I don't think that's a mad magazine thing that he has is Clodumbo and of course they drop Peter Falker, right? Super over the top, yeah. Today we're going to be bringing to you 1980's Motel Hell. I do this part. Oh, that's right. Yeah, okay. Unlike his ankles. Yeah, this thing is... I'm trying not to kick the gut. No, it's powered by that for now. Okay, got it cool.   It's based on the HG Wells novel, Invisible Man, and I don't know. Actually, I didn't read it, so. You didn't read it? So I have no clue how close it is to the book.   It's probably my dad calling me. Yeah, I'm just sitting here... Yeah, my dad. I'm just sitting here watching the memory of the camps. Does it remember its day stuff? Yeah.   It's basically all the footage that they took when they first liberated the concentration camps.  Okay, alright. The water Dracula? Taste the Wang of Dracula? Taste Dracula's Wang?   Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula. That's the one. Ernest saves Christmas. Now come on. What you drinking? Oh! Okay, so we'll do it again. Oh, okay. Hello and welcome to the... But yeah, there's so many iconic scenes in there. Oh yeah. I think I... I don't know where we're going to do this. It's just like... Oh man. Alright. Okay. Hello and welcome to another episode of Frightfully Forgotten Horror Movies. I'll do that again. I was smiling through the whole thing. Okay, alright. Hello... Okay, you ready? Yeah. Hello and welcome to another episode of Frightfully Forgotten Horror Movies. And today we'll be doing our final episode for the year. And we're going to be doing some shout outs. What you drinking? Alright. Okay. Okay, so then do I do it? Yeah. Okay. Today we're going to be... Okay, now I'm all thrown off. I did all good at first.  Today's our final episode? Yeah. Today we're going to be doing our final episodes... No. Okay, let me start again. Today we're going to be doing our final... Damn, I did all good at first. Fuck. Okay. Okay. Okay, you ready? You ready? You good? Yeah. Okay. Today we're not going to be reviewing any...  Sorry. I knew you were going when you caught me off guard. Yeah, I jinxed you. You're so... Opposite what... Today we're not going to be... Okay. Christ. Are you ready? Yeah. We're too far gone.  Get out. It's like quicksand. And today we're going to be featuring...  We've got to contact with you a little bit over this past year and... I don't know. I'll do that again. From always...  Don't be lying about that. Don't be a poser now. Okay.


I want to ask you what you think is going on with these crazy conspiracy theories from right-wing media. What is this about? Folks, if you want to know why nobody trusts the media, this is a perfect example. Really now, Stelter.  Is this why you and your cohorts have been purposely misrepresenting Trump's words? That's a conspiracy? Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They are politicizing it. We will do everything in our power to keep the infection and those carrying the infection from entering our country. We have no choice. They also created a White House virus task force. It's a big thing. A virus task force. I requested $2.5 billion to ensure we have the resources we need.  Is that why you're manufacturing panic despite the low numbers of people infected? Strange, because I don't remember any of these attempts to drag down the markets when H1N1 was ravaging the country under Obama. Once again, the media is attempting to make a lie true by repeating it over and over. This time by purposely misrepresenting Trump's words during a speech over the weekend. We've seen this playbook before many times. And speaking of coronavirus, what have you done to prepare for the worst? When emergencies strike, you always see news stories of long lines of people and empty store shelves. There's no need to be a part of that chaos and the possibility of having to deal with FEMA food lines. Those that know what's coming are using today to prepare. You should make a plan too. Start by building an emergency food supply. And I trust and use my Patriot supply. You can too. They're experts in emergency preparedness and have a guaranteed two-day delivery. Disasters won't wait, neither should you. This week saves $70 on a two-week emergency food kit when you go to my special website, preparewithdronetech.com. My Patriot food supply kits last up to 25 years in storage and include breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. Order a few today and receive a guaranteed two-day delivery discreetly to your door. Take action so you're ready for what's coming and save $70. Those that know what's coming are preparing. Go to preparewithdronetech.com. Preparewithdronetech.com. During a speech that was about his plans for dealing with the coronavirus, he made a comment that the Democrats in their media were perpetrating a hoax with their bias fear mongering. The media took that quote, removed all context for the purposes of deceiving the public. President Trump, meanwhile, held a rare Saturday news conference to give another update on coronavirus. He was pressed about his comments at a rally Friday night where he called coronavirus a democratic hoax against his presidency. President Trump, meanwhile, held a rare Saturday news conference to give another update on coronavirus. It's not like this is difficult to understand. He's saying that the Democrats in their media are creating controversy for the purposes of hurting Trump before the election. How could he be having a rally to give updates on the coronavirus, but also calling the coronavirus a hoax? I'm not sure that they even realize it, but they're proving his point by spinning this most recent lie. Virginia, I want to ask you what you think is going on with these crazed conspiracy theories from right-wing media. Much like the very good people hoax, which we're all very familiar with, the media is presenting an obviously false representation of what was said using a very specifically edited clip. Trump's entire speech was about dealing with the outbreak, so clearly he wasn't calling coronavirus a hoax. You know, another thing that I've noticed is that while they claim this is so serious and all the Democrat candidates are out there bashing Trump saying that he's not taking it seriously, not a single one of these Democrats has canceled any of their rallies. Despite the fact that cases of coronavirus are popping up in states where they're having these rallies. Does anybody remember the H1N1 outbreak? 12,000 Americans died and that was under Obama's watch. I don't remember any of this from the media. And in fact, Obama didn't declare an emergency until long after thousands of Americans had died. Were they trying to discredit Obama or drive down the markets? No, absolutely not. There was none of that. They were in full support. None of this seems to match the facts. What facts are there that Democrats are doing this? Well, it seems like people are asking questions and they're concerned about the virus. This implies some sort of political motivation, which is kind of gross. Well, love. Name some names, sir. Well, because this is just, it just feels like gaslighting. The column in the New York Times that's, that by a prominent liberal journalist, it said we should rename it the Trump virus. Okay, that, that is, does that apply to, does that apply to all? So that the president- Oh, f*** off, Todd. Kind of gross. Your conduct towards the vice president during this interview was gross. And don't you just love how Pence immediately comes forward with an example that Chuck Todd just blows off? What's gross is that you get on national TV every day pretending to be a trustworthy journalist when in fact you're a hack that gets millions from the Democrat Party and you never disclose that. We're gonna show some remarks from the president and then how he tried to dial him back some yesterday. No, no, no. He didn't dial back anything. He corrected the record, which you people in the media have completely misrepresented. And I just want to point out again, this is exactly what they did with the whole very fine people hoax. The president's suggesting in one speech, and you can read this how you wish, of the administration thinks the Democrats have been too political, that they're not giving them a chance, not listening to the information, but the president used the word, one of his favorite words, hoax. Yeah, that's because it's obviously a hoax. It's obvious that people have been calling out this DNC media hoax all weekend because he hedges and frames it as make up your own mind.  Yeah, the president uses the word hoax a lot because the Democrats in the media are constantly coordinating to perpetrate hoaxes. That's precisely why CNN just got sued for undisclosed millions, for making up fake stories to attack their political opposition with. That's all I have for today. Thanks for watching. Please like, share, and subscribe. If you wanna support this channel, please consider subscribing to me on Patreon, subscribe star, or just sending a donation on PayPal. Anyway, you decide to support this channel, I deeply appreciate it. Thanks for watching. Keep coming back.


Welcome. This is Melissa Armo with a stock swush, and I am here today to review BBBY. Why? Because it was a bullish gap up today. I gotta be honest with you, I really wasn't crazy about this whatsoever, but it opened and swushed. And there was actually two bullish swishes today in gaps. This is a sign, a sign that earnings season is coming up. Actually, oh my goodness, there was three swishes this week. Wow. Wait a minute. Hold on. There was three. One short swoosh and three bullish. I mean, two bullish swishes this week. That's incredible. Yeah, it's a good sign. Anyway, so BBBY gapped up close the night before down here at 4880, opened up here at $50. Boom. Beautiful. Great hole here at the $50 hole number, open and swushed. So I called BBBY. This is a great entry here. Actually, even where I called it when it pulled in held the stop because I called the stop at 45 and it took off like a rocket. And then I called the perfect target. I said 52. I mean, I just, I'm really, I'm on point. End point, point, point, point. So great bullish move out of the gate here in BBBY. This is one of the reasons why I love to obviously train in the morning and stop quickly. This has come in hard. Could you go long this though at some point in here again today? Probably sure. Maybe. Has to hold. Let's see where this needs to hold here. This really can't come in any more than this area here. It's, it's coming into it. 50, 60 I sure thereabouts. I mean, that's it. That breaks this isn't going to flip on around and rally again today. So that's what I would watch for in this. If it sets up on the five or the 15 minute, preferably the 15 minute now because it's very late. It's 1115. This holds around 50 60 ish. It's a good long here in the 15 minute chart for the afternoon to get back up to the high of the day and possibly 53. So nice bullish swush and BBBY today. Great job everyone that did this trade in the live trading room. Great start to the swush season with two bullish wishes today. Have a great day everyone. If you're interested in signing up for the Golden Gap class, it is April 16th and 17th. Email me at melissa at the stockswush.com. Thanks everyone. Have a great day.


Can you imagine that you can turn livestock poop into clean energy and bio fertilizers? This is the bio digester where the manure is fermented and then the gas is collected with a gas pipe. So as you can see, this is a clean bio gas energy source which is coming from the bio digester. That means returning the livestock poop into clean energy source. We use for a cooking, for a lighting, for running agricultural machineries and vehicles. And because it is clean gas and also burns faster, it can save up to eight hours for a woman. And also, since it's clean, it can reduce smoke and indoor air pollution, which is one of the main challenges we are currently having in developing countries because of the use of firewood.


Hi, I'm Mary Brighton, Integrative Nutritionist with Hack and Sacrifican Integrative Health and Medicine, and I'm here with the other half of my EM team. I'm Marissa Winters, I'm also an Integrative Nutritionist, and we're here today to share some of our favorite heart-healthy recipes for snacks that you can make in five minutes or less. Today's recipe is a heart-healthy hummus recipe.


this episode brought to you by virtual shield VPN check out the special deal for my subscribers with the majority of the world's workforce now working from home VPN security is now preferred cyber spying is at an all-time high and a useful tool that you can use to protect yourself is a VPN or virtual private network to scramble your computer's identity from nosy cyber criminals here let me show you how easy this is to protect yourself I'm going to go to www.virtualshield.com or you can also use the Apple app store or the Google Play Store and download the virtual shield free 30-day trial once you've signed up simply log in download the free trial and install it once I'm connected my IP address is now different than before see virtual shield is the easiest to use has the fastest server connections and offers a money back guarantee due to the recent pandemic of COVID-19 virtual shield wants to offer a 50% off all VPN plans and all premium add-ons including protection plus residential access and VIP performance plans for as low as a cup of coffee sign up now for a free 30-day trial of virtual shield VPN and see what all the hypes about you have nothing to lose so we'll continue to watch these pictures we'll watch it all play out we're gonna take it take you through it calmly we don't want to do is upset people at home we want you to be calm the situation as we are watching it here we're going to take you through it as calmly as possible this is now live picture of Dallas Texas where you can say we can see protesters have gathered on the streets here of Dallas Texas I haven't heard any reports from Dallas Texas of anything that has gotten out of control those people are out there complaining because they don't have haircuts who the hell do you think you are and if you're so upset about it you should be mad at the president and you're protesting against you're slapping the faces of people who are the health care workers who put their lives in the line every day because you want a haircut you want to go play golf you're concerned about of course you're concerned about your business tell the president that and you're out there with with guns with with weapons strapped to your chest what is wrong with people I don't understand what is wrong with people stay at home it's now just sort of a merry caravan it is worth pointing out it has been entirely peaceful sometimes angry but entirely peaceful bottle-thrown which is not uncommon entirely peaceful bottle-thrown which is not uncommon and that these weren't armed protesters he's by the way has called them good even though they're threatening they're standing in Lansing Michigan in front of the state Capitol armed to the teeth I think it's a sign of radicalization we have seen a segment of society radicalized there are roots of it going back many years but it's happening in front of us every day Peter winner is that that too harsh a statement radicalization CNN is here to tell the story that's what we do CNN is not being victimized all right people are attacking the building they're attacking a lot of things but you know who retweeted the report calling them great people now does it surprise anyone does it surprise you joy Boston Tea Party despite its name was not a party it was a protest it was a riot what I'm saying is the very foundation of this nation is based upon what's happening right now want to be clear how I characterize this this is mostly a protest it is not it is not generally speaking unruly these protests came after President Trump tweeted liberate Michigan he tweeted quote the governor of Michigan should give a little put out the fire he said that these are very good people about which the executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America Haley so far who is from Lansing Michigan she compared those comments to President Trump referring to those marching alongside neo-nazis in Charlottesville as very fine people welcome back everyone like many of you all I've been staying up late the last couple nights watching coverage of these riots across the country and I don't know about you all but it's getting to be a little bit more than maddening watching the hypocrisy contradictions and blatant disregard for the facts isn't it funny that the moment coronavirus hysteria is neutralized the media serves up nationwide riots to replace it what happened to all the hand-ringing about large gatherings in public where's all the concern about spreading the virus so the people they're just not worried about it cow they're not worried about their own personal safety haven't met anybody who is just around nobody's wearing them nobody's uh there you go including the camera yeah okay the media spent weeks demonizing peaceful lockdown protesters as racist nazis and terrorists in part because they were allegedly not wearing masks any concern for the coronavirus seems to gone right out the window it's like I always say the only legitimate protest is one organized by the left wing and pushing a left-wing agenda it is amazing to me that these people can be out there destroying businesses nationwide many of them black owned attacking people and even storming cnn all the while while they assure us that there's nothing wrong with this and they're not being victimized they're even attacking journalists which I thought was one of the highest crimes one could commit but now is suddenly not indicative of the protest itself as it would be framed if these were hard-working patriots peacefully protesting an unconstitutional lockdown all of these things should be part of this so-called conversation but it's not a conversation is it it's propaganda backed up by violent malcontents who are looking for any reason just to burn it all down leading me to believe that this has all been engineered and orchestrated and why wouldn't they we're five months away from a presidential election that they are really worried they're not going to win this is just the latest in a long string of media manipulations to influence this election that's all for this episode please hit that like button share and subscribe it's really helpful to this channel if you'd like to support it you can do so on one of these platforms you can find all those links in the description and pinned comment thanks for watching keep coming back


KAMU MENU MENU MENU MENU Saya tak tahu. Ya sebenarnya, You are very comforting. You see? You didn't get a life form, you like to marry me.  The video chances for us to win will only be 3.12 points. 3.14 points? Marrying one of their kind is... I...wait. Among all of them, I am the one to win. But I know only what she do love. It really is my plan. I wish if I have a second chance. Going back to the earth. And that's what I need to do. I need to educate my human.  I would like to marry you. No, I would like to be your friend. Thank you. Now we know each other better. I hope our marriage will be the perfect one. I long to see a change in life of our human being. Terima kasih.


So one question I often get asked is should I make a hoogle bed and The answer is well if you have this much wood probably yes, but you have to come back to always with permaculture What am I trying to do? What is my need and to not just randomly use resources to fulfill something that might actually not be doing anything that you want? It really much depends on not just what you have, but what you're trying to do So in permaculture there we have needs and we need to identify our needs and then we look around and see what resources We have to meet those needs now Hoogle beds have become popularized over the last few years particularly by a chap called sep holzer He uses them a lot and what we have to ask is what purpose are they serving in his system? And will they do the same for us is that what we need now? He lives at quite high altitude sort of 4,000 feet or so in the Austrian Lungau up in the mountains Where you get a lot of snow in the winter months? And he's doing crazy things like growing cherries and lemons at altitude because of the strategies He uses amongst other things terracing creating thermal mass and using ponds and water and so on and he has a lot of hoogle beds, so I Would say if you've got a lot of wood like this lying around that you're not using for anything else Then and you're wanting to grow food for instance, then a hoogle bed might be a useful strategy I certainly wouldn't be going looking in skips in urban areas for pallets to try and find something to make a whole bed with because Firstly the wood is the food for your plants and some pallets are heat treated Some are chemically treated and the last thing you want is to be putting chemicals into your garden and into your food, so Sepholzer when he gets new land he clears a lot of trees Which he uses for all kinds of things selling us timber making mushrooms Firewood all kinds of things and he has a lot left over so for him It's almost a waste disposal thing to dig a hole put a load of trees in and then to cover it over So yes a hoogle bed at its very basic level is hole in the ground full of wood and then you put the soil back on top It's a little bit more complex than that and The bigger the pieces of wood the longer they take to break down to the slower the release of the nutrients but there's also a thing about water holding as well, so trees hold moisture and Part of the process of breaking down also will take nitrogen from the soil in that may not be something you want So if that's a slower process because your logs are bigger Then that might be better than putting lots of small bits of wood in with more surface area In practice what tends to happen is you put some of each you put some bigger logs in and some smaller twigs and you get some short-term food for your plants and longer term food and certainly I know people who've made hoogle beds who said they're brilliant and they work really well for them But you have to keep coming back to the fact that You need wood and if you don't have wood then the chances are then it's perhaps not the best way of feeding your plants and Also that you need the right kind of wood. So should you make a hoogle bed? Well really ultimately it depends on Whether you have good wood lying around that you can't use for anything else and whether the problems that they're solving for The person who promotes them people like Sepholzer is actually what you're trying to do as well


Okay, so good afternoon. Let's start. So I will just proceed. So now I will first talk about prime ideals and maximal ideals. So these are two very simple concepts. So I will from now on for simplicity assume that our ring when I talk about ring and I don't say anything else. Then a ring by saying a ring, I mean commutative ring with one. So I mean that means usually from now on, we only look at commutative rings with one and I don't specifically say it. If a ring is not commutative with one, then I will say it. Okay. So it doesn't mean I've changed the definition of a ring. No, it's just how I simplify this. So prime ideals and maximal ideals are maybe the nicest ideals you can have. So you can see this by looking at the quotient by the ideal. So prime ideal will be an ideal such that if you take the quotient of the ring divided by a prime ideal, you get an integral domain and so it has no zero divisors. If you take the quotient of a ring by a maximal ideal, it will be a field. The quotient will be a field. So the definition obviously however is in terms of the ideal itself. So let me write it. So we take a ring, say commutative ring with one. So an ideal say P in R will be called a prime ideal. If it has the property that whenever the product of two elements of R lies in the ideal, then one of the two elements already lies there. So if whenever we have A times P is an element of P, for A in P elements of R, we have A in P or B in P. Note that by the definition of an ideal, if we have a product of two elements in the ring, one of which lies in the ideal, then the product lies in the ideal. So but now for prime ideal also the converse holds. So this is the definition. So for instance as an example, so in the integer Z, if P is a prime number, then the ideal P which is the same as PZ is a prime ideal. Basically, the elements here are all numbers divisible by P, and a product of two integers is divisible by a prime number if and only if at least one of them is. Now let's come to the definition of a maximal ideal. So a maximal ideal is as a name says, an ideal which is maximal, so which is not contained in a bigger ideal except for the whole ring. So an ideal M in a ring R is called a maximal ideal. Let me just write maximal if there is no ideal which is in R, which lies strictly between M and R. So with M is contained in I and really smaller and this. So the only ideal of R in which the maximal ideal is contained is R itself. Now I want to state the thing which I said in the beginning, the characterization in terms of the quotient of maximal and prime ideals. It's a rather simple fact. Maybe I'll just call it proposition. So we have R ring, so a commutative ring with one. So first an ideal P in R is a prime ideal, if and only if the quotient R mod P is an integral domain. So that means it has no zero divisors. That's essentially a directory formulation of the definition as we will see. An ideal M in R is a maximal ideal, if and only if the quotient is a field. So that also we will use this quite often later when we want to make field extension. So we want to find for given field, we want to find a bigger field in which the field is contained. So we will take some ring which is a polynomial ring, and we quotient by certain maximal ideal and the quotient will be another field. So and we will see that later when we talk about fields. So let's prove it. So first one is essentially completely trivial, it's just a reformulation. So we have assumed that R is a commutative ring with one. So that's part of the definition of an integral domain, the only thing that we need it has no zero divisors. We have to see and let me just see this commutative ring with one. So that then does it follows also R mod P. So I do that one is commutative with one. This mean the product structure, the one here is the class of the one before. Now let's take, so if we're given A and B in R, we know that the class of A will be equal to zero, if and only if A is an element of P. Now this is the class, so by this I mean the class of A in R mod P. This is by definition. So if I take the product of two elements in the quotient, this by definition is this, and so this will be equal to zero, this is equal to zero if and only if A times P is in P. So I mean these are all of these things. So thus we find that A is a zero divisor, if and only if A is not in P, which means that A is not zero, is your device is a non-zero element in non-zero multiple of which. So it's a non-zero element which we multiply with another non-zero element to get zero, and there exists another B in R without P such that AB is in P. So that means R has zero divisors if and only if. There exists elements A and P in R without P such that the product is in P, so that means if and only if P is not a prime ideal is. So this is equivalent to saying that it has no zero divisors if and only if P is a prime ideal, and so this proves part one. Now, second one, slightly more interesting. So first we will assume that M is an ideal such that R mod M is a field. Then it follows as R mod M is a field that the only ideals in R mod M are the zero ideal and the whole of R mod M. So we had this statement that therefore if we take a quotient, there was a bijection between the ideals containing, so if we take a ring and divide it by some ideal M, then there's a bijection between the ideals in R which contain M and the ideals in R mod M. So the statement then says that this is equivalent. So the ideals in R which contain M are precisely the inverse images of these two. So it means this statement is equivalent to the only ideals in R which contain M, R, M, and R. By definition, this is precisely the definition of a maximal ideal. So in particular, if we follow this, we have seen that if R mod M is a field, then M is a maximal ideal and we find it is equivalent if we can reverse this step. Because these two are equivalents, but here we have to see that this step is also an equivalent. So therefore, so thus, it's enough to prove the following lemma, which is actually also quite simple. So let R be commutative ring with one. So let R be ring whose only ideals are the zero ideal and R. So with zero and R is only ideals. Well, then we have to see that it is a field. Well, so what does it mean? If you have a commutative ring with one to be a field, it means that every non-zero element must be a unit. So it must have a multiplicative inverse. So we have to see that. So in order to prove this statement, we have to take an element A in R, a non-zero element in R, and we have to see that it has an inverse. So that A, let's say there exists a B in R, such that A B is equal to one. Well, now we have to somehow connect this to these ideals, because here we only have a statement about ideals. So the only ideal we can make out of our element A is obviously the ideal generated by A. So this is an ideal. And obviously, A is contained in this ideal. So it's not equal to the zero ideal. But the only ideals in R are zero and the whole of R. So thus, the ideal generated by A is equal to R. So in particular, we have that one is an element of A. But you have to remember what is A? The ideal generated by an element is just the set of all A B, such that B is in R. So in other words, it means that there exists a B in R, such that A B is equal to one. And so we have found our inverse. As you see, it's quite simple. So in some sense, it's almost a reformulation of the definition of maximal and prime ideal that the quotient in one case is a field, in the other case an integral domain. But as we shall see, the statement with this, as already mentioned, this kind of statement that if you have a maximal ideal, then the quotient by it is a field will be a method to construct new fields. Where am I? So as a corollary, we find that every, I mean, it would be easy anyway, but every prime ideal, every maximal ideal is a prime ideal. Now we know that if I take the quotient by a maximal ideal, it is a field. The field is in particular an integral domain. So the ideal was also prime ideal by the first part of the statement. So OK, now we want to look at very particular rings, which are just polynomial rings over a field, which will later interest us when we also do field extension in Galois theory. So maybe I can start here. So let small k be a field. And we want to study the polynomial ring kx. So kx is the polynomial ring which we had introduced before. We had introduced the polynomial ring with coefficients in any ring. And now we have to do it in particular case of field. What? I haven't thought about it. This glory as a statement can just add something every maximal ideal in a real ring beauty is a prime ideal for it. Yeah, well, I mean, I have not thought about it. You know, I don't expect, you know, I haven't thought about it, but I don't expect it to be true if the ring is not commutative with one. But you know, I think that. Yeah, anyway, so I. As a statement. So but I mean, OK, if you want, so in. But you know, I have made this general assumption. So this statement implies that. But in commutative ring. So what? OK, so if that makes you feel more at ease, I can do that. OK, so we look at this polynomial ring. And we will actually be, we want to study this polynomial ring Kx of polynomials with coefficients in K more carefully. In particular, we will be interested in questions of divisibility, so when one polynomial is divisible by another. And so before doing this, I want to introduce generally, so study the visibility of polynomials. So we'll be. Actually, most likely this will be a review of something that you have learned in high school, but at any rate, it's, you know, we want to have it in our language. So first, then I introduce the visibility in general for any integral domain. So definition, so let R be an integral domain. So then we take two elements, AB in R. We say that A, you know, it's the obvious definition, A divides B in R, which is denoted A divides B. If the obvious thing holds, there exists an element C in R such that A times C is equal to B. OK. That's not very surprising. There's a definition. And otherwise, we see, so if there's no such C, then we say that A does not divide B, obviously. And we write it as A does not divide B. OK. And there are some obvious properties. So for instance, we have that. So A, so obvious properties. So by definition, A divides B, if and only if B is an element of the ideal generated by A. And well, and so we also have that and it follows from this that if A divides B and B divides C, then it follows that A divides C. That's also trivial. From the definition, and if A divides B and A divides C, then follows that A divides B plus C. OK. So obviously, there's nothing to say. This is completely obvious from the definition. Now, for the divisibility of polynomial, I have to kind of remind you of R1. So you have something that, as I said, you learned at school. You first learned it for the integers. If you have two integers, you can divide one integer by another with the rest, whatever. 7 is equal to 1 times 5 plus 2. And you can also do it for polynomials. I think I'm pretty sure that you have made such computations of dividing one polynomial by another and then sometimes there was a rest by the typical algorithm, which is sometimes called the Euclidean algorithm, but I will reserve that name for something else. So the divisibility of polynomials is governed. Or you can check it by the algorithm of division with rest. That I think you must have all seen. I, however, formulated precisely and prove that it works. So theorem, division with rest. So let's take two polynomials with coefficients in a k. So k is still our field. And we assume that the second one is not 0. So not the polynomial, which just is the constant polynomial 0. So then there exists unique polynomials q in kx. This stands somehow for the quotient. And r in kx, which would be the rest, such that we can write f, f equal to q times g plus r. And the r has a smaller degree than g. And the degree of r is smaller than the degree of g. Well, r is equal to 0. By definition, if you have the 0 polynomial, it doesn't really have a degree. I mean, I could say the 0 polynomial has degree minus 1. Then this would always hold. So this is the statement. And you prove this by dividing with rest by the usual algorithm. But I want to prove this by an inductive argument, which also tells you again what the algorithm is. So we make some kind of induction. So if our polynomial f is equal to 0, or the degree of f is smaller than the degree of g, well, then we are already done. We can just put q equal to 0 and r is equal to f. And trivially, it's fine. So this is somehow beginning of the induction. So if the degree of f is bigger than the degree of g, then we proceed by induction on the degree of f, which I want to call m. And so we have to somehow find a way to replace f by something of lower degree and use the statement for that. And we basically just do the obvious thing. Subtract the leading coefficient with the leading term. So let's see. So let a be the leading coefficient of f. So just remind you, so if f, say, has degree m, then this means it's the coefficient of x to the m. And b, the leading coefficient of g. And we write down another polynomial, which I call maybe f bar, which is just we subtract a suitable multiple of g from f in order to lower the degree. So let's see.  Now, the degree of g we know is smaller equal to m, because that was our assumption here. So this is a positive number. So this thing is actually polynomial with coefficients in k. So this is an element in kx. And this is a polynomial of degree m. This is a polynomial of degree m, because this had the degree m minus the degree of g. And then we, this had the degree of g. And it says, if we multiply it by x to the m minus degree of g, so the degree becomes degree of g. So you have two polynomials of degree m. So it follows that f bar has at least at most degree m. So we have the degree of f bar. So it's smaller equal to m. And in order to check whether it's m or smaller, we have to see what the coefficient of x to the m in f bar is, whether it's 0 or not. So let's compute it. So the coefficient of x to the m in f bar is what? Well, so we just compute it here. Here it is the coefficient of x to the m in f, which is a minus a divided by b, the coefficient of x to the m of this thing, which is the same as the coefficient of, as the leading coefficient here, times this. So this is a divided by b times b. And so this is 0. So thus, the degree of f bar is strictly smaller than m, or maybe f bar is also 0. So therefore, by induction, we can deduce that f bar can be written in this way. We have that f bar is equal, say, to q prime times g plus r prime with the degree of q prime is, say, whatever I want it. No, I don't know. With such that either r prime is equal to 0 or the degree of r prime is smaller than the degree of g. Well, now I just put the r that I wanted to find here to be r prime. And the q equal to q prime plus this thing, a divided by b, x to the m minus c degree of g. Then by definition, I mean by what we have just defined here, we find that, obviously, r prime still fulfills this condition. And we have that f is equal to q g plus r. And we had that. OK. So this is the division with rest. And so I should maybe say, I've said there exists a unique such thing. So what I've proven here is, first, the existence. And so I still have to prove the uniqueness, but that's kind of trivial. So assume we can write this thing in two different ways.  Now these are different ones. With the same assumption as before, that these are polynomials and the degree of r prime. So it's equal to 0 or not 1. So for each r and r prime, it holds that either they are 0 or the degree is smaller than the degree of g as before. So then we have that. So these things are equal. So I can take the difference. So 0 is equal to q minus q prime times g. I take the difference of these plus r minus r prime. Or in other words, r minus r prime is equal to q minus q prime times g. So if q is different from q prime, then it follows that the degree of q minus q prime is bigger equal to 0. And so the degree, if you take the product of two polynomials, the degree is much bigger. So it follows the degree of r minus r prime is bigger equal to 0 times the degree of g. But this is impossible because both r and r prime have degrees smaller than the degree of g. So this is a contradiction. So thus q is equal to q prime. But now if q is equal to q prime, then r is just f minus this and the same for r prime. So also r is equal to r prime. OK, so this is simple. And as I said, if you look at how we prove this thing, we actually see that we have given an algorithm for making the division with rest. And the algorithm is precisely the one you learned at school. So if we take, so the proof gives an algorithm. We just see induction step is just one step in the algorithm for division with rest. So we can just do it if we have something like x to the 3 plus 4x plus 4x squared plus x plus 1. And we want to divide it by x plus 2. So we want to compute the division with rest of this. So we have to find x squared times the quotient of these two leading coefficients. So we get this is x squared. So we subtract this thing, x to the 3 plus 2x squared. So the difference will be 2x squared plus x plus 1. Now we have here 2x squared and we have x. So we have to take 2x. And so we subtract now 2x times this. So this 2x squared plus 4x. OK? And so if we subtract it, what we get? We get minus 3x plus 1. And so in order to get, we have here minus 3. And so this gives minus 3x minus 6. And the difference is 7. So the rest is 7. So this is how one does this division with rest. I mean, I think you have done this many times. It's also the same way how you do it with numbers. OK. Now when we have been talking about divisors, so we can also talk about common divisors and greatest common divisors. So let me define what greatest common divisors is and then use the Euclidean, this division with rest to compute the greatest common divisor of two polynomials. So definition. So r is, say, maybe still an integral domain. And we assume we have some elements, e1 to en, some elements in r. So an element r in r will be called a common divisor if it divides them all. Well, if a divides, if r, so this was en divides ei for all i equals 1 to n. And the greatest common divisor is one which is in a suitable sense, the largest of all common divisors. This actually means that every common divisor has to divide it. So a common divisor which is divided by all other common divisors. So r in r is called a greatest common divisor of e1 to en if it is a common divisor. And every common divisor of e1 to en will divide r. Then s divides r. So for instance, the greatest common divisor of 4 and 6 will be 2 in the integers. OK. So where are we? So it's clear by definition that the greatest common divisor is almost unique. It's not completely unique, but it's unique up to multiplying by a unit. Greatest common divisors up to multiplying by a unit. You have two greatest common divisors, s and r.  So now in our polynomial ring kx, we use this division with rest to compute a greatest common divisor. So in kx, use division with rest. This actually would also work in the integers with rest to compute a greatest common divisor. How does that go? So again, we take, so this is a polynomial mark. So let f and g be two polynomials. And we assume that g is, maybe they are both non-zero, whatever. Anyway, two non-zero polynomials. Now I write also r0 for f, r1 for g. And we make division with rest. So we divide f by g with rest. So we write f, so by division with rest, we have f, which is also r0, is equal to q1 times g plus r2.  Or to put it in this form, we have r0 is equal to q1 times r1 plus r2. And now, we reiterate this with r1 and r2. So we put, so as before, we have that the degree of r2 is smaller than the degree of g, which is r1. Or r2 is equal to 0. And now, we can reiterate this. So inductively, we define, so I do it once more. So I can say that r1 is equal to q2 times r2 plus r3 with g of r3 is smaller than the degree of r2, or r3 is equal to 0. This actually only obviously works if r2 is not equal to 0. Otherwise, it stops here. And so inductively, we have r, say, i minus 1 is equal to qi times ri plus ri plus 1 by division with rest. And the degree of ri plus 1 is smaller than the degree of ri. Or ri plus 1 is equal to 0. So we can inductively define all these polynomials as long as the rest that we get here is non-zero. Because obviously, we cannot divide by 0. So this defines us these polynomials, 0, r1, r2, and so on, until rn, until at the last step, it divides it. You can see this cannot go on forever, because the degree gets almost always smaller. So at some point, at the worst case, so the degree would become negative if it would go forever, which is not possible. So at some point, it must be that the rest is 0. So this procedure stops if, so at some point, when, say, rn minus 1, for some n, rn minus 1 is equal to qn times rn. And the rest is 0, rn, I don't know. So at some point, we will have this. And now the claim is that this last, so the rest of the previous division, this last one we get here, is a common divisor. So claim is a greatest common divisor, rn is a greatest common divisor of f and g in kx. So now we just have to prove that it's first a common divisor, and then that every other common divisor divides it. And we do this somehow out of this procedure. So we have always this equation, so we have always have this sequence of equations. Here, ri minus 1 is equal to qi ri plus ri plus 1. So if we start here, we first start with this one. This one says that rn divides rn minus 1. So we want to first show rn is a common divisor of f and g. So we see by definition, we have that rn divides rn minus 1 by this last equation. No, yes. And then we can look at the next one. We have, if we look, rn minus 2 is equal to qi minus 1, qn minus 1, rn minus 1 plus rn. So here you see that rn divides these two, and so it divides rn minus 2. So rn divides rn minus 2. And so if we go to the next step, at each step, we will have that if we go one further, we have that rn divides this one and this one, therefore divides this one. So inductively, we have rn divides ri plus 1, and rn divides ri, thus it follows ri divides ri minus 1. So it follows that rn divides all the ri. And so in particular, it divides r0, which is f, and r1, which is g, rn, of course. rn divides r0, divides all ri, and therefore rn divides r0, which is f, and rn divides r1, which is g. So it is a common divisor. And now we want to see it is a greatest common divisor. And here we have kind of to prove it's a common divisor, we started kind of from the bottom from the rn, and then we worked our way up. And to prove it's the greatest common divisor, we start from the top and work our way down through these equations. So to see, so let S be a common divisor of f and g. In order to show it's a greatest common divisor, we have to see that S divides rn. OK. So S divides f and g. So that means S divides f, which is r0, and S divides g, which is r1. And now we have defined, we had that r0 is equal to say q1 times r1 plus r2. So S divides this one, and S divides this one. So it divides also a difference, which is r2. So it follows that S divides r2. And now inductively we have this, that we have i minus 1 is equal to qi ri plus, what's wrong? And we know, and inductively we know, that S divides ri minus 1, and S divides ri. So it divides this term and this term, so it divides the difference, which is ri plus 1. So again, we find that S divides all the ii. S divides all ri, in particular, S divides rn. And therefore, rn is the greatest common divisor. So this method of finding the greatest common divisor is sometimes called the Euclidean algorithm. Sometimes also just the division with rest is called the Euclidean algorithm. Anyway, so supposedly it's, I think it must be written down in the elements of Euclide. So it's not the newest of all, maybe just for integers though. OK, so I want to use this to give a, I mean, as a consequence, I want to prove something which doesn't look very exciting at all. Which, however, we will use later to prove a very important theorem, is a theorem of the primitive element. So it's a rather trivial fact, which, however, we will want to use for something important. The statement is the following. Let k be a field, and let k be a subfield. So that just means that k is a field, and small k is a field, and small k is a subring of the large k. And k is a subring of k. So we make this assumption. And as a side remark, we note, I maybe should have written it before. Maybe I state the corollary afterwards. So note that in this case, if you take the polynomial ring with coefficients in k, in small k, this will be is a subring of the polynomial ring with coefficients in the large k. That's clear. If you take part of any two polynomials with coefficients in small k, it will lie here. But obviously, so this is obvious. So now the corollary under these assumptions. So let's take f and g to be two polynomials with coefficients in the larger field, kx. And we form. So the greatest common divisor of these two polynomials is not unique, but it's unique up to multiplying by a unit. So let H be a greatest common divisor of, I'm not wondering whether what I say is correct. Let me just check. So I think, no, no. OK. So actually, I just take the polynomial here. So now I take the greatest common divisor of these two polynomials as polynomials in the larger field. So I mean, in principle, in the larger field, in this, there are more common divisors. There might be more greatest common divisors. So if the leading coefficient of H is an element in the smaller k, small k, then H is a polynomial in small kx. Now, this is almost completely trivial, as we also will see from the proof. But at least in theory, if you just think of it, if you have a ring with two elements in a ring, you take their greatest common divisor in a ring, and you take a bigger ring and take their greatest common divisor, they don't need to be equal. But here, we have a criterion in this particular case. And if the ring is bigger, there might be just more elements. But here, it is like this. And so just to remind you, I had used this Euclidean algorithm, so division with rest, to compute a greatest common divisor of two polynomials. But it's not unique. It's one way to get the greatest common divisor. But the greatest common divisor is only well-defined up to multiplying by a unit. So there are. But then, we will now see that this is basically trivial by this Euclidean algorithm. So we do have one greatest common divisor given by the Euclidean algorithm. So let L be the greatest common divisor of F and G computed. So as it is computed by the Euclidean algorithm, so this division with rest, the Euclidean algorithm in large kx. So there's one way how I can compute the greatest common divisor of F and G. I mean, one instance of it by just applying this Euclidean algorithm. I get some polynomial. But if you look at it, how do you compute this greatest common divisor? You do it by successively doing division with rest. So if you start with two polynomials in small kx, you stay in small kx. It's always you take the rest, dividing one by the other. The fact that the ring in which you kind of think you are is the other kx doesn't affect the algorithm at all. So as L is computed by repeated division with rest from F and G, it follows that L is a polynomial with coefficients in small k. And now if I take any greatest common divisor of F and G, then it follows that kh must be equal to L up to multiplying by unit. But the units in a polynomial ring are the non-zero constants. So it follows that h is equal to A times L for A, an element in k without 0. Well, we can look at the leading coefficients. So we have let hn, the leading coefficient of h, ln, the leading coefficient of L. So then, no, I just multiply by a constant. I have hn is equal to A times ln. So if this leading coefficient is also in k, then by dividing by this, we find that A is in k. So if hn is in the small k, then it follows that A is in k. And so the polynomial, h is obtained from L by multiplying by an element in k. So it lies in kx. So I maybe should have called it k and L. But so there's a small k and the big k. And thus, we have that h, which is equal to A times L, is in kx, in small kx. So it's very simple. But as I said, we will see that it's actually useful. Now we want so much for this greatest common divisors. Now we want to, if you have a polynomial, you can evaluate it at an element in k or at an element in a bigger ring than k in a ring that contains k. And once you can evaluate it, you can also talk about zeros of the polynomial, namely, the elements in, for instance, in k where the polynomial is 0. So let me do this. So we can evaluate. So definition. So we have, so let f be equal to sum i equal 0 to n, ai x to the i be a polynomial with coefficients in k. And say let R be a ring that contains k as subring. So ring here, again, means commutative with 1. What? What? k is a field, yeah. So k is always a field in the whole story. So I started in the beginning that k was a field and kx was a polynomial ring. But so I mean, I don't really need that here. Let k be a field. But I had all the time assumed that k was a field. And R is a ring. So then, so for an element S in R, we can define f of S. Well, it just means you replace the variable x by the element S. And this x to the i means really multiplying S i times 3 itself. So sum i equal 0 to n, ai S to the i. So this is an element in R. So we can take the value of f at any element in this ring, R. In particular, at any point in k. And so obviously, as this is all the structure here with multiplications compatible with this, if we take the sum of two polynomials and we have evaluated at S, this will be equal to f of S plus g of S. Because the sum is just by adding the corresponding coefficients. And so it does the same. And the product of polynomials is defined in such a way that if I take the product of two polynomials and evaluate at S, this is f of S times g of S. This is why one had this crazy definition. So we see that evaluating at the point S is actually a ring homomorphism. So thus, I could call it the evaluation at S from kx to R, which sends a polynomial f to f of S is a ring homomorphism. So we have which one would call the evaluation at S. So for the moment, we will use this evaluation only for S action element of our k. But later, we will do it in other links, in particular in bigger fields. I just introduce it generally here. So now if we have that, so an element, say S in R, will be called a 0 of our polynomial if f of S is equal to 0. So if this is a 0 element in R. So this was general, we have this R. Now we go back to just having k. So take S in k. So then the first not very surprising result that I want to show you is that if an element A in k is a 0 of f, then f is divisible by x minus a. This is a very exciting new result. And then we will use this fact to prove that if you have a polynomial in kx, then the number of 0s it has in k can be at most the degree of the polynomial. And it's quite easy to see how one would prove that from this. So maybe I call proposition.  So maybe, I don't know. I think it even holds like that. So let's be a polynomial in kx and A in k. Then A is 0 of f if and only if x minus a divides f in kx. So that means that we can write f equal to x minus a times g where g is an element is another polynomial in kx. OK, so let's see how we can prove this difficult result. Well, the only thing we know is division with rest. So we do division with rest. So maybe first we do the trivial direction. And then we do the almost trivial one. So if x minus a divides f, so then we have f is equal to x minus a times g. And so if I take f of a, then we can just put a for x. This is a minus a times g of a. And obviously this is 0, so this is 0. So this direction is clear. So now let's look at the other one. For this we use division with rest. So we assume that f of a is equal to 0 for some a in k. So now we make division with rest by x minus a. So we have f is equal to x minus a times some g plus some rest. And the rest is either 0 or its degree is smaller than the degree of x minus a, which is 1. So that means r is equal to 0, or r is a constant polynomial, of a non-zero constant polynomial. That means that r is an element in k. OK, now we again, but we know now we can compute f of a, which we happen to know it's 0. Again, we already know how compute f of a compute such a product. This is a minus a times g of a plus r of a, but r is constant. So it's just r. So this part is 0. So it means that r is equal to 0. And therefore, we find that indeed x minus e a divides g. OK. And now, so as a corollary, we find this fact that the polynomial of degree n can have as most n zeros. Or let think f be a polynomial coefficient in x, which is not the 0 polynomial. Then f has at most degree of f zeros in k. Well, obviously from what we have here, that's trivial induction, essentially. So if whenever we have a 0, we divide a, we divide by x minus a, until we are left with nothing. So we make induction on the degree of f. So if the degree of f is equal to 0, then f is a constant polynomial. And it's a non-zero constant polynomial. f is a non-zero constant. Therefore, it has no zeros, because it's always the same. So that case is OK. So the degree is 0. The number of zeros is also 0. OK, now we make the induction step.  So now, we want to show that f has at most as many zeros. So we start at this by saying, so if f has no zeros, then obviously our statement is true. And then we are done. So we can assume that f has a 0. So let's assume a in k is a 0 of f. Well, then obviously what we want to do is divide by x minus a, because we know f is divisible by it. f is equal to x minus a times g, where g is a polynomial in kx and the degree of g is one less than the degree of f. Thus we know that g has at most n zeros by induction. And so if, say, b is a 0 of f, then we have f of b is equal to 0, which is b minus a times g of b. Now, if a is different from b, so is a 0 of f different from a, then this is non-zero. So it follows that g of b is equal to 0. So thus, f has at most n plus 1, 0, namely all the zeros of g and addition a. OK, so this is in k. So this was a rather simple thing. Let me see how many minutes I have. So this was the end of this section. It's not quite clear. I think if it's fine with you, I would stop now because I wouldn't. What? What does it mean? Two minutes. OK, so another time I will maybe get it back with interest. And so I will stop now. Thank you. So I don't want to start a new chapter now.


Feel like in this modern world. It's easy to get lost in like numbers. It's like how many views did my video get how many this but like It's not the right metric. It's not the right metric because you never know who one Person could be the next you know the next most influential person. So you post one thing and One person there's there's an asymmetry man There's an asymmetry sometimes to the results that you have and the fact you have on the world and good People you help You know, so don't always just chase numbers. It's hard. It's hard to do because now everybody's glued to the numbers It's like so but if you're doing what you are Destined to do what your strength is the business that you would do because the intrinsic value like you would do this business Only if you ever made $40,000 a year Then it doesn't matter If you're instantly famous or not


It's hard to put in the hard work. That's why it's called hard work. Do you know what's even more hard than hard work? Being broke. The question is, what are you going to do about it in this moment? Today, we're going to be talking about how hard life can be. And we're going to talk about how to work through it. And I want to talk about this because no matter who you are, no matter where you live, no matter where you're from, life is going to be hard at some point. Life, you can go through this entire life, this human experience and you can't go through the entire thing without getting some scars along the way, some injuries. You can't go without getting a couple broken bones. So today, we're going to talk about how life is going to be hard either way, but you might not realize it.   So today, we're going to talk about how to relieve yourself from life being so hard and how to make it easier and also how to have a happier life as we're going through. But the best part about life being hard is that you get to pick your hard. What do I mean by that?  So you can either have immediate life being hard or the rest of your life, life can be hard. And let me give you a couple of examples so this makes a lot more sense, right? Do you know what is hard? Hard work. Hard work is hard. It's hard to force yourself to work 30, 40 extra hours on top of the job you already have. It's hard to have sleepless nights. You could start your business. You could support your family or be able to travel the world or start your dream job or whatever it is or impact the people that you want. It's hard to put in hard work. It's hard to put in 60, 70, 80, 100 hours a week for a year, two years, three years sometimes. It's hard to put in the hard work. That's why it's called hard work. Do you know what's even more hard than hard work? Being broke. Being broke is way harder. I'll tell you, I've been in both situations before. I've been in a situation where I've been really, really broke. And I've been in a situation where I've worked really, really hard. I've been in a situation where I was five months behind a more car payment. I almost lost my car. I've been in the exact same situation that same time where I lived off of pasta for two months inside of my one bedroom apartment in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Lost the company I was running, ran it into the ground, lost all my money, went into debt. Lived off pasta for two months. Literally, all I ate for two months was pasta sauce, which was $1.88 at Walmart, and a box of pasta, which is $0.88 at Walmart. That's how I lived for two months.  And if I hadn't made any changes in my life, guess what? I would have been in the exact same situation. You know what else is hard about being broke? Not being able to provide for your family the way that you want to. Not being able to provide for your family the way that you think that they deserve to be provided for. You know what's hard? The judgment that you place on yourself for not being able to provide for your family. All of those things are hard. What's hard is seeing that some people can, you know, take their children to other countries and travel with them and get experiences, be able to afford to put them into a college or be able to help them with their first car. That's hard to see that you can't do that, but other people can. So either you can decide that you're going to work really hard right now and take the hard in this moment or you can realize that the rest of your life is going to be hard if you don't work hard. You see what I mean? The beautiful thing is that the choice is yours. Either you can work hard or you can have life be hard for you because you're broke. Being broke is hard. Hard work is hard. You get to choose what's hard you want. Another example, if you think about it, going along with hard work, like I've been lazy. I've procrastinated.  Have you ever procrastinated? Have you ever put off what it is that you actually truly need to do because you don't want to do it right now? In that moment when you're being lazy, in that moment when you're procrastinating, in that moment when you're sitting on top of the couch and you're just scrolling through Instagram and you're thinking about, you know, just trying to not pay attention to your worries. That's not easy. I get it. Not to have that situation. It's not easy to be stuck in that situation. It's easy to choose to stay in that situation because it's easier right now. But I want you to realize in that moment, it's easy. But what's not easy about it is the life that it's going to give you for the rest of your life until you make changes.  Okay, well show me your actions. If you don't like your circumstances, let me see what your actions are on a daily basis. So if you're being lazy or you're procrastinating, you're choosing easy right now, which is going to turn into hard later. Now, if you were to flip that and go, you know what? I'm going to put in the work. I'm going to get some willpower.  Well, it's going to be hard now. I promise you that. But by putting in the work now, life will become easier down the road. So either you choose easy now and hard later or hard now and easy later because you either have a choice in every situation. It's either instant gratification or it's delayed gratification. Sitting on Instagram, just looking at your phone, not doing the stuff that you need to is instant gratification.  I'm able to look through these things and I don't have to do any work right now. But that's not going to put money in your bank account. That's not going to give you the life that you want. Delayed gratification is putting in the work now, knowing that you're not going to see the fruits of your labor for a few months, a few years maybe. Like you don't plan to tree and immediately get fruit from it. It's got to grow and that's exactly how your life has to be as well. So the difference between instant gratification, delayed gratification, instant gratification is sitting on the couch, being on Instagram, whatever it is. Choosing the easier route right now. Delayed gratification is putting in the hard work. It's really hard now, but it's going, you're going to get the fruits of your labor later on down the road. Another example of choosing your hard of instant gratification versus delayed gratification is this. Do you know what's hard? Eating healthy. It's hard. It's hard to say no to delicious food. And you know, you can make healthy food delicious, but I'll tell you this, I don't know a whole lot of things that really compete with a big old pizza, but you have to say no to pizza. That's hard. It's hard to eat no sugar. It's hard to say no to alcohol for some people. It's hard to be healthy and to take care of your body, to say no to gluten, to say, you know, no to red meats, to say no to the things that the greasy stuff, the fried chicken, whatever it is, all of those things that taste so good. It's hard to say no to them. And when you say no to them in the moment, you don't get any immediate gratification. It's all delayed gratification. But do you know what else is hard? What else is hard? Being overweight. Being obese. Your body failing on you because of not being taken care of for years. Having complications because of your weight. Having complications because of choices that you made in the past, which were based off of instant gratification instead of delayed gratification, right? Possibly not being able to live as long. That's hard. You know what else is hard? Not being able to see your children walk down the aisle because of choice that you made in the past. Not being able to see your grandkids grow up because of choice that you made in the past. That's the difference between instant gratification versus delayed gratification. In those choices, when you look at and take yourself outside of your own head, you realize it's not just hard on you. That's also going to be hard on other people down the road, not just yourself. So one of them is hard now, which is saying no in eating healthy and the things that you should and actually taking care of your body. And one of them is hard later, which is eating unhealthy now but then seeing what happens down the road. Seeing the repercussions of maybe the decisions that you didn't make in the bad choices that you made. Simply because you wanted instant gratification or as Joe Rogan says, mouth pleasure. You just want something that tastes good. That's all that you're worried about. You're not worried about the repercussions in the future. So both of those are hard. One of them is hard now and easy later. One of them is easy now and hard later. Which one do you choose? The choice is always up to you. Let's give you another example. You know what else is hard? Working out five times a week. I don't know about you. I've never been in. I've never loved working out. I forced myself to do it and I enjoy it after I'm done but I enjoy it. Don't enjoy the process of thinking about doing it. I don't enjoy the process of showing up to the gym. I don't enjoy the process of working out. Lifting heavy. That's hard. Going for runs. That's hard. Forcing yourself to get off the couch. That's hard. Those things are hard. But do you know what else is hard?  Having joint issues. Having muscular issues. Skeletal issues. Not being able to play with your grandkids in the yard and throw the football because of choices that you made in the past of being too immobile. Like we have such sedentary lives. We're sitting all of the time and we have to realize that just, you know, it's like they say sitting is the new cancer. People are going to start dying and droves because of the fact that they're not taking care of their body and sitting for long periods of time can really start to get at you.  It's hard to get up and do a workout. But once again, if you look at them one of them is easy now and hard later. One of them is hard now and easy later. But once again, what do I say? You get to choose which hard you want to go for. One of them is hard now. Working out. Forcing yourself to do things you don't want to do. One of them is hard later. Being immobile. Being injured. Not being able to play with your grandkids. Maybe not being around. Maybe not being able to leave a wheelchair because you live such a sedentary life. So which hard do you want to choose? What else is hard? Tough conversations are hard. It's hard to sit down with someone that you love. Maybe a spouse or someone to your relationship with or maybe close friend or maybe a family member. It's hard to sit down and have a conversation that's tough that absolutely needs to be had. But it's also hard to see what happens if you don't have those conversations. If you don't have that tough conversation of hey, I think that maybe you should stop drinking. If you have that tough conversation with somebody maybe they don't stop drinking. Maybe something happens to them down the road. That's not very good. You don't have those tough conversations with your spouse that you're afraid to have because you're like, I really want to make sure that I don't get into an argument. I'm worried about that. You don't have those tough conversations. It would happen down the road. Maybe the marriage starts to dissolve because it's been years and years and years of not communicating at the level that you need to communicate. So it's tough to have those. It's hard to have those tough conversations right now. But any relationship the most important part is communication. So if you're avoiding conversations that need to be had something might happen down the road. Something might deteriorate down the road. Somebody's health might deteriorate down the road. Your relationship might deteriorate down the road. It's you choose your hard now or it's going to be hard later. Which path do you want to take? One is hard now. One is hard later. The beautiful thing about it is it's completely up to you. Do you know what else is hard? Financial discipline is hard. To not want to compete with everybody that you see on Instagram. That's hard. To be able to not go out and spend money when you don't need to. It's harder to stay home and cook something than is to go out to eat. Financial discipline is hard. Sitting down and taking time and putting a budget together every single month and making sure you're sticking to it is hard. It takes time. It's easier not to do it. But do you know what's even harder than that?  Being in debt. Not being able to do the things that you want to. Not being able to travel to the place that you want to. Not being able to have the freedom that you want to because you didn't sit down and make a budget because you didn't sit down and make a plan. All of these things are hard. It's either hard now or it's hard later. Instant gratification is so much easier. It is. That's why so many people choose instant gratification because it's easier. But if you were to fast forward 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now and see what your life would be if you decided to choose instant gratification every single time? You wouldn't be happy about it.  In the moment, it seems awesome. In the moment, all I wanna do is sit down on my couch, eat a big pizza and some ice cream. That sounds amazing, doesn't it? But if I fast forward and have those types of decisions every single day for the next 30 years, my body, my mind, my finances, my life, my relationships are not gonna be in the order that I want them to be. So I don't know about you. Instant gratification seems a lot easier. Delayed gratification is a lot harder. Why? Because you're working something that you don't immediately get to see. You don't plant a seed in the ground and it immediately grows into a fruit-bearing tree. But you know that when you plant the seed into the ground and you take care of it and you water it and you give it a sunlight, take care of it and you water it and you give it sunlight. Eventually, one years, two years, three years down the road, it will start to bear fruit. And that is what makes it easier. That's when you're actually going to start loving the decisions that you made in the past.  Tiny decisions over the past 10, 15 years got you to where you are right now. Whether it's what you want or whether it's you don't want, the beautiful thing about that though is that from right now into the future, the next 15 years of your life, where you are in 15 years, will be a bunch of little, teeny, tiny decisions. Did you choose instant gratification or did you choose delayed gratification? Which one did you choose? One's easy now and hard later, one's hard later, hard now, easy later.  Same situation or sometimes even worse. So at some point, you have to sit down and be real with yourself. You have to realize that nobody else is in control of your life. Nobody can make you do something you don't want to do.  Nobody's telling you to stop having the extra beers when you come home from work. Nobody's telling you to stop doing those things. You have to be the person that does it for you. You have to realize at some point in time either my life is going to be really great in 10 years or I'm not going to be enjoying my life in 10 years. And that's the truth. The question is, what are you going to do about it in this moment? Life is going to be hard. It's hard for everybody. Like I said in the beginning, nobody goes through this life without scars.  But I guarantee you, if you choose hard now, not only a little bit easier later on down the road, but you'll be much more satisfied with the life that you've built.  We decided to push yourself a little bit more. You decided to put in the hard work. You decided to work out.  You decided to get your finances in order. You decided to fix your relationships. All of those were hard. But if you fast forward in 10 years, all of them are going to be so much easier and so much better because you chose the right choice. Your life is your choice. Nobody is telling you to take instant gratification. Nobody is also telling you to take delayed gratification. You choose which one you want. It's either easy now or hard later or hard now, easy later. The choice, as always, in everything in this beautiful life is yours. Hey, thanks so much for watching this video. If you wanna learn even more about Master Your Mind, click right here and watch this video as well. I always say, excuses are like buttholes. Everyone's got one and they all stink.


Hello and welcome to the Monday market update with me Dave Madden today's date is Monday the 18th of June 2018 And the time has just gone 1125 British summer time Quick rundown of what's been going on today. We're seeing European equity markets are lower a number of factors are going on here Trade tensions are running high between the United States and China on Friday We saw the United States Announced a new raft of tariffs against China China retaliated over the weekend This is all pressure on global equity markets over a few years at the trade war is stepping up We're not seeing any side back down at the moment. We're not any closer to an agreement The traders are a bit worried about this So we are seeing stocks in Europe and the red the German market The DAX is also under pressure given a bit of political uncertainty over in Germany Angela Merkel is the head of the CDU the Christian Democratic Union and their sister party in Bavaria the CSU the Christian Social Union of Bavaria are at logarithms at the moment In relation to immigration policy and there's some people even saying that this could be this good This this this issue could even actually put major pressure on Angela Merkel herself So we're seeing a little bit of a sell-off in the tax on top of that Let me look at the major economic and corporate events of the week Looking at the week ahead article, which can be found on the news and analysis section of our website Tomorrow we have the first quarter figures from Ashted Tomorrow on Wednesday. We've housing data coming out of the United States. It's about the mixture of Homebuilding starts existing home sales and building permits coming out tomorrow and Wednesday a Wednesday We did the Barclay group the British homebuilder have their full year figures out on Thursday We have two updates from central banks. We have the Swiss National Bank the SNB And we have the Bank of England the BOE Both policies are typically remain unchanged, but let's not for the Any kind of clues or the voting breakdown or any kind of clues Bank of England may give away in the statement of press Conference in relation to what future monetary policy could be on Thursday the OPEC meeting begins and A few days ago that was there was talk OPEC We're going to increase the output on a daily basis by 1 million barrels per day as of this morning There's no talk that they're increased they're looking to increase the production by only between 300,000 and 600,000 barrels per day So it would appear that the chatter is now that production increase is still on But it's not gonna be as sizable as traders and issues expected So the OPEC meeting begins on Thursday and finishes on Friday and our Friday We have the Eurozone flash manufacturing and CPI manufacturing And service numbers coming on that this gives indication of how well the Eurozone economy is doing a bearing in mind last week You heard from the the European Central Bank That the bond buying scheme the policy is will wind down in 2018 the stimulus package That is but we're not going to have a rate rise from the bank from the European Central Bank Until at least the back end of 2019 if we have one in 2019 at all So take a look now at a few of the major markets starting off with the FT100 So the FT100 of Seattle decent run from March to May for those two months And we've pulled back ever so slightly since then and the last couple of sessions We have seen a bit of a downward pressure But the upward trend that's been in place for you know about three months I'll still very much play if you hold above this level here, which comes in play at 75 91 It's likely you could see the market retesting 7,800 or up to 7,900 even if you drift lower Sport make them into play at this area here. Is this the sport area at a 70 7,482 And even below that sport make them into play at this red line here between the moving average which comes in play at 7441 Take a look now what's going on on the German market sure market is it has also been a fairly solid offer trend since March We obviously average a size will retreat here and the high of June didn't quite get as high as the high of May So every so slightly just Just finished shy of that But we are still above this red line here the turn the moving average which comes to play at 12776 if you hold north of that line of the red line It's likely that the positive move will continue it should continue to press on higher from here We could be looking at targeting 13,200 and beyond that we could be like 10 towards 13,400 this area here notice we saw better consolidation In both December and January In the 13,400 region and if you go beyond that we've been looking up towards 13,600 It's only if you break this level here the late may low of 12th of Which comes into play at about 12,554 This area here could actually could be could that would be a bit concerned with market could be hit back down towards 12,400 or possibly even as low as 12,300 take a look at what's going on in the in the In the Dow Jones This year is the US 30 cash the Dow Jones so after seeing a the beginning of an upper trend a collection of higher highs and Higher lows on the Dow. We didn't see them asking the market like other global markets pullback in recent sessions We're still We're not too far away from the three month high So we're still in the in the upper trend if you do continue to drift lower in the near term We could find support at this year in line here the one-day moving average which comes to play at 24,724 And then if you even you move south of that we could support could come into play at this red line here The 20 moving average which comes to play at 24,270 79 moves to the upside We could be looking at re-testing this this area here north in around the 25,340 market around here if you go beyond that the late the early March high of 25,507 I think I'll be on that Terriers if you look in towards the mid of mid February high of twenty five thousand eight hundred and twenty one As I mentioned this talk this talk that the we could see a a Smaller than expected increase It's more than in output from OPEC. There was talk of a production increase of one million bars per day There's no talk that that's going to be between any increased will be will be between three thousand and six hundred thousand So we have seen the price of oil bounce back today, so Taking a look here at print at WTI We can see it that we have a size of decent enough move pulled back here If we can hold north of this level here today's low at sixty three spot fifty eight We could be looking at re-testing this yellow line here The one to move the average which comes to play at sixty five spot forty one No, so I feel a few occasions and actually that as a support Well, the mark was edging higher. So may actually resistance as they're pushing higher from here beyond that We could be looking at it towards six seven dollars a barrel and then beyond that we could be looking at it towards sixty eight spot fifty nine If you take out the recent lows here at a sixty six sixty three spot fifty eight We could be looking any back down towards the early eight per low of sixty one spot seventy eight Take a look now. This is a brain crude oil. So similar is looking chart On a brain crude oil obviously at a major down day and Friday But we haven't had managed to actually pull back a bit given the There's talk the output is going to be lower than they should originally expected So we continue to push on higher from here We could be looking at re-testing this blue line here of the fifty moving average Which comes to play at seventy five spot eighty one not on a few occasions did manage to act as a support So it could active resistance in the near term and move beyond that could take us up towards a seventy seven This area here and then beyond that you could be looking at the the late may high of seventy eight spot ninety eight If you didn't continue to take out the recent lows We could be like me heading back below seventy two or perhaps even down towards seventy one dollars a barrel itself Over on the currency markets We take a look at your dollar your dollars been in a fairly obvious downward trend since mid-air But we know she quite an aggressive sell-off. We did have a bounce back here I couldn't really get I couldn't really get a hold hold above eight one spot eighteen eight fifty one Why we remain south of this this area here. It's likely that the downward trend is going to remain a player If you continue to push on the sort lower from here We could be looking at testing the at the may low of a one spot fifteen ten And if you go beyond below that we could be looking at taking us back down towards the one fourteen area So we really would need to take out this high here at one spot eighteen fifty one before it become more confident that the That the downward trend is being negated It's coming to an end if you do much much push out higher from here We could be looking heading back up to up towards the fifth of the moving average which comes into play in all In the in around the one spot nineteen twenty two mark and then beyond that up towards one twenty And then finally taking a look at pound US dollar service duration here We're by some a very obvious downward trend from the put up since it since since April The market after after sitting a bounce back in late may is has been drifting lower yet again If you continue to edge lower from here We could be looking at every testing that may know of one spot thirty two or four and move below that could take Us back down towards one thirty one or even down as low as one spot thirty twenty seven Move to the upside could account a resistance that the the recent may high of one spot thirty four seventy two And then beyond that traders could look back up towards this turn moving average this red line here at one spot thirty six Nineteen well, that's all for me this week. Thank you very much