Hi everybody it's Sam at Mixed Up Craft, thank you for watching my tutorial today. This video kick starts my Mother's Day series 2020, so for hopefully the next seven days or it'll be over the next two weeks and there'll be every other day but you will just be you know having lots and lots of Mother's Day inspiration cards, gift boxes, gift bags and other things as well. I'm really excited to you know share the projects that I've done. So first up I've got this very very cute. I'm calling it a flip lid clutch bag or clutch box should I say actually yeah clutch box I think. So it's got a little handle here and it does you can hold it it's really really nice. I've got a little wooden tag, this is a wooden embellishment here I've obviously got mum there and then a little bit of Velcro you just lift it off and inside because I've eaten one there it will well inside there will be four tonics tea cakes so these the one I'm doing this one and the next one they're actually going to friends from their children they're going to be giving them to them so yeah but there will be four tonics in there and also room to pop you know you could put a gift card in there very easily you could slide one down the side and you can also fill it with any other treats it doesn't have to be tonics tea cakes but they are enjoyed by so many people and since I started sharing them on my channel so many of you have really started to love them as much as me but uh just seal that there but you can see just how nice it is and you don't have to have this little handle here I've just attached it using one of my D-rings you can just have it as a box on its own so let's get into the tutorial and I'll show you how to make it. Okay so I've got everything I need here this is the embossing fold I don't know I didn't really mention about that but I just done a little bit of detail on the top there and I just thought it looked nice so I've used this one I think it must have been free in a magazine I can't remember but if anybody's got one like that but anything you don't even have to have that but it was just a nice little touch and then I'm using paper posies you're going to see a feature this collection feature a lot during the Mother's Day series because I just think it works perfectly for Mother's Day so for today's one I'm actually going to use the wooden hearts on the front but for the one that I just showed you I used these and I did by two packs because they're just they're just so handy they really are they make earrings you can make brooches with them and you can use them as embellishments as well and then there's the wooden tag okay so that's the three I've got there and there's the tag and I've just put some baker's twine or garden twine through there and you can write on the back as well so you know it will be used as a tag and then here is what I've done with one of the hearts so I've just drawn around it on the pattern paper and then I just cut around that and just stuck it on the back and then I'm going to you know you've got somewhere now to be able to I'm probably going to stamp mum or I've already gone ahead and done these ones so what I've done is just die cut them with the same cardstock that I'm doing the card in and then also using some thumb foam so it's just cream thumb foam behind and then stuck them on top and it just gives you instant dimension rather than having to cut lots of you know the same letter and it's using these here which were from the works probably about two years ago now but I think they still had them up up until last year and they might be on the website but they're really handy they're a nice size so that's what I've got there so it may be that I might have to change that up a bit or I might have this running along the top who knows but anyway that's what we're going to be using as our embellishments and this is the paper pad so I'm just using the six by six today and it's beautiful it's what I used to make the bureau okay so we'll go through all these little measurements as we get to them so you just want one piece of cardstock that's eight and a half by 12 okay and first of all we'll go along the eight and a half inch side you want to score at which I've done this the right way there we go you want to score at two and one eighths of an inch and six and three eighths of an inch okay and then along the 12 inch side I've done it this way but yeah I did so you want to score at three and a half five and five eighths nine and one eighth and then this last one here is it's eleven and one two three sixteenths of an inch so it's that funny measurement so the easiest way to do it is we want to score where so we've got eleven and one eighths is here and then we've got this notch this little kind of bit that comes out that's where we want to score so if you want to you may find it easy to put a little pencil mark just you know in between the eleven and one and the eleven and a quarter so just there and then you're just going to shift your cardstock until that pencil mark meets that track and then you can just score we just want to extend this by one sixteenths of an inch so the flap or the flip lid can close but also if you do have the hunky dory scoreboard they have this little kind of recessed part here which means that you can just shift your cardstock into that section and then score and it will give you that perfect you know amount that you need that that basically there is your sixteenths of an inch so this is they they also say that this is your gift box scoreboard because having that little section there will allow you to make your your lids so that's what you want to do so if you work in if you can work in sixteenths of an inch because i know some people can you know can do it then it's the one two yes three sixteenths of an inch but that will be if i just bring this up again just a bit closer but so here's your eleven and one eighth of an inch it's just like this there we go just here and that's your eleven and a quarter here it's this little notch here which is a sixteenth put a pencil mark there and then shift it along until that pencil line meets up with the with the track but also if you've got this board you're just moving it right into that little section here which you'll see on your board and then just score okay it's not the end of the world if you don't do it the box will still close but it might bow it a little bit it'd just be a little bit snug so yeah that's that's the the only kind of i guess slightly complicated bit that we have to do for this so that's all the scoring you know remove that pencil mark and then we want to fold and burnish all of those score lines okay then we want to do some cutting so with the tab end here on your right hand side we're just going to cut all the way along the bottom score lines up to the first score line okay so just all of these up to this one and then all of these up to this one here okay so next you've got your tab end here and then you'll have squares and squares here you want to just take a wedge off of these ones okay and then with these ones here we need to trim them because what's going to happen is this is going to come around like this and it's going to form the side it's going you know this lid part here so you can score if you want but it's just easy well yeah you can just basically do what i'm going to do here so bring that one around to a right angle and then just lightly draw a pencil mark where it sits you can see that i've just brought it over that one so it comes up to a right angle and then just cut that one and because it's going underneath you know just cut it up a little bit shorter but now that can just cover there nicely okay so again i'll just show you on this side just bring it around over there if you want to just measure it with a ruler you can do but i'm just roughly drawing a pencil line there and then just cut above that pencil line just to make sure that you're not going to see any of it like so again you can see now where they're both going to go over and form our lid okay now we want to start putting it together so what's going to happen is these are going to come up the back one's going to go around first and then the front and then the lid once we do it all we'll go like this because we've done that little extra sixteenth of an inch on this piece here it will close nicely over the top there okay but we want this nice front here where it just all continues around rather than having the back go over the front you you have this finish here so it doesn't always look as nice so what i would suggest you do first of all is pop your glue on these tabs here do one at a time and bring up the back and just make sure you get a nice corner there like so so again i'm just going to fold that one in and just bring that one around the key is just keeping everything nice and straight now you can just pop glue on all of the side on this one and again on this one here and around and then we need to do this bit but before you do that you need to add your handle so this piece here is eight inches by let me just grab my ruler by three quarters of an inch because that's the width of the d-ring that's what will fit into mine so you know play around with what you've got i will link these ones i've brought these so many times from the works and i've got silver ones listed but they are from the outer sides the full width is one inch by just over five eighths of an inch okay but basically that's going to go through there sorry that's going to go on last you want to do your little one to go inside so again i need to just cut that i forgot to do that one actually so i'll do it now so it was five eighths which is going to be about there and i'm just going to you don't need it this length at all but at the minute i've got it at two but you will trim it back but you just want to just curl it around and then you're just going to feed it through and just stick the two together because this is how we're going to attach it to the bag i'm just going to add some glue there and just close that up okay and then what's going to happen decide what side you want it on mine's on the left but you're going this is going to stick in here and then that's going to go over the top so it's all concealed inside so obviously you don't want this coming down past there so i'm just going to trim mine up a bit there okay and then i'm going to add some glue onto that bit there you don't want to go all the way up to the top because that will stick out so you want to stick it along the middle of that side piece make sure the d-ring can move quite freely at the top like so and then i'm going to now stick this over the top so yeah so if you do want to add the handle you need to do that before you stick the side down just on the one and now i can just stick that over the top like so remove some of the score line if you've got any score line on here get rid of it because it will come down a little bit too long otherwise that's better okay so now that's what you'll have okay and then again with this side i'm just going to trim just any of that score line from the top there and again glue on the back and stick that side down okay so while that's just drying this piece here is i did mention it and i have just yeah it's three quarters by eight and what i've gone along and done is i just put it in my scoreboard and i've just scored every single score line along that side and then every one along that side and it just gives you that cool effect and then i've just gone and just kind of curled it there as well but you just want to feed that through the d-ring and then just put a little bit of glue and then just stick them i've stuck them like together this way rather than so it's like a big ring it's up to you how you do it really you could put a little bit of a mirrored cardstock here to do one of like the faux metal ends that i like to do as well you know that's always a nice thing so there there is your little handle so now we need to decorate everything because it's very you know pretty quick to do so this on the front here i'm not decorating the back you'll see there i haven't bothered so again if you want to you can but this is a piece of card so i think it was four by three and three quarter no three and a quarter so four by three and a quarter that's going to go there and then these two pieces are for the sides and these are they're just under two it's like in between one and seven eights and two so you decide and that's by three and a quarter so i'm just going to stick those down okay and then for the top of the lid my pattern paper is four by one and seven eighths so i've obviously done it that because it would be the same width and then mind you that is that a little bit longer actually and then this is the emboss pieces three and three quarters by one and a half so they're stuck down and then to decorate the sides of the lid and the front here i've got two pieces that are five eighths of an inch by again it's just under two and then i've got this one which is four by again that same width so five eighths of an inch so again i'm just going to get them all stuck down okay so i've stuck them all down so now i'm just looking at this heart and i'm wondering whether i might have mum along the top like that so like so but i might put a different i might do you know die cut the letters again just so you can see them although they do show up quite well and then i have the heart there so i might do this one a little bit different like that so that's what i'm thinking and then this one here just will get threaded through so i'm just going to pop this on high speed and get it all stuck down all i do is just i'll just put some hot glue on the top parts there and stick that on so there's my box finished i've just gone ahead with some sparkle pen this is the spectrum noir and it's still a bit wet you might not see it but it is starting to sparkle um i've added my heart and then i've done that little kind of flag tail banner just so that the the mum pops and i changed it as well and used the just die cut it again with cream card just so that it kind of really stood out but a few little flat pat pearls flat pat flat backed pearls and then we've got our tag there as well but i think it's so cute it really is very very sweet you can obviously decorate it however you want it doesn't even have to be for mother's day and then there's the one that i shared at the beginning and again i've just gone over you can see the sparkle now on that it's loads really really nice and i've added a bow i forgot about the bows this is it's more orangey so it works better with this cardstock which is more of an orange red whereas that one was more of a softer pinky pinky red so um yeah it just didn't look as good on that one as it does on this one so yeah there they are two very cute little flip lid clutch boxes so i hope you've enjoyed them i hope you give them a go and i hope you've liked the first video for this year's Mother's Day series so tune in like i said it will either be tomorrow if not be the day after but there will be plenty of Mother's Day inspiration and i hope you enjoy it thanks for watching bye


My research question is, what is the genetic ancestry of Europeans, of the people that live in Europe today, what's the genetic makeup, and where did their genetic makeup come from? So what we know is that humans at some point emerged from out of Africa and settled Europe, Asia, later on Australia, the Americas. But what we'd like to understand is, was that a one-time process, whether there was people coming to Europe and then they were stable and nothing ever changed, or was there actually changes in the genetic structure of people that live in Europe today and in the past? And that is very difficult to just do on modern genetic data. So what we study are ancient bones to tell us something about the genetic makeup of the people that lived in the past today. And in this particular project, we were interested in changes that happened in the last 10,000 years, which are related to changes in the subsistence strategy in the culture of the people. Because what happened in the last 10,000 years was a major revolution in our human evolution, in fact, where we changed from being hunter and gatherers to early farmers, to agriculturalists, with domestic animals, with crops. So there was this big change in the culture of the people. What we would like to understand is, if this change of culture is also related to a change in the genetic makeup, so that this culture, which we first actually see in the Near East and the so-called Fertile Crescent, if this change in culture was also related to maybe people coming from the Fertile Crescent, coming from the Near East, bringing domestic animals, bringing crops to Europe, so was it actually a genetic change of people with a massive inflow of genes and people into Europe with this new culture, or was it actually something that kind of independently Europeans developed, or maybe triggered by some neighboring populations that had those ideas already and spread those ideas into Central Europe? So was it a genetic change or a cultural change, where there may be even other genetic changes in the last 10,000 years in Europe that we might uncover by looking at those ancient skeletons DNA, and then what would those genetic changes be related to in terms of cultural changes and maybe even language changes and so forth? So can we actually correlate kind of change in the genetic makeup of the people with cultural changes that happen, and maybe even with linguistic language changes that happened in the last 10,000 years? To learn how the genetic makeup of people changed through time, we basically have to do genetic time travel. We have to go back in time and study the genetic makeup of people that lived hundreds, thousands, or 10,000s of years ago. And to do that, we use ancient bones, ancient human skeletons, and we extract the DNA from those ancient bones and then sequence them on new sequencing platforms that became available in the last 10 years. That was a big revolution in genetics. 10 years ago, it took billions of euros to sequence a single human genome, the first human genome ever sequenced. Now this can be done for hundreds of euros within one day. So it is really a big revolution that took place. And that also affects us as archaeogeneticists, because we can now also sequence the genomes of humans that lived hundreds or thousands of years ago by taking this DNA from those ancient bones and then reconstructing the genomes of those people that lived in the past, comparing those genomes to the people that live today and also to other people that lived in the past to get an overview of the genetic structure and also the relationship to people that live, for example, in different parts of the world today, to learn more about different processes that have shaped this genetic structure through time. So it involves a lot of molecular biology work in the lab where we extract DNA and turn it into DNA sequences, but also a lot of bioinformatics and population genetics where we compare genome-wide data for many thousands of modern people and also hundreds of people from the past to learn about how the genetic makeup changed through time. One of the first findings we had when we analyzed ancient human skeletons from the last 10,000 years was that there was a big genetic turnover between the indigenous Europeans, the hunter-gatherers, that lived in Europe for 10,000 of years and probably first came to Europe about 40,000 years ago and about 8,000 years ago, there was a big genetic shift when suddenly agriculture turns up in Europe. So people changed their subsistence strategy from hunting and gathering to farming. And this cultural change does not just see a change in culture, but it also sees a change in the genetic makeup because the people that practice agriculture about 7,500 years ago in Central Europe that we have analyzed suddenly have a genetic makeup of people that live in the Near East today or in Anatolia. So for us, it seems that agriculture was not something that the people in Europe invented, but instead it was actually people coming from the Near East to Europe, bringing agriculture with them, and that sees a change in the genetic makeup. In fact, it also sees a change in the phenotype of the people because we can also look at genes that, for example, code for eye color, hair color, skin color, and then we actually see that there were also big phenotypic changes, but especially we see this big change in the genetic structure. There's almost a complete replacement of the indigenous population and the incoming population from the Near East. And that is the first thing that we observed that happened about 7,500 years ago. And that was something that some archaeologists had already suspected just based on the material culture that's based on the archaeology. However, there was even something more surprising that we found, and that was that about 5,000 years ago there was another genetic turnover. Something that archaeologists and historians hadn't really seen in the archaeological data so far, but we see that there's a second genetic turnover, there's new genetic material that comes probably from Central Asia, from a region that is north of the Black Sea, north of the Caspian Sea from the step belt, so that it comes with cattle herders that come into Europe and then bring new genes into Europe, and then basically all those three different populations, the indigenous Europeans that hunt together us, the early farmers that came 7,500 years ago, and those people that came about 5,000 years ago into Europe, they admix. And this happens in what we call the Bronx Age, and this genetic makeup that comes out of this mixture that happens about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago is what we find in all Europeans today. So every single European population today has all these three genetic components that until 10,000 years ago were completely separated. There were European, Asian, and Near Eastern, and then 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, they all mixed together, and we find them now in different proportion, in different parts. For example, in Germany about 40% of the genetic makeup of the people is from Anatolia, early farmer. About 30% is from hunter-gatherers, and then about 10 to 20% is from Central Asia, from those kind of cattle herders, pastoralists. And then in other parts like in Estonia, more than 50% of the genes are from the steppe. And then in other parts like Sardinia or Spain, it's only about 5% that come from the steppe, and about 90% that comes from Anatolia. So we could actually see that those three genetic components came at that time period together, and we can now quantify those three different genetic components in all populations that live in Europe today. It's relevant because we can study the change in the genetic makeup of the people. And with this change in the genetic makeup, if we see a traumatic change in the genetic makeup of a population 5,000 years ago compared to a population 4,800 years ago in Europe, we can develop a hypothesis about then also other things might have changed at that time. And we can, for example, look at archaeology, material culture, or we can look into, for example, linguistics, languages, if the genetic makeup of the people changes, maybe that then also goes along with cultural change, where suddenly we have a transition between middle Neolithic material culture and then something that's called corded wear, for example, in Europe, which is then a late Neolithic culture. So do those two cultures then correspond with this two different genetic groups. And then also if the genetic makeup of people changes, so if there's migration and higher mobility, those people likely also bring languages, for example, with them. So do we also see at the same time a shift in the languages? And then if we kind of bring those three things together, three lines of evidence, genetic makeup shift, cultural shifts, as well as language shifts, we can properly bring them together and see if we that was one event that can be basically supported by all three lines of evidence, because it does not have to come together. It's not always that genetic shifts and genetic changes have to change culture, as well as cultural shifts and changes do not have to cause necessarily genetic shifts, because we also have many examples where the culture changes, but the genetic makeup of the people does not change at all. And the same is of course, truthful languages. If you, for example, look into Central Europe, we have one population that is a big outlier in terms of languages that are Hungarians. Hungarians speak a non Indo-European language. The genetic makeup of the people is however Central European. They don't look any how special compared to the neighboring countries that speak Indo-European languages. So genetic differences, of course, also in the past don't have to come with language differences, because of course we cannot really reconstruct language from genes because genes don't talk, but we can see if the different lines of evidence that we have overlap and basically genetic serves as generating new hypothesis. So if we have a big genetic turnover, then we should also look in the material culture into the archaeology. If we maybe find something that has changed, and some of the changes that the archaeologists have observed might be caused by this dramatic change in the genetic makeup, for example. And that is something we found, for example, in this study where about 5,000 years ago there's this big genetic change. And that is something that people in archaeology, as well as people that languages had not acknowledged to this degree like we can actually do it now, where we see this traumatic change, massive migration from Central Asia into Europe, that no linguist and most of the archaeologists had actually not acknowledged to be such a tremendous event that could have actually changed the culture and the languages. The future of our research is to do what we've just done for Europe, to understand the genetic ancestry of Europeans and shifts in the genetic makeup through the last 10,000 years in other parts of the world, to learn how did the genetic makeup of East Asians, of people that live in Australia today, of the Native Americans, of people that live in Polynesia today, changed through time, how our shifts in this genetic makeup correlated by historical or prehistorical events. And what can we basically learn about the different genetic components that we find in those different populations of the past that might be related to large changes in mobility or migrations that happened in the past so that we can actually learn who were the people that settled the Americas. Are they genetically closer to East Asians, to Siberians? We even see that there's a very strong genetic component that Europeans and Native Americans share, that they do not share with East Asians, so Native Americans are actually a mixture of an ancestral European and an East Asian genetic component. And that is things we can only understand if we kind of look in the past, if we study skeletons from past populations in many places in the world, reconstruct their genomes, compare them to modern people, compare them to ancient people, and at the end what we want to achieve is a map of the world, but a genetic map of the world, and not just a genetic map of the world of the people that live in the world today, but also in the past, having time slices, seeing how was the genetic makeup looking 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 1,500 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago, and how did it change through time? Because what we do by that is we're creating some sort of history of human populations. We are basically uncovering events in the past that nobody has written about, that are basically not part of the of the written resources that we have. We're basically uncovering, if you want, new evidence that archaeologists can use, that historians can use, that prehistoricians can use, as a new source for their own studies. They can then correlate what they find in texts, what they find in archaeology, what they find in anthropological remains, to the genetic shifts that happen through time and can see how this might be actually related to each other. So in some way I think we are uncovering a new source for history, which is very helpful for many different disciplines and it is less subjective as historical records, which are written by certain people with certain agendas and are only written by a tiny part of the population. So in a way we're giving a voice to the people that did not have history, like Native Americans or for example Native Australians, but we are also giving a voice to millions of people that basically also lived in places where there was even historical records, because we are telling basically the genetic history of every individual that we are analyzing, because we are reconstructing the genome of the person to find out where do the different genetic components that make up this person come from? So how did the parents, grandparents and grand-grandparents and so forth look like? And how can we even then correlate that to this entire population where this individual came from? So we're really telling, if you want, genetic history as a new discipline within history or prehistory if you want.


Self-determination theory SDT is a macro-theory of human motivation and personality that concerns people's inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs. It is concerned with the motivation behind choices people make without external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual's behavior is self-motivated and self-determined. In the 1970s, research on SDT evolved from studies comparing the intrinsic and extrinsic motives, and from growing understanding of the dominant role intrinsic motivation played in an individual's behavior but it was not until the mid-1980s that SDT was formally introduced and accepted as a sound empirical theory. Research applying SDT to different areas in social psychology has increased considerably since the 2000s. Key studies that led to emergence of SDT included research on intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to initiating an activity for its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself, as opposed to doing an activity to obtain an external goal extrinsic motivation. Different types of motivations have been described based on the degree they have been internalized. Internalization refers to the active attempt to transform an extrinsic motive into personality-endorsed values and thus assimilate behavioral regulations that were originally external. Edward L. Desi and Richard Ryan later expanded on the early work differentiating between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and proposed three main intrinsic needs involved in self-determination. According to Desi and Ryan, the three psychological needs motivate the self-to-initiate behavior and specify nutriments that are essential for psychological health and well-being of an individual. These needs are said to be universal, innate and psychological and include the need for competence, autonomy and relatedness.


few communists could really achieve the level of Mao's deceit and deception. Like Lucifer, Mao built his kingdom entirely on lies and the lie that he was going to improve the life of the people when he actually wound up living like an emperor. The lie that people under communism would find their lives greatly improved when actually they found themselves being really reduced to the status of nothing better than serfs. Serfs under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, slaves of the party who could be told where to go, where to live, how to live, how many children to have, what to eat, and so forth.


Hey guys, today I'm going to show you how to do a simple transmission oil change on a gas gas EC300 from 2011. One of the best things that the two strokes have is the best and quickest and simplest maintenance that you have to do on these bikes. Since the bike doesn't have many moving parts, you don't have many things to worry about. And one of the only things that you have to do is regularly check and change the transmission oil. And it's actually a really simple step to do it as well. The only thing you'll need is a six allen key, somewhere to put the oil that you use well, and in my case, an 80-90 oil. This is completely dependable on the type of use that you give to the bike. In my case, I use it a lot on hardened roads, so I use the clutch a lot. And it's a good thing to use the highest capacity oil because in hardened roads, the clutch tends to heat up really fast. So if you use the highest capacity oil, it will keep the gears and the clutch a lot well preserved. Then if you would use a 10-50 oil, for example. But if you ride straight away, classic in the room, no problem whatsoever using that kind of oil. It only depends on the type of use that you give to the bike. Before doing this oil change, you should run the bike for about five minutes just to make the oil a bit more flowy. So it's easier and quicker to do the oil change. The first step, remove this bolt and then remove the train bolt. What they have on their train bolt is a magnetic tip. And this is really good because you can have a small glimpse of the shape of your transmission just by doing an oil change.  As you can see, in my case you can see some really small bits. It's normal to have some small bits. Obviously that if you see some big chunks of metal, you should definitely open it and see the shape of it. To make sure you remove all the oil, clean the bike on one side and the other just to make sure that you remove everything. Clean the train bolt when you don't see any oil coming out anymore. Tighten the train bolt again in this place and tighten it well. It's really important so you don't have any more leaks. Last step, put in 900mm of oil. I strongly recommend you use a funnel because it's really inaccessible to put the oil just through the bottle. It's pretty much impossible without making a huge mess. So a small funnel and you have a thing to sort out. Before starting the bike, you should always turn the kicks a few times so the oil gets spread out evenly on the whole transmission. And only then you can actually start the bike. That's all. Hope you liked it. Subscribe and anything. Comments below and I'll answer you whenever I can.


If you're looking to laugh and you have less than a couple of hours to spare, Hulu's Vacation Friends has you covered. Hulu. This is a Hulu exclusive. They're doing movies too now. Cool. Are we having fun yet with all these exclusive movies on certain platforms? You have Apple TV movies, Amazon Prime, Netflix, HBO Max, Hulu, Paramount Plus, Disney Plus, Murder Me! This showed up front and center on Hulu and it stars John Cena, so I thought, alright, this is gonna be another cockblocker situation, another low-brow R-rated comedy that's gonna come and go, and I'm not gonna give it a second thought. Kind of. I think it's a lot better than cockblockers though, which I didn't really like. It's damn near impossible to find comedies anymore, unless they're masquerading as superhero films. So to have a film in 2021, be just that was kind of refreshing, honestly, even if the format is very stale. What we have here is your traditional dude-bro type of film.  We got drinking. We got drug use.  I'm in. I'm all in. Lil Rel Howie plays Marcus. He's the lead here. He's on vacation with his soon-to-be wife, Emily. Miss Fortune finds them almost immediately though, as Ron and Kyla enter the picture. They're wildcards, and life is very grippid and rippet for them. Marcus is however your textbook planner.  It's gonna get crazy. Like I said, this format has been done to death, yet I still found it a little bit charming as the film went on. I kept thinking to myself as it was progressing, alright, we're doing this. Okay, here comes the drug use.  Hangover style. But as it progressed further and further, I found myself kind of won over by it. I think it's because it has a good nature to it all.  Swearing isn't by nature that funny. You know, you have to have some context to it. So when they drop an F bomb, it lands a little bit harder. You know, it makes it a little bit more humorous. The film looks great. All the actors are really good. I think John Cena is hilarious in this. He really found a little niche in this market. Meredith Hagner plays Kyla. She's really funny too. For half of the film, I was trying to place who she looked like, who she reminded me of. And I finally landed on a combination of two actresses and I'm very confident in my final verdict. So I'd like to know if I'm right or not in your opinion. I am, but I'd like to hear from you. Kate Hudson? Combo? Zoe Deschanel? Or Zoe Deschanel? Or however the dish, however you say it, dishwater. That's who she combines. Howie and Cena get the majority of the film together. They play off each other really well. You know, it's, again, it's a combination we've seen many times.  Hey, if it ain't broke, why fix it? Why risk it?  To summarize, we've seen it all before, but that doesn't mean it still can't be fun, especially when we haven't had it in a long time. It's short, it's an hour 40, I think. We're right where a comedy needs to be. Hour and a half, hour 45 is the sweet spot for me with comedies. It hits that landing.  I don't know. If you have it, might as well watch it. Let me know what you thought. I always just do it for some laughs and it provided. And there's some sweetness to it. Like I said, that's what really kind of drove it all home at the end was there's a little bit more than just, you know, the debauchery angle. They have a little bit of heart mixed in. And I'm a sucker for that. So for my final verdict, I say go ahead and stream it. Give it a chance. What do you have to lose if you're already paying for the subscription? The first 10 to 15 minutes, you probably are going to be eye rolling like I did with the whole setup because it's so formulaic. But if you push through it, I think you'll find some charm with these characters. And then let me know in the comments, like the video if you had a good time and make sure to subscribe if you haven't. I put out a lot of content movie related. So stick around. I'd love to have you. I don't even know what John Cena is. Is he a human? Like nothing about that seems real. Oh, you're still here. Hey, thanks for sticking around. You can also find me on Patreon at patreon.com slash Adam does movies or become a member right here on YouTube hitting that join button. It shows your support for my channel. I'm a one man operation. You can give a dollar a month, $5, $10. It just says, Hey Adam, keep going, stay the course. I appreciate your honesty to movies and I appreciate that. You don't have any some, you know, weird agenda. You just generally seem to like films like I do. And I do. And that was a lot of dues at the end there. Wow. I need an education too. So maybe a dollar for that.


All right, we're going to move along. The second concept is titled Grants for New Investigators to Promote Diversity in Genomic Research. This concept was developed by staff members Mike Payson and Jyoti Dayal, and Jyoti will give the presentation. All right, thank you so much. Okay, well, good afternoon everyone. Thank you council for this opportunity to present to you account concept clearance grants for new investigators to promote diversity in genomics research. I'd like to acknowledge and thank my colleague Mike Payson who will join us in the Q&A session R01 working group to for their support and guidance in developing this initiative. Okay, okay. So in continuing with the theme of workforce diversity, our goal for this concept is to increase the number of investigators in genomics research from diverse backgrounds including underrepresented demographic groups. So today I'll be covering background, scope and objectives of the concept, how this compares to other funding opportunity activities and ask council for their input in the discussion. There are many benefits to fostering a diverse workforce. It promotes diversity of scientific ideas. We gain an understanding of different perspectives from researchers and also maintains cultures of inclusive excellence and collectively this will help synergize efforts to increase the diversity of individuals included in genomics research. The NHGRI strategic vision was published in October of 2020 and lists the European genomics workforce as a guiding principle for human genomics that the promise of genomics cannot fully be achieved without a diverse the R01 is one part of the overall NHGRI vision. And as Vince discussed earlier, NHGRI recently published its action agenda for building a diverse genomics workforce. This initiative is part of that emerging portfolio to support research programs to build up independent genomic research careers. NIH issued a diversity statement to identify four categories of groups underrepresented in the US biomedical research enterprise. There are four groups below defined individuals who are underrepresented individuals from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds, individuals with disabilities, individuals from certain disadvantaged backgrounds and women under certain circumstances. And for further details or expanded definitions for each group, please refer to the notice link. While we don't have data on all underrepresented groups, we'd like to report on data from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. And this data is coming from the NIH scientific workforce diversity office. So for example, in the area of STEM, science, technology, engineering and math fields, they reported that 14% of PhDs in 2018 were awarded to URM candidates up from 7% from 2000 to 2008. And for R01 applicants, there's a slight increase in black African American and Hispanic Latino R01 applicants from 2013 to 2018. And while the progress is minimal, there's still more work to be done to make a difference. I'd like to call attention to two recent publications that came out commenting on the status of grant funding to diverse and underrepresented groups. These publications call for the urgent attention to invite and improve representation from underrepresented groups. And all of this is to say that we are moving the needle in the right direction, but there's still more work to be done. So just to reiterate, the Diversity R01 RFA addresses the NHRA Action Agenda to develop and support research transition programs to independent genomic research careers. This initiative would focus on new investigator and early stage investigators. We would implement this similar to other diversity announcements and consistent with the NIH diversity statement. And any research topics are suitable within NHGRI's mission and open across the scientific topics in Division of Genomic Medicine, Division of Genome Sciences, and the Division of Genomics and Society. And then the topic of research interest is up to the investigator. This allows for maximum flexibility and we want to promote all types of genomics research among diverse investigators. NHGRI is considering five to seven new awards per year for three years and considering a set aside of $5.25 million in total cost in the first fiscal year. The $5.25 million is tied to making seven new awards per year. Applications would be limited to 500k direct costs per year and the project period would be limited to five years. Now, relative to other ongoing activities, the NIDDK R21PAR, which we are currently signed on to, is open to new investigators and early stages investigators and provides up to three years of funding at 125k direct costs of limit per year. And this is aimed at increasing workforce diversity and really laid the groundwork for the R01 diversity RFA. And the middle box is the standard NIH R01, which is open to all career stages, has up to five years of funding and 500k direct costs per year limit. The diversity RFA is unique in that NHGRI is making this a priority. We're focusing on new investigators and early stage investigators. And since this is an RFA, we are setting aside funds and having a dedicated special emphasis panel to provide advice to reviewers at an NHGRI-led review. So this will help increase workforce diversity and similar to the standard NIH R01 is recognized as a career milestone. So we're asking council to weigh in on the following alternative career stages. So we're starting out with new investigators and early and early stage investigators. Alternatives which could expand to a wider group could include investigators who are new to NHGRI, they may have expertise in other areas and would like to do genomics research, investigators without an active R01 equivalent award could apply. And then for established investigators, do we set a cap on the direct cost limit and would it divert funds from individuals at early career stages. For the yearly direct cost limit at 500k direct costs per year limit, this would support more expensive grants, but alternatively less direct costs per year could support more awards. And is the five to seven awards per year appropriate, more awards would require resources or small awards. Fewer awards might be too few to make a difference recognizing the challenge to predict the response for this RFA. So this concludes my presentation. And in the interest of being able to see raised hands in the chat, I'll click the slide up for another 30 seconds and then take it down. And then we're asking council members doctors Chung rich and Parker to start us off with a council discussion but we will welcome comments from all council members. So please stop there and Dr Chung please feel free to comment. Sure. So, I'm strongly supportive of this I think this continues in terms of as we've been talking about you know, multiple opportunities and I think people will need multiple opportunities to continue their, the progress in terms of their career. I guess I was a little confused about some of the mechanics, I hadn't thought, God, when you were presenting this that this would be established investigators and so I just wanted to get clarification if I understood that right I thought this was really early investigators. And then the other mechanical question I was trying to think about is that there's because you're going to get people with a diversity of research topics that they're coming into study. I'm assuming you're getting. I'm confused about the special emphasis panel I'm assuming these are going to multiple other study sections with people who are expert in those areas but then the special emphasis panel is taking those reviews and making decisions or how does this sort of process work and how do you compare apples and oranges I guess if they're reviewed in different study sections. Sure. So I can answer your first question with the established investigators so the question to council is, should we include established investigators in this will we the way the concept is written right now as we started out with new investigators and early stage investigators, but should we be considering extending this out to a larger pool of applicants. I get my, my own personal opinion is, you know, not if they've already hit that milestone in terms of having their own are ones and things like that I mean to me that's not what this opportunity should be about. Okay, and your next question for my me is about the review is that correct. Right so who reviews these and then how does the special emphasis panel work in terms of, I guess, comparing reviews across study sections or is it everyone's reviewed by one special emphasis panel even if they're very different specialty areas. So we haven't discussed that in detail but I know that this this would be done at NHGRI Rudy or I see Carolyn coming up if you could help provide some clarification on that. Right well this is yeah Rudy go ahead. No, I will defer to the division directors I will comment when we get to the review question. Yeah so this is Terry. So I'm helping Joe to with this one and and really the plan is to have an NHGRI special emphasis panel so it would be a single special emphasis panel. We have a fabulous review group and I don't know how they do it but they managed to pull in expertise in all of the areas relevant to applications that are received so so we're pretty confident that it will be an expert review and probably have more expertise, definitely have more expertise in genomics than one would see in a general study section but as well cover all of those areas. I'm just going to echo that we have experience with this our genomic innovator is a situation where those go to a single panel and cover the whole the similar breath and we really had successful again with our strong review panel so just giving you an example that we already do this in some situations with success. Okay, thanks. Okay, so Rafael I see your hand up but I'm going to allow the other assigned discussants to go first and then we'll come back to you okay. All right, Lisa. Are you next. I think this follows on the discussion about review because I have been interested in the concept document in the note that applications from underrepresented group applicants had been less successful. But that this had to do with choice of research topic more focused on community and population research, less concerned with more fundamental and mechanistic investigations, and I was wondering whether whether that's that focus is okay, whether there is a desire to attract applicants into one prong or the other of that possible dichotomy. And then, depending on the answer to what's what's desired, what will be done to try to shape the focus of the research question, if anything at all. It's just going to be handled by review being more open to the broad range of research foci. Yeah, so we want to maximize again flexibility we don't want to put any restrictions or filters on the topic of interest if there's interest in community community work, you know we would welcome that. And I think there was a part two to your question. Can it all be just, I'm sorry, can it all just be managed by educating the review panel. Is that your question. Yes. Yeah. I think, if I could step in here I think if we have champions on the review panel, panel members that will champion that kind of research, the problem takes care of itself. Anything else from you Lisa, if not we'll move on to Steve rich then please. JOT. Congratulations with you and your team and Mike for putting something together like this. I'm very supportive. I did have a couple of comments and many of those have already been spoken from the previous concept and, and part of it is, you know, defining metrics for success using data I think the metrics for success of this program may be different than the metrics for success for the previous program. And, you know, understanding what it is that you're really targeting as as what are those appropriate metrics. If a metric is they get an hour one and they go to another institution because they've got an hour one that might not necessarily be the best metric but you know any sort of ideas of what it is that can be considered as as a success for the program. I do think there's an issue of mentoring. You almost need to figure out your mentoring at understanding how to put the application together mentoring if you get the application mentoring as you continue with your professional development. Essentially, it's again what was stated as lifelong mentoring is something that can really be, I think, critical to success as as you define it. I'm also in favor of the new investigator early stage investigator if someone already has an hour one or has had an hour one that's already met the criteria. I've also had some experience in working in foundations and other types of areas where the, they're giving support to establish investigators new to the field and it hardly ever seems to work out well. It's almost like they needed money to fund some work that they were doing and here's another disease or an area that they wanted to go that they could get money from by going into it. It's not that it's that way every time but I'd much rather focus on the next generation of investigators and you investigator early stage investigator. I do think there's an issue related to the social networking component of this that really needs to be thought through. It's a it's a social support, it's a support of peers that support of individuals who may be, you know, potential mentors, and I'm not certain how you can do it. Within the American Diabetes Association there was a pathways to independence or a pathways program where individuals who are at the postdoc to faculty member and early faculty positions get tied in with a mentor. They're highlighted at the scientific sessions, there's groups of meetings they develop a network. I don't know how this can be done in this program. But I think it's something that we're thinking about in helping them develop this social network and support system. And then the last thing is, you know, is in a sense, five to seven awards per year appropriate, probably not. You know, you probably could double triple order of magnitude increases, but given this a new program is hard to know exactly what is the right number, because you don't know how many applications you'll get even the first or second or third offering. So, as long as NHGRI has an ability to be flexible. And, you know, I'm not certain how any governmental agency can be flexible but hopefully NHGRI is. If they get a lot of applications and there are 15, let's just say at the first series that look really fabulous, but you only have funds for five to seven. Is there another pot of money someplace that you can use, or even partner with another institute, you know, some are focused more on Alzheimer's or heart disease or something like that. Can you go go go with your handout to NHLBI or NIA and say here's a great way of increasing diversity and you can take partial credit for it if you give some money to this. And just somehow make certain that you have really great people that don't fall through the cracks. So I'll stop there. So Terry I saw your camera come on did you want to speak to something here. I could but I thought perhaps I'd let JOT respond first there are a lot of questions there JOT do you want to take one or two of them. I can take on that the mentorship. So there are other, there are programs that are focused on mentorship, and what we're trying to do here is to get beyond that the early career stage and address those shortfalls and and helping get the investigators that are one that career milestone stage so that's that's our goal for here. Let's see if there's some other. So thank you for your comment about the new investigators and early stage investigators, and then Terry, I don't know if you wanted to maybe comment on the additional funds. Sure. So, so with any of these programs we do and we appreciate the suggestion we do reach out to other institutes and ask if they would like to partner with us. This is how we got involved in the NIDDK program that's very similar to this one we actually built it built ours upon that one so they reached out to us we participated and it's been a successful program. So we'll do the same thing here and hope for participation. I think we would see this as a priority we start off with with five to seven is a starting point but but you know if we have funds this year or later or can shift them around, you know we'd certainly take Council's advice that probably we could use a lot in in this area. Joti makes a good point that we do have a lot of programs that are that are focused on the career development stage which are a little earlier in the, in the process and those have formal mentoring. I think we could consider, including some language in the solicitation that might address that or at least allow for it, where it's not something that is typically done in an R01 independent investigator award and and sometimes it's not viewed as as favorably as someone who is not seeking I think you had also asked about metrics of success Steve. That's something I think we need to develop. We certainly would look at the end of the day at whether we'd increase the number of R01s that we were funding to minority investigators which currently we're quite below the NIH average so so that's probably our number one metric of success but if you have other suggestions we very much welcome them. You know, if the individual is at a site that has historically not been successful and R01 funding of any sort, or certainly genomic R01 funding. I would think the training of additional students or fellows or having sort of the right, you know, sort of the, you know, the effect of here's someone who has really been successful in genomics and now graduate students and others will flock to that person and you'll actually see a beginning of the wealth in a way. I think something like that might be useful if that can be quantified in some way. Great. Yeah, we'll try and do that. Thank you. Or like a rainmaker. Sure. And I think it's important to keep in mind that there are a lot of investigators that minority investigators who are not at minority institutions or under under resource institutions and they still have terrible rates of getting, you know, awards and rewards. So, so it's not just that they're all concentrated in places that don't have resources. Right. All right, Rafael you in the day one patients award go ahead please. Thank you. Yeah, my question relates to the possibility that there's some confounding that we want to learn about between these categories that you're looking at and the type of grants that are being applied for or the types of the areas of research that are being applied for. I'm not sure that has been looked at when I hear and read these papers here about and read these papers about the percentages being lower. They give a general percentage. Has anybody looked at what it looks like when you break it up by area or by Institute within the NIH or within any other subcategory of type of grant. Is it across the board lower percentages or does it change depending on which one. I'll take this one as well. Rafa there is a growing literature on this and it's, it appears to be really across the board. The, the issue of research topic is only one of many issues that relates to the lower success rate here. There is a tendency and it seems to be, you know, pretty, pretty strong and significant for minority and underserved investigators to be focusing less on basic research and more on applied research and we don't see it in any realm that those tend to do less well. NIH is is doing a fair amount of investigation into this and probably has the sample sizes to be able to look at it and each year I doesn't. And even at the NIH level that the papers that you quoted you know they they aggregate five years of data in order to be able to get enough numbers so. This is an area of very active investigation within NIH, we're probably the only people that can really do it because we have access to the confidential information that other people don't in terms of when people succeed and when they fail and that sort of thing. But I agree it's something we'd really like to learn more about. Thank you. Okay Sharon you're next. Terry sort of just addressed but it was sort of back to a comment you made Rudy I think the issue of training reviewers is not simple. And the issue of eliminating bias is not simple and I do. The mechanism is very important but I think the Institute really has to look at how do we train reviewers. What is this review panel going to look like is there going to be additional training because I don't think it's only I mean Terry just raised the issue that it's many things it's not just subject area but I do think it's sort of on us to create the opportunities but also to make sure that the review is as unbiased as possible. Other questions for Joti or Mike. All right, you get 10 seconds to find the mute button and I don't see anybody acting so can I get a motion to approve the concept. Second, so move. All in favor for five, four, three, two, one. Thank you. Anyone staining or opposed. Thank you very much.