 pages long. I mean, nobody really knows exactly. The proof is such a spread out so much it's rather hard to tell. So this kind of suggests that in ideal cases, mathematicians really are rather good at finding proofs in polynomial time. I mean, we certainly didn't take exponential time to find this proof. So it's not clear what's going on. This sort of suggests that maybe proofs of nice theorems can be found in polynomial time or at least found fast. So, you know, mathematics has a lot of nice theorems where there's a lot of structure and lots of horrible questions like this 3x plus 1 problem where there seems to be very little structure to get hold of and maybe there is, you know, nice theorems we can find proofs of in polynomial times and nasty theorems we can't. I don't really know. So, argument 4 is sort of really unclear. I would say this slightly suggests that P is not equal to NP but the fact that we can find long proofs means we should be a little bit hesitant about taking this argument too strongly. So, a fifth argument, which is actually similar to argument number 4 is that if P is equal to NP, this implies that most internet encryption can be broken. Well, maybe not because polynomial time might be really long. So, if a polynomial time method for breaking this was, say, end to the 100 or something, then this wouldn't actually be much use for breaking encryption. But an awful lot of the things like the RSA algorithm and most other encryption algorithms used on the internet could be broken if we had a fast way of solving non-deterministic polynomial problems. Well, I haven't heard of anybody breaking all encryption on the internet but it's not quite clear what this proves. I mean, if someone had figured out how to break encryption on the internet, they'd probably just keep quiet about it and make a huge amount of money. I mean, or if some national intelligence agency had somehow managed to prove that P equals NP, it would sit there quietly reading everybody else's secret communications and would be very careful not to tell us about it. So, the fact that P equals NP implies most internet encryption can be broken and actually provide much evidence for P not being equal to NP. So, my conclusion is that my confidence that P is not equal to NP, I'd say about 90% and P equals NP about 10%, meaning I'd be willing to bet 10 to 1 that P is not equal to NP. This 10% is quite high basically because my natural instinct is to put this much lower but the problem is that humans have a very strong tendency to underestimate the chance of unlikely events. So, when people say they're 99% certain of something, they're wrong far more than 1% of the time. So, I'm going to be a bit cautious and give these odds for P equals NP.


Education revolts if they've got with all of Protestants. Well, I yesterday was told about it by Bill Moyers, and then last night I talked to Tony Celebrisi. I contacted him about six o'clock, and he didn't say things around the hands, and I told him that I heard him pretty bad. I talked to him ten o'clock. What we got to do is get to the people that are causing it some way, or the people that are listening to it. Yes. Now, you've got a liberal congressman from California, a former from California. C-O-R-M-A-N. You've got Ms. Green, and it's a pure church and state thing. Well, she stirred this up. Well, she does always, but she has shaken a good many of them, and we're going to get in trouble with our bill with this amendment, with the courtroom, with other things. He is sitting in openly with the head of the Republican committee, this New York Goodell. Yeah. They've pointed him as kind of the propaganda artist, and they're not the policy man, but what's the new committee they've set Goodell on? Research and research and the research, he's the head of the research group for the Republican policy group. And they've pointed him because they had nothing but reactionaries. So he has got her and Coleman and Trifor working with them, and they've got all of our Protestant group. I'm not saying, and I assume that too many of you can see them, and I don't believe any of our people are really working at them. I told our kidder to try to get with one or two today, but their principal basic argument is that a Catholic ought to have a pencil or a tablet, or that maybe some priest might come in and talk to him. And I don't know how we can avoid you or a Catholic anybody else coming in, and we got it under the public educational authorities. But I guess that the McLansmen can come in sometimes in this country. But she's been mighty mean and vicious, and they say the reason is because Morris gave out an ill-advised statement that he was strong part of the bill, and she hates Morris. That's right. Well, Cormac can't do much with her. Albert knows the Protestant groups, and is a pretty leading Protestant. I don't know whether you have the connection with it or not, but if you can, I would like for you to spend some time with whoever can talk to Cormac. I can talk to him. I would sure talk to him and just say that this columnist, I don't know how I'd get to it, but I'd say that the Inspector of Manor, St. Goodell, is getting supposed together. And that kind of Republicans are getting some fire people together and trying to bust up a bill that was unanimously reported. The whole basis of this administration depends on it. Now, we are starting to work on our legislative program for next year. It builds you a record to run on, but I want to emphasize with you that the Security Council and Malcolm X's generals and the Space Council and presiding and everything else is important. And we believe in that poverty and civil rights, particularly your mayors. I've counted up to give to some reporters been asking the assignments that you have. You have more than any man ever had except Garner, and more than Garner. But the one that Garner had, the only Vice President that I've ever looked at that had an influence was Garner. I had none, because Kennedy wouldn't give me any. He didn't just assign it to me. I want to make it clear here and now and once and for all, and even if it made a break between us, where we split wide open, your number one responsibility in my administration comes even ahead of McCormick, Mansfield, anybody else. I expect you to be my liaison with both of them and speak with authority with both of them and get the line down here what it is. And then as you said in your speeches, come back down here with a message, because I think the Vice President is peculiarly equipped because, A, he has the legislative training. He has the contacts. He has the power to make a speech for them. He's on the ticket. He's on one of two elected. He's there with them. The President can't go see them. Hell, I'd love to. I don't even go to a dedication at gymnasium, although I think I'm going to. But I want to go eat with Allen Elder. I want to go to Albert Thomas' and I want to go to the Texas delegation. That's where I want to be every day. I don't want to be sitting down here receiving an ambassador from Garner and spending all day down here. But I can't do it. But the Vice President can. Now, some presidents get jealous of the Vice President participating in these acts. I think that education bill is fifty-one percent sure. I think that Appalachian bill next Tuesday is forty-nine percent sure. It's Johnson Humphrey or Kennedy Johnson and it's split half and half just as much as you and Muriel own that home.  If you're successful, even when we lose, of knowing that we were voting and why we were voting and who was wrong, even if we lose them all, you will be a successful Vice President because the only man that I ever knew that was was Garner. Garner could run the Senate. He had the power where they would follow him and do what he wanted to and he could talk to Rayburn and run the house and he did. And Roosevelt passed all of his stuff and Roosevelt and Tommy Corcoran got the credit. I haven't heard of old man Corcoran but I studied here and watched it every damn day and that's what I want you to do. Now, Kennedy felt if I did it then I would be, they'd say I was the master craftsman and so forth. So he told the Catholics and Mike and them to pay no attention to me and come down here. They don't have to do that. You can negotiate with Mike. You can negotiate with Russell Long. You can negotiate with McCormick and Albert and Green and Morris and all the rest of them. Let them know that you are speaking to the President and let them know that we work through the leaders. We borrow them but this is a dual operation and put that up as the highest thing because what we're going to, we're not going to them on how well the Peace Corps did or how well even the poverty did, how well even the meetings we have over here. What we're going to the folks with four years from now, that all you young men will be going with, did we pass Appalachia? What is our program? Have we got a farm bill? Have we got Appalachia? Have we got a school bill? Have we got a health bill? Is medical care out? What did they do? Here's what they promised. So we got to pass it. Now that's number one. That's your wife.  But the first thing I want is legislation and everybody is at your disposal on legislative.   I haven't called a human up by this year. I'm not calling them on any bail. I never talked to a one-owned Appalachian. I want you to be walking down the halls and sitting in the gallery and being on the floor and talking to them and having the administrative assistants tell you what's happening and getting the gossip. And I don't want you to have to talk to celebrities because he really doesn't know what's going on. I talked to him nine o'clock. This meeting was going on yesterday and I chucked up Carl Albert but he was in Tennessee and I chucked up McCormick. He didn't know anything about it. And no one knew it was really going on. The goddamn damage is done and the body is dead and the post is quit beating before we find out about it. So what we've got to do is just stay right on it. You've got to give that a little dash. You've got to watch these things. Lady Green, Lady Bird just took her to Florida. I've taken her all over the country. I've had her down here. I bragged on her but she is just a mean woman and she's going to whip you and if she does why then I'm going to put you in a five-cent cigar button. It's like Marshall Woodrow Wilson. That's what happened to him, you know, with his League of Nations. And we just can't. We're smarter than they are. We've got more energy. We work faster. We've got all the machinery to go. Connor can call Republicans if you need to. Ellen can call Republicans if you need to. We've got two of them. Somebody ought to honor Austin Reed for going to bat. Somebody ought to get him a good speech. Somebody ought to honor that other guy from California, Republican, going to bat. Somebody's got to brag on old pal now. But if they beat that educational bill, we've had it. It's like the court bill of the Roosevelt's. It's the basic thing. And if we don't pass anything but education and medical care in Appalachia, we've had a record that the congressman can be reelected on. Well, Mr. President, I'll go right up there and be right on them all afternoon. You just be on them the next four years. You just say that you're the first vice president in the country that had responsibility for the... I don't care if it's the Humphrey Johnson program. I want it to be ours jointly. And when we send a message up there, I'll do whatever my cabinet will do. But from then on, it's yours until I get it back. And these boys will help you, and they'll help you. And you just have to see who's pouting, have to tell us what we can do to correct it. You have to get the rust to go see Bill Thorbride if he's pouting or whatever it is. But we just got to get this legislative program through, and I would say about if you can get any kind of farm bill. If the Peace Corps and the poverty in them, I think, will go. But if we've got Appalachia now, if we get education now, if we get medical care now, then we've got the running gears, and we can elect these boys. But if we don't, they say this farm program was a flop. And in talking to groups, I wouldn't say we've got 104 bills. I'd say, well, we're really shooting that. We've got this program, and everybody puts more on their platform than they do. What we want to do is take care of this unemployment where it's really distressed. That's Appalachia will do it. The next thing we won't do is get these people can't read and write. We won't educate them. Make taxpayers out of them. That's education. We've solved that. The next thing's health. Now, that's basic. That's what I'm after, I'm free. That's my program. Then the other 100 will be in Spanish. So if you don't get any of those three, now we're going to get them. I went up 500 million on this health. Extra. I said, don't ever argue with me. I'll go 100 million or a billion on health or education. I don't argue about that anymore. I argue about Lady Bird buying flour. You've got to have flour and coffee in your house.  I'll make that back some tanks, but not on health. So that's the go sign I gave them. But education is about to be defeated. And will be defeated by this old woman unless you meet some opposition. Carl's in Tennessee. John's a Catholic. He can't do it. Doug Cater, I'm not sure, has really known how to trade and work around. And some of these boys on the committee that are Protestants have got to know that this is what's going to reelect them. Yes, sir. And at every place you go, when you mention education, that's the most popular thing. And I just propagandize the hell out of it.  But the last time a great program was put on the books in this country. He put it on. Whatever else they say about him. In 92, he damn sure passed the Stock Exchange and the Holden Company Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the NRA and everything else. And he was standing there. And he split with him on the court. And he went back to Uvalde. But they never let advice, but Wallace didn't have one senator. He came to me with advice. And I said, the first thing I'd do is get acquainted with one senator. He said, well, he knew Claude Pepper pretty well. I said, well, Claude Pepper's with you on everything anyway.  And before you go out and make speeches, he was wanting to go all over the country and take the issue to the country. I said, you take the issue right there in the Senate. But poor fellow, that was his problem. Then we came along and Dick Nixon tried to make out like he had some. But Nolan cut his guts out. And Eisenhower cut his guts out and didn't want Nixon to have any power. And although Nixon bragged about how he ran everything and so forth, if you look at these confidential records down here, they treated Nixon just like he wasn't here. And Eisenhower said he'd think a few weeks and then he'd tell him what he did. If he had a few weeks to figure it out. So Nixon, I came along and they didn't want me to touch a legislative thing. Far and they'd asked me one time to switch Tom Dodd, which I did. And outside of that, that's all. Now, sky's the limit to you, the 104 bills and they're all yours and mine on the ticket because that's what we ran on. That's our platform. That's our program. You're half of it and you're there every day and you just help us if you can. And when you get past, then 62 when you go out speaking, say we passed education, we passed Appalachia, we passed medical care. And you give me those. I'll get to, I'll have a majority two years from now. Yes, sir. Okay. Did you get my report on something? Yes, sir. I went over all of them and I'm proud of them. But this is the stud duck. When we get that done, you can go talk about what you have done. But until we get it done, let's put everything else secondary. I've been here since first year. I want to go home. I'm just dying to go home. But I don't dare go home with this education bill like it is. I want to go this weekend. I just, I'm just scared to death that that woman's not taking me. I don't want to take me.


Hi and welcome to the session. I am Asha and I am going to help you with the following question which says if A, B and C are in AP, B, C and D are in GP and 1 upon C or 1 upon D and 1 upon A are in AP prove that A, C and E are in GP. Let us now start with the solution. And here we are given first that A, B, C are in AP. So this implies B minus A is equal to C minus B or you can say that 2 times B is equal to A plus C. Also we are given that B, C and D are in GP. This implies C upon B is equal to D upon C or we can say that C square is equal to B, D.  So this again implies that 2 times of 1 upon D is equal to 1 upon C plus 1 upon E which can further recognize D is equal to 2 times of CE upon C plus E. We have to show that is we have to show that C square is equal to AE. Let us start with C square. The C square generated as B into D this is from C square is equal to B is A plus C upon 2 from 1 and D is 2 CE upon C plus E. Now on cross multiplying we have 2 times into C square is equal to 2A CE plus 2C square E which further implies 2C cube plus 2EC square is equal to 2A CE plus 2C square E. Now the query cancels up with 2C square E and we have C cube minus 2A CE is equal to 0 which further implies 2 times of C into C square minus taking 2 and C common we have A left. So this is equal to 0. Now if the product of 2 numbers is equal to 0 then either one of them is 0. So this implies either 2C is equal to 0 or C square minus A is equal to 0. But C cannot be 0 since we are given that 1 upon C, 1 upon D and 1 upon E are in AP. 1 upon C if C is equal to 0 then 1 upon C is equal to infinity thus 2C is not equal to 0 and this further implies that C square minus AE is equal to 0 or C square is equal to AE or we can say that C upon A is equal to E upon C or we have A and say that A, C and E are in risk of each cessation take care and have a good day.


what you consume today will control you tomorrow. And if we only feed our flesh and our flesh and desires and our spirit is not fed, our flesh will always be controlled. And we can cry about it. We can desire our spirit to have dominance and control over our flesh and our flesh and desires. But if we don't do anything about it, if we don't feed our spirit, then control will automatically shift to our flesh.


So, today we're going to start off with a story that I wanted to tell about how thankful I am to Nintendo for how they have handled the SNES Classic Edition. I've been critical of Nintendo's handling of the NES Classic Edition and I was critical of the SNES Classic Edition's pre-order issues. So, yes, Nintendo did it. They have fought back against scalping, fought back against their own underestimating of the market with the NES Classic and they are providing more than ample supply of SNES Classics so far and it looks like they have plans to continue to supply the chain of demand for months to come. Which is excellent news. Thank you, Nintendo. You actually did something I didn't think you were going to do. I thought you were just doing a bunch of PR speak when Reggie Fesame came out and said, hey, look, we're going to massively restock quicker, have more stock available and provide a heck of a lot more stock and a heck of a lot more total units than they did for the NES Classic. Now, the NES Classic Edition worldwide, so combined sales were 2.5 million units. SNES Classic is probably going to shatter that because even with all these huge amounts of stock, they are selling out. And that's good. That means that the demand and the supply, the supply being in such a high amount and the demand being in such a high amount are almost being met and with regular restocks coming, I don't foresee this being an issue in the future. And the reason I say this purposely is to combat against scalpers is because, one, Reggie Fesame literally said, do not buy from scalpers, we will have ample stock. So, Reggie already said they obviously recognize that there's an issue with the scalping market in North America. On top of that, we have people like CND. Now, for those who don't know who CND is, he's Captain Nintendo dude. He has his own YouTube channel. You guys probably know him more than my own channel. He's got a couple hundred thousand subscribers. He was the first person, I kind of blew up around the time, he was the first person to get a Nintendo Switch officially in North America. Obviously, there were people that got it sooner, but you know what I mean, like the official, if you're looking at world records, there's always like steps you have to go through and he got, he was the first person in line at the Nintendo New York store. He waited a whole month out in line. He took over for Triforce Johnson, who currently owns a world record for the most Nintendo first, you know, being the first person to get it in North America. But whatever, it was really cool. He seems like a good guy and he was out there for the SNES Classic. He did 10-day early wait in New York at the Nintendo New York store and things were going fine. He was first in line, everything was going great and they threw like this 90's party where 150 people would get wristbands to go to this 90's party and obviously those 150 people would be the ones allowed to buy the SNES Classic Edition at Midnight. And everything seemed fine. They were supposed to come out and hand out wristbands. They announced they were going to come out early for wristbands. They were supposed to do the fourth and the end of the 215. And this happened. I seriously recommend don't go down there at all. Don't do, like, if you're going to do the seventh... No, no, no, no, seriously, they're going to do something. They're yelling. I hear yelling in there. We'll get in there. I hear yelling. No, I'm scared. I don't want to be involved in that. I have my wristbands.  All the scalpers made it way too dangerous so they told us they're shutting it down. They're clearing out the entire line for tonight. PM, Nintendo New York tweeted out that the wristbands were going to be handed out at 215 instead of 4 because there was already so many people. That kind of threw everyone into a little bit of a frenzy but they started handing them out. So obviously I got mine and about 60 other people got theirs as well. Then we get to my friend Jacob. He was in line, he got his, and then things started to get a little spicy. Oh my God, Jacob, explain what happened. Okay, so I was around 50th in line and about 10 to 20 spots behind me. Just a bunch of people just cut the line as soon as they started giving out the wristbands. So after it got me 10 down, there was just yelling and all this stuff and the managers giving out the wristbands were just like, No, can't do this anymore. We don't know who's supposed to be in line and so they just went back into the store and it was hectic and I just left the situation to, I didn't want to be a part of that. At this point, managers are inside, they can't hand out any more wristbands. They don't know what is happening. A whole group of angry people, some that cut the line, some that didn't all swarm in right into the Nintendo store, right there. They're right in that area when you walk in. They literally start to surround the two managers. It's getting a little hostile. We can hear yelling and arguing from inside. Eventually one police officer shows up, tries to simmer it down. Everyone's just, basically everyone's demanding for wristband at this point. A few minutes after that, we get about five or six other cops that go in there and they tell everyone, you have to leave. You have to get out of the store.  Now the police and the few of the managers come out of the store and they tell everyone online that we have to clear it out. It's become unsafe. They can't do it anymore, so everyone all the way down the block that got wristband or not had to leave. So obviously these scalpers thought they were going to make a lot of money. But if they did any bit of research, they would have seen that Nintendo said multiple times, hopefully to get around the craziness, they will have them in stock. Reggie even said, yo, we're going to have them in stock. Don't buy them off scalpers. You'll be fine. It is Saturday and they're still lining up. They are still selling them. They did it all day Friday, all day today Saturday. Who knows how long they're going to keep doing it for. They have plenty in stock. And I'm really hoping that it's still the case because then these scalpers will not make any money off of them. So for those wondering, scalpers were really messing things up and it came to the line to get the SNES Classic Edition. They were causing issues at the back of the line. They were trying to cut in line. They were even getting in the face of Nintendo employees about trying to get their hands on this thing all because they were hoping to make all this money on it. And the market for it has quickly sank. Initially around 1205, 12010, I saw some postings of the SNES Classic Edition for as much as $300. And now we've rapidly seen those decline. I think the last posting I saw was around $100, $120, which is not much of a markup. But trust me, don't dive in. The reason the prices are sinking is because there are so many of them out there. People don't need to buy from scalpers. Don't give these scalpers extra money. Save your money for Nintendo. Don't buy from scalpers until Nintendo's done making the system and you can't find it brand new anymore on store shelves. But right now it's in plentiful stock. And I'm sold through them. Finally, Nintendo has done something about a stock situation and done it correctly. Oh man, who thought this would happen years ago? Who thought this would happen after the NES Classic situation and the amiibo situation and the Switch situation? Who ever thought that Nintendo would finally get it 100% right? Now for those wondering, no, I do not have an SNES Classic Edition. It's just kind of one of those things. I didn't have the money to get it, but it sounds like as long as I have the funds to get one, sometime this holiday I'm going to be able to pick one up. And I definitely want it because I want a legit copy of Star Fox 2. Plus right now I have no legal way to play my, what used to be my favorite game of all time, currently my second favorite game of all time, Secret of Mana. That's on the SNES Classic Edition. I can't wait to play that. Maybe do some live streams of it with you guys. I'm just so excited. I can't wait. Thank you so much Nintendo. You did something extremely, extremely right. I have zero things to criticize with you about right now. About your handling of the SNES Classic Edition. Day one and moving forward for right now. I am so thrilled that Nintendo has recognized demand and are supplying demand and literally is making comments and remarks and proving it with their stock that they are trying to combat scalpers to make sure people don't need to pay premiums to get their products. Finally. Anyways folks, like this video if you like it. Dislike it if you do dislike it. Dislike it. I am Nathaniel Rumpeljant from Nintendo Prime. As always folks, if you want more videos like this, subscribe if you would like to show some support for us. We are almost to our goal, our $100 stretch goal on Patreon. We are $3 at the time of recording. $3 short of our $100 goal. That's one more $5 subscription to get our podcast early. And then our podcast will become a weekly podcast. And what's great about when it becomes a weekly podcast is there's going to be more special guests. Right now the podcast is kind of a fly by the seat of our pants every other week. But with it becoming a regularly scheduled thing weekly I have lots of plans for scheduled guests. And I know some people are criticizing me not letting people talk. I understand. I appreciate it. I really only do it to Eric. He's my best buddy. I need to stop cutting him off and treat him a little better. He deserves so much better. He's such a great friend. And yeah, I definitely want to get some more guests on and create some more conversations around Nintendo. Because why not? You guys hear enough from me as is. Alright folks. I will catch you in the next one.


I don't believe that I could close down the entire oil industry or anything like that but if I could do anything at least I could stand for the people who are standing right. They're Native Beliefs. They could have some last shred of existence in their cultural, holistic ideologies and belief systems. And it's kind of like why I'm here right now because I'm also wanting to stand for what I believe in. We stand for water. We stand for water. Water is life. You have to be an activist. You don't have to be a native. You can voice your opinion and if it comes from the heart then that's all that matters because we're all here together. You're my brother. She's my sister. That's what we're here for. And logically speaking, scientifically speaking, if there is no water, nothing is here. There's absolutely nothing. So it's just to help you know everybody. That's all that it is. We stand for standing rock. Sing some songs. Dads get out there and dance for your people. There's people that can't dance and can't drum anymore.  I see a lot of different communities here. Have your sacred songs. Sing them. Ask them to do that. Keep this alive. Keep this going. This movement has to keep going. It's like the water keeps flowing. Keep it going. That's why we're all here. Keep the movement. Keep our children. This movement is going to protect his life from the water and the life. By his generation, by their generation, when we knew better, so many people around us know better. Know that things aren't true anymore. They're untrue. And we as a community here, we had the opportunity to do something about it and we did it. We thought we'd be judged. But today, you two and your grandchildren will be able to look back and say, my family did it. They tried. They fought. They won. We went.


Hey everybody, welcome back to Magic Orthodoxy. My name is David and this is a deck review. Hey, today we're going to look at the new white Tally Ho fan backs and circle backs from Penguin Magic. Hey, Penguin Magic, they've been releasing some of their own new branded deck of cards. You remember the Honey Back review that we did a little earlier? These are Tally Ho decks from United States Plain Card Company. And so it's everything that you're already familiar with, with a standard deck of Tallys and both circle back and fan back. Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing's going to be like, whoa, I've never seen that before. But some of the cool bells and whistles on this, we are certainly going to look at right now. One of the things you need to know right away when looking at this tuck case is you are not looking at black ink on a white matte tuck case. They went all out on this. This is a thick high grade box and they did the design entirely in black foil throughout this tuck. So not only do you have like an inverted embossing, but it's black foil all the way around it just makes this just pop. It's awesome. The tuck case is going to look standard for both your circle back and your fan back. The one exception is that you're not going to have a tuck seal there at the top. So that's nice too. And you're going to get the Penguin Magic, the P3 bar coating and ad copy at the bottom. Everything else about these tuck cases are going to be completely familiar to you, especially if you're already familiar with the Tally Ho brand. There's no exceptions. There's no surprises. And they did this on purpose so that people who are already familiar with Tally Ho, magicians that were already using Tally Ho in their routines, they're not going to ring in a deck and have spectators be like, what's that? It's going to fit seamlessly right into your Tally Ho magic. All right, so that is pretty much it for the tuck case. Let's take a look at these cards. These cards come from the United States playing card company and they do come on their retail stock. They're thinner stock. They do have a modern cut. They do have air cushion embossing and they have magic finish. Magic finish is that chemical smell. Sometimes you smell when you have a brand-new deck of cards, but it is a extra coating that's put on the front and back of the cards that helps them to glide a little bit easier and not stick to each other. And they probably did that because of the metallic inks that were used. Hey, so we took a stack of 10 and put them in a caliper just to see how thick they would be. And surprisingly, they come in thinner than a standard Decker bicycle card. So these are really thin cards. I got to say, when I took these cards out of the box, I was blown away. They're gorgeous to look at. The aristocrat stock and the magic finish on them makes them just glide like butter. They handle beautifully. These are going to fly off the shelves of Penguin Magic and they are available right now. Of course, since this is a standard Tally Ho deck, you're going to get your standard Tally Ho jokers, both full size and in color. With these decks, you're not going to get any ad cards, which is nice. And you're going to get two cards specifically designed for magicians.  Your Tally Ho Ace of Spades, of course, is going to be the a-darty, classic Ace of Spades that anyone familiar with Tally Ho brand is already comfortable with. That does mean all the cards in the deck, both court cards and numerics, everything pips and the seats, it's all going to be completely standard. And again, Penguin did that on purpose so that you could seamlessly move these cards in and out of your magic tricks. So if you like these cards, you want to pick them up, head on down to Penguin Magic right now, and get a whole bunch. Hey, big shout out to Kevin Rylak for making these available to us from Penguin Magic as well. Alright, so that is our review for the new circle back and fan back White Tally Ho decks from Penguin magic.com. As always, I recommend that you like this video just so other people can find it faster. We also recommend that you subscribe to this channel just to stay up to date on the loan at listed cards and card magic. Now, if you want to follow me on social media, you can. I'm at facebook.com.com.com.c.c, twitter.com.c.c, instagram.com.c.cc, magical.co.c.c, thanks!