Hello, everyone. I'm going to present you a joint work with Shweta Agrawal called Indi-singlishability Obfuscation without Maps, Attacks and Fixes for Noisy Linear FE. This talk is going to be an obfuscation, and more precisely, what we did is we studied some construction, some IO construction Indi-singlishability Obfuscation Construction, proposed by Shweta Agrawal at Eurocrypt last year. And what we found with this study is that we found two attacks on the construction and we proposed a fix that prevents these two attacks. So let me briefly start with IO. So you probably already know that IO is a very useful tool for constructing cryptographic primitives. And there has been multiple candidate IO that have been proposed so far, which can be roughly grouped into two categories. The first one is what I'm going to call direct constructions of IO using multinar maps. And the second category, which is the one that we're going to be interested in in this talk, is constructions that use bootstrapping from some variants of functional encryption and use that to construct IO in a provable way. The construction we're going to be interested in here is one of this new generation of IO. And so more precisely, as I already said, this is a construction from Shweta last year, and she showed that if you have a primitive called Noisy Linear Functional Encryption with LWE, you can use that to construct indi-singlishability obfuscation in a provable way. And so together with this bootstrapping, she also proposed a direct construction of NLINE FE, which is the one we're going to study in this talk. Let me just mention that there has been a very long line of work on bootstrapping variants of FE to construct IO. And there has been a recent, very interesting recent work which can build IO from pairings and a weak and leaky variant of LWE. Okay, so let's go back to our focus here, which is the direct construction of Noisy Linear FE from Shweta last year. And so let me just say a few words about NLINE FE. It's not going to be needed for the rest of the talk, so you can skip it if you don't want to know about it. And let me first say a few words about LINEAR FE, Functional Encryption. So in LINEAR FE, you have ciphertext that corresponds to vector, a message which is a vector. Secret key also derived with respect to a vector. And when you decrypt a ciphertext with a secret key, what you recover is the inner product between the vector corresponding to the secret key and the vector corresponding to the ciphertext. And the property of the NLINE FE should be that this secret key and ciphertext hides everything about the secret message X except this inner product. Now if you consider Noisy Linear FE, it's almost the same except that instead of recovering the inner product, you recover this inner product plus some noise. And so like previously, you would like that ciphertext and secret key hides everything except this approximation of the inner product. And you also would like that the last bit of the inner product are hidden. Meaning that if you have two inner products that are roughly the same, you should not know which one it is. The last bit should be hidden by the noise. So about the NLINE FE construction we will be interested in, the one by Shweta. She already did some analysis of the construction and she proved that under non-standard assumption, if the adversary has only access to one ciphertext, then the scheme should be secure. So this assumption that the adversary can only access one ciphertext is a bit problematic here because for concrete application when you want to bootstrap Noisy Linear FE to obfuscation, the adversary has access to more than one ciphertext. And so what we did is that we studied this construction in more details and we found two attacks on the construction. Both attacks use at least two ciphertexts. So it's not a contradiction with Shweta's proof. And so these two attacks, we call them multi ciphertext attack and the wrong attack. And then so we also derived the fixed construction which prevents the two attacks and on this construction we also studied other possible attacks and we didn't find any attack against this new construction and we propose a set of parameters for which we believe the scheme is secure. The plan of the talk now is to present the two attacks and how we can fix them. And you can see that I'm not going to present the construction of the Noisy Linear FE because it would be too long so I will just describe the parts that are needed for both attacks when they are needed. So let's start with the multi ciphertext attack. So in this attack we're going to focus on the ciphertext that are used in the scheme, just the ciphertext. And these ciphertexts, they are kind of ring LWE elements that have been slightly modified. So I'm going first to review the ring LWE problem. And so let's start with just few notation. RQ is going to be the ring of polynomials with coefficient mod Q and polynomials mod X to the n plus 1 for n or power of 2. And in blue I'm going to write small element in blue. So ring LWE, at least its small secret and multiple secret variant is the following. You would like to distinguish pairs of uniform elements mod Q from pairs of elements of this form. So AI is a label which is going to be uniform mod Q. And BIJ is computed by multiplying AI by some secret small sj plus some secret small noise. And small here you can imagine being drawn from a Gaussian distribution. And so the ring LWE assumption is that this is hard to distinguish from a pair of uniform elements mod Q. I mean this is a multiple small secret ring LWE problem, but it's known to be equivalent to the usual ring LWE assumption with only one secret and not small secret. So this is a nice problem, but for technical reasons in Schvetter's construction you would like to be able to multiply two B elements to get something of the following form. So here is the product. The first term is the product of the two labels times the product of the two secrets. And then plus the other term and we would like that all these other terms are small. So the product of the two secrets of the two errors, sorry, is going to be small, but the cross terms between labels with secrets and errors are going to be large because of the label. And so we would like to change slightly the distribution so that these terms are small. And so what Schvetter did is that she chose some specific label so she changed the problem slightly and now we're going to call this ring LWE with quality noise. And so the first change, as I said, is that the label now is going to be an entry element. So it's going to be something small divided by something small. And the entry assumption tells us that this should look uniform mod Q. So if this was the only change, it would be okay. It would just be a combination of entry and ring LWE. But there is another change here, which is that the secret now, sorry, the error now is also a multiple of G. So that's why we call it ring LWE with correlated noise because now the noise is correlated with the label. And so thanks to this error being a multiple of G, now when we compute the product of two B elements and we look at the cross terms that were too large for us, we see that they are multiplied by G because the error is now a multiple of G. And since the label is of the form something small divided by G, when we multiply this by G, we get something small. And so the middle terms now are small and we have what we want for the scheme. But now the assumption we are making here is that this ring LWE with correlated noise distribution is indistinguishable from uniform in RQ, in pairs of elements in RQ. And actually if we can distinguish this from uniform, we can break the construction. And so that's what I'm going to show you in the next slide. How can we distinguish this from uniform? So let's start with a very simple attack which can be easily fixed. So I'm going to take two pairs of elements with the two different labels and one secret, one common secret. What I would like to do here is multiply A1 by B2 and A2 by B1 so that the large terms are going to be the same. If I do the cross product, I get two large terms which are the same. And so if I subtract the two things, the large terms disappear and I'm left with A1G E2 minus A2G E1. And here, because of the shape of A1 and A2, this is again going to be small because it's multiplied by G. And so I get something small and I can distinguish that from uniform because if I were in the case where A and B were uniform, the resulting A1B2 minus A2B1 would be large with good probability. So I can distinguish, I can use this to distinguish this from uniform. So as I said, this can be easily fixed by just not publishing the labels A1 and A2. In the scheme, we don't need them to be public so we can just don't publish them. And then this attack cannot be made anymore. So now let me present you the second attack, a bit more of all, which is called multi-sifer text attack. And so now we only have elements without the label. We only have the B part of the elements. But we are going to consider, so here we have two labels and one secret, but we're going to consider now another secret, two labels and two secrets. So this is where the name multi-sifer text attack comes from because in fact every cipher text is going to be a combination, a collection of Bs for one secret and different labels. And when you ask for a new cipher text, you get the same label but with different secrets. And so here by asking for two cipher texts, we can get these two pairs of elements. So now what we would like to do is the same thing as before. We would like to multiply B11 by B22 and abstract B21 times B12 so that the large terms are cancelled and we hope that the other cross terms are going to be small. So we can either write everything and see that it's indeed going to be small or I want to present it to you in a slightly different way because this way can be generalized, this abstract view of the attack can be generalized to more sophisticated context. And in particular here, the context I've described to you is a bit simplified context. The true ring LWE with corollating noise problem is slightly different from that.  Okay, so let's consider this matrix B and the quantity we would like to compute is the determinant of B and we would like to show that this is small. So let me just rewrite B as the product of the A vector times the S vector plus the noise matrix. Using the definition of A, I can write it as 1 over G times vector F.  I just need to know that so I can forget about how the matrices are constructed. And now I'm going to compute the determinant of B and by linearity of the determinant with respect to the column of the matrix I can write it as the determinant of the two column of C plus the determinant of one column of C and one column of E, etc. And when doing so, I observe that all the 1 over G here are multiplied by G here except in the determinant of the two column of C. All those are determinants. There is no 1 over G left. So all the rest, the three last determinants are going to be small and the only thing that is going to be large is this first term. But since we know that the rank of C is 1, the determinant of C is 0 and so everything is going to be small. And since it's small, it can be distinguished from uniform at Q. So that's the multisypher text attack. Now if we want to prevent this attack, the natural way is to make the matrix C of rank 2 instead of rank 1. So if we go back to the attack I'm just rewriting everything and if the rank of C becomes 2 and the determinant of C is non-zero and when it's multiplied by 1 over G, it's going to be large and so we cannot distinguish that from something uniform anymore. So how do we make C of rank 2? Let's go back to where C comes from. C is the product of the vector F times the vector S. So if we want to make it rank 2 we should increase the dimension of these matrices and so we should take vectors F and vectors S and if we do that then we are going to multiply two matrices of rank 2 and so the product is going to be a rank 2 with high probability. So this means that now instead of taking rank elements A, I and S, I I'm going to take vectors and when I multiply them for creating the B elements I'm just going to take inner products instead of rank multiplication. And so this gives us a new problem which we call module LWE with correlated noise because now we have vectors with elements in the number field. And so taking vectors sufficiently long prevents the attack and so we believe that if the vectors have a dimension that is sufficient then this module LWE with correlated noise problem is hard to solve. So here just a few words on why we need the vectors to be large enough so why for instance F and S of dimension 2 are not sufficient. So you can see when we present the attack this way that you can generalize it by taking more than two levels and more than two secrets. You can make these matrices taller here and wider here until you get a matrix which is not full-run anymore. So you can always get a matrix which is not full-run by taking sufficiently many levels and sufficiently many secrets and you can still do the attack this way but if your matrix is becoming... I mean your matrix is going to become at least the dimension of F and S and if this dimension is large enough then when you are going to take the determinant of a matrix of this dimension even if all the entries of the matrix are small the determinant is going to be a product of a large number of small terms and this is not going to be small anymore so that's why for large enough vectors we hope that the attack is prevented and that the problem is actually hard to solve. So that was it for the Militiai Vertex attack let me now just say a few words about the wrong attack. So I didn't describe the security game that is used in 1909 FE so you will have to trust me here but what I claim is that when following these games the adversary can honestly play the following game on this slide so where the adversary chooses a small noise mu sends it to the challenger the challenger computes a larger noise N and sends back to the adversary either N or N plus mu and then the adversary has to guess which is the case and so if the adversary can win this game then it can also win the game related to the security of the Nlinafi scheme so that's the game we would like to win now and so let's have a look at the noise term N so this noise term is the following which is quite complicated it involves things coming from CypherTex and from SecretKids and the only thing I would like to tell you now is that this noise term here there is in the noise term some moduli and parts of the noise term are multiplied by different modulis which are public and which have the following properties that P1 is significantly larger than P0 which is significantly larger than all the black terms so using this property we can actually split the noise term into different rows here by doing the following so for instance if I just look at N mod P1 squared the first row is going to be 0 and all the rest is much smaller than P1 squared so I'm going to recover it exactly and if I recover it exactly it means that I can also recover the first line exactly and if I can continue like that now if I do mod P1 P0 I remove the second line etc etc so in the end I can split my noise term into 5 different noise terms each one multiplied by a different moduli and so I can forget the moduli they are public so I know I have 5 noise terms instead of some of a big noise term and each of these noise terms are somehow simpler than the first one and in fact when we analyzed them we saw that some of them are good meaning that if you add the noise to these noise terms your noise is probably hidden but some other noise terms are bad so they do not hide the noise at all and the bad news is that when you split your noise term N plus the challenge so you have to guess whether it was added 0 or mu the mu you chose this challenge is in fact added to the last noise term here so when you split everything you can recover your challenge just here in this sliced noise term and this is a bad noise term so you can actually distinguish whether you have 0 or mu in the challenge and so that's the idea of the wrong attack and to prevent it we just remove the moduli so the moduli were there for some technical reasons but what we show is that we don't need them so we can just remove them completely and if we do so then we cannot split the noise term anymore and if we don't split the noise term then we are going to have some of some bad noise terms but some of them are going to be good and to hide the challenge so it should prevent the wrong attack so let me now conclude we have seen the two main attacks and how we fix them and as I said we also discussed other potential attacks on the new construction we propose and for these different attacks some of them are classical some of them are more specific to this construction and we discussed what we can do with this attack so if we can recover some elements and if these elements can lead to a break or not I mean either we don't know how to use this attack to completely break the scheme or sometimes we know how to use them to break the scheme but only for some set of parameters in which case it gives us some constraints on the parameters that can be used to prevent the attack so the conclusion is that we have some set of parameters for which we know no attack against the scheme and so let me just mention that we also tried quantum attacks against the scheme but it does not seem that having a quantum computer would help break this scheme which is actually quite nice for a candidate I.O. so a lot of candidate I.O.s are broken by a quantum computer if you use pairing for instance you cannot be post-quantum so this is nice that this construction seems to be post-quantum and so as I said we have some range of parameters for which we know no attack so we propose them as concrete parameters so asymptotically meaning that we have some security parameter and we derive the other parameter as a function of the security parameter and so if you want to try some cryptonalysis on this scheme just have a look at the parameters and if you can find an attack within these parameters then that's nice and so let me conclude with some open problems so what we have so far is a new scheme that is hopefully secure so at least we have done more analysis on this scheme and we have more confidence in the security of this scheme but it's not proven so we have open questions in both like can we prove it or can we find attacks against this scheme so on the proving side it would be nice if we could extract simpler assumptions from the construction and prove the construction secure from this simpler assumption even even if they are not sorry even if they are not standard assumptions so one example of such assumption could be the module LWE with correlated noise we have seen but it's not sufficient to prove the security of the scheme so can we extract other assumptions and that's one open question and on the other side the open question could be can we find significantly different attacks on the scheme and the main question here is the observation that even though the noisy linearity construction is quite different from the multinational maps constructions and obfuscators based on multinational maps the attacks we found they share some similarities with the attacks on obfuscators based on multinational maps so basically we construct a matrix and then we look at properties like determinant or rank of the matrix to distinguish some cases and so it's curious to wonder why we have these similarities between the attacks so one possibility could be that the noisy linearity scheme is in fact in a sense similar to the multinational maps construction and one other explanation could also be that we know now we have seen a lot of attacks on multinational maps and obfuscators based on multinational maps so we know these attacks quite well and maybe that's why the two attacks we found on these schemes are of the same shape because we know them and we find them more easily but maybe there are some different attacks on these different schemes that we missed because we are less used to them so that would be interesting to see if we can find different attacks and that's all from me, thank you for your attention


afternoon. Now Kiki D is coming to Derry for a special concert very shortly, Friday week in fact. And Kiki was the first female singer from Britain to sign with Motown Records, well with Tamla Records and an affiliate of Motown. And well known for big hits like Amorous and I've got the music in me and of course her big duet with Elton John, Don't Go Breaking My Heart and a song that many people have forgotten about, Star. It was the theme song for the talent show Opportunity Knocks back in the 80s. It started out as a session singer to backing vocals for Dusty Springfield among others and then signed with Elton John's label the Rocket Record Company and sang a lot of backing vocals on various Elton John recordings, not just the big hit, Don't Go Breaking My Heart. Anyhow, these days tours with a guitarist and producer and songwriter called Carmelo Lugeri and is, as I say, coming to Derry. The location in Derry is St Augustine's Church and it's on Friday the first of March. I'm delighted that Kiki joins us now for a short chat. Kiki, good afternoon. Hi. How are you? I'm good. More to the point. How are you? I'm very well thanks. I'm very excited about coming over to Ireland again. It's been many, many years and so it's a bit of an experiment for Carmelo and I actually. We're going to come and do a couple of dates and see how it goes. Good, good. And you're playing in a lovely venue in Derry and tell us what we can expect. Will we get the old heads as well as some of your newer material? Well, it's it's what we call a musical journey. We do two sets. We don't do star because it's very much it's very much a pop record and my music kind of evolved since that time, you know, but we do. I've got music in me. We do amourers. We do a slowed down version of Don't Go Breaking My Heart, which we've done for years and some covers of people like Kate Bush and some original music. So it's very, very eclectic. So I'll take star out of my playlist now because I was going to play. No, I love the record. And in fact, the producer, Pitt Williams, is a lifelong friend of mine. Yeah, in fact, I don't know if it's of interest, but his son was the executive producer of Mr. Gates against the Post Office, you know, the documentary, which has been a big help. Yeah. And he's a wonderful man. And it's a good record. It's just it doesn't doesn't kind of fit with with the music we do. OK, OK. Yeah, you have obviously I checked you out on Wikipedia and there's pages and pages and pages of your resume and your musical history. And I see in there as well, musical theatre because you were on stage in the West End many years ago playing the lead in Blood Brothers. And this begs the question, why not more musical theatre? Well, you know, I mean, I was 40 when I did Blood Brothers, and it's a fantastic show. I came to Belfast, actually. I remember coming over there. This we're talking 87. And and I, you know, I felt as though I had unfinished business with singing. And I wouldn't say I'm an actor. And so I kind of went back to my music, you know, which is I decided that that was the direction I wanted to go in, you know, because you have to put all your energy. I do anyway, have to put all my energy into what I'm doing. And so I decided to focus back on my singing and writing. OK, your first year. Yeah. Yeah. And tell us about your association with Elton John, because obviously there was the big hit. But you also sang a lot of backing vocals on on many of his earlier hits. Yeah, I used to tip up at the sessions. I was dating one of the band at the time, you know, you do in the rock world. And, you know, and also he actually produced my first album on Rock It. In fact, I did two albums, which Elton produced. And of course, he produced Samara's as well. So we had Anne P produced Loving and Free, my first ever composition. And so we have quite a musical history, actually, you know, over and above Don't Go Breaking My Heart or Don't Go, as I call it. OK. OK. Yeah, because most people would associate you and him with just that song, but it goes way beyond that. Yeah, you know, it's a funny thing. I once did an interview, which was a questionnaire and it said, Don't Go Breaking My Heart, Milestone or Milstone, which I thought was quite clever. Yeah. And so I I plumbed for Milestone because, you know, it beats my name going, it gives me an opportunity to be free musically.  I'm just trying to give pleasure and have fun, you know. On that just before we move on from Elton, on on that mega hit, you actually replaced somebody else. There was there was somebody else lined up originally, wasn't there? Well, apparently, you know, this is a story that goes round. And I think it's a I think it's a bit of a Chinese whisper in that it said that Dusty was lined up to do something with Elton. And the thing is, it wasn't going to be a duet because Gus Dodgen, Elton's producer at the time, and it came up with the idea last minute. I was just going to do a few ooze and arse on it.  And then he said, well, give her a few more, give her a few more, you know. So that story probably comes from Elton's admiration of Dusty as an artist.  But of course, I've sung on some of Dusty's early hits like some of your loving the wonderful Carol King song that she recorded. I love her vocal on that song. Yeah, yeah, brilliant vocalist, obviously. Yeah. And you, what a lot of people might not realise as well, you actually performed at Leavid. Yes, yeah, I got the call. And I was kind of, yeah, I wasn't in the charts in the 80s. So it was a funny period for me, actually. It turned out to be great with the musicals and everything, but I was a bit sort of, what do I do next? I think if I ever wrote the book, which I haven't done, it would be what do I do next, you know? Yeah, he called up and said, would I do it? And I remember very well that George Michael was doing one of his first ever big shows. He was going to guest as well. And I said to him, listen, if you have an apple about an hour before you go on, it'll open you through and you'll feel better. And he did have an apple. And because, you know, his career went on and on, didn't it? All down to the apple. Yeah, all down to the apple. All the apple did it. The apple turned the corner. Yeah, yeah. OK, let's zoom forward now to your current tour and your current dates. And yeah, you toured with Carmelo Lugeri. And how did the, how did that?  How did it first come about? Well, actually, it was through a guy called Steve Brown who worked with Elm in the early days. And he put this together again, you know, because I kept in touch with Steve. He ran rocket records, et cetera. And he said, look, I think you should both go off, do what you want, go and do some acoustic shows. And I was a bit thrown by that because I thought, I've never done that, you know? And the first one we did, I burst into tears at the end because it was just so quiet.  But now I've grown to love it. And yeah, we've been working together for 30 years. I can't believe it. Half of my career nearly. And you've played all sorts of venues from really big festivals to small, intimate venues. I'm thinking about like the Royal Albert Hall and the Walmart festivals and on TV. Yeah, we did. We were very proud to do Walmart because we've done an unusual album at the time, very East West. We're doing Gilfest this year in Gilford. And we did Croppity last year. So and we do art centres, churches, theatres. Yeah. And try and have a good time and give people a good night. OK, well, we look forward to it. It's Friday the 1st of March and it's sent Augustine's Church in Derry. An acoustic live show. Would that be a good way to? Yeah, I mean, I call it, I always say semi-acoustic because we do rock out a bit. And but we also do pin drop quiet songs. So, you know, it's a real mix. Brilliant. OK, well, we look forward to it. Tickets are available now. And if anybody wants more information, they can go to your website. It's Kiki and Carmelo, actually, C-A-R-M-E-L-O dot com. Yeah, it's actually having a bit of a nervous breakdown this morning on the website. Oh, oh. But it's always worth a try. But I've got to get that sorted out. All right. Yeah, it's doing something weird there. And can I? Yeah, I'm listening. Thanks for talking to me. I really appreciate it. It's been a pleasure. It means a lot. It's been a pleasure, Kiki. And can I give you some advice just ahead of the show? Eat an apple, OK? I like it. I'll try that. Yeah, try. Give it a go. Thanks, Kiki. I will. Best look. Bye-bye. Thanks. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.


good morning and good afternoon. Welcome to a nation of immigrants. America represents something universal in the human spirit. President Reagan once said, I received a letter not long ago from a man who said you can go to Japan to live but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go live in Germany or Turkey and you only become German or Turk. But then he added, anybody from any corner of the world can come to America and live and become an American. Today's guest is Sia He, Executive Director of Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans. Sia has been Executive Director of the Council since 2013. Before joining the Council, Sia served as Education and Training Department Manager for the Mount American partnership and as a campaign manager for the successful St. Paul Public Schools, Strong School, Strong Communities, Levy Referendum. Sia holds a master's degree in public policy from the Huber-Honfrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, and a bachelor's degree in political science from McLeod-Steer College. Sia managed all operations and projects and develops and implements strategic and well-informed plans to ensure the Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans on its statutory duties. Welcome, Sia. Thank you. Thank you for having me on. I'm just honored to be here and very much looking forward to our conversation. Yeah, I'm so thrilled you agreed to be on the show because we technically are colleagues. You are the Executive Director of the Council. I'm a board member of the Council. I've been working with you for several past few years, but because we were so busy with the project, we really had a chance to sit down and just talk about something else, not about the Council. Today, we're going to talk about a lot of something else. We are not focused on our work. So, first and foremost, happy President's Day. Yeah, it's wonderful. We can have this conversation on President's Day. Now, my first question to you would be, who is your favorite President of the United States? A very simple question. I'm ready to answer. And my answer is President Abe Lincoln. And the simple reason for why he is my favorite President is, you know, I mean, most people would say, well, he carried the nation through, you know, he saved the nation. But I would say, you know, my main reason for identifying him as my favorite President has to do with the fact that he is just simply the greatest orator of our time. I mean, you know, of all of our Presidents, he just simply has the ability to magically piece words together that I haven't quite seen in any other living human being.  Very well said. You know, it's what you just said remind me of something. You know, I had a great honor to work for President Jimmy Carter once when he visited China, I served as his interpreter for the day.  But as a President, he's not ranked on the top. I just, I do not want to comment on this, you know, ranking, but President Carter is definitely one of my favorite Presidents in the United States because my judgment is very, my standard is very simple. A leader, a national leader must be profoundly human of the strong capability of empathy and to understand people. And President Carter is, I couldn't find any other, you know, parallel to reach the level of community of President Carter. Yeah, but I do not want to digress. Let's come back to you.  The second generation. So you were born in the United States. I know, I thought about that. So, but you know, this is to your point earlier about the fact that we have been colleagues for several years, but haven't really had the opportunity to really learn about one another's journey. So I think this is a prime opportunity. I was actually born in Laos at the end of 1981, you know, about six years, almost seven years after the end of the Vietnam War. And my parents brought me through Thailand and then into the United States. And when we arrived, I, I remember that I was four because I wasn't old enough to go to kindergarten. I had to wait one more school year before I could officially attend school with my older sister. Oh my, oh my goodness. So you are technically a first generation. Yeah, to tell us a little bit more about your family and your parents in particular. So my parents, ethnically speaking, I am Hmong.  So the Southeast Asian conflict, you know, in mainstream America, we talk about the conflict that's the Vietnam War. But, you know, everyone in the Hmong American community, and I think that many in the state of Minnesota recognize that there was a war within a war.  And so my parents, you know, the Hmong were an ally of the United States. And when the United States withdrew in the summer of 1975, that left the Hmong vulnerable to the consequences of being on the losing side in that war. And so my parents, along with tens of thousands of other Hmong made the dangerous journey, you know, or the exodus out of Laos by crossing the river into Thailand. And, you know, we lived in the refugee camps for a couple of years and then came to the United States. My parents were in the early 20s when they arrived in the United States in the late 1980s. They brought my older sister, myself, and two younger sisters who were both born in the refugee camps of Thailand. We originally were resettled in California. And then in 1997, my parents made the decision to relocate us to Minnesota. Is there any particular reason your family relocated in Minnesota? Yes, absolutely.  We grew up in California, quite, you know, disadvantaged. Obviously, my parents were survivors of a war, you know, incredibly traumatized. You know, they had seen most of their family members either killed during the war or left behind in the attempted escapes to cross the river into Thailand. And so, although they were quite young and one would assume that they were capable of many things, refugees, you know, carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. And so, we, when we were living in California, my parents heard stories of the Great Midwest. And obviously, you know, there was a good concentration of who had been resettled here by, you know, organizations like Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services. And so, we had some relatives who had been resettled here, either primary resettlement or secondary and tertiary migration. And so, we had heard stories that here in the Midwest, the, you know, the Hmong parents who were limited in English proficiency, you know, could at least, you know, attain jobs in the manufacturing companies.  And, you know, you and I know very well what that means, right? Stable income, stable home, meaning that, you know, parents could eventually open doors to opportunities that would otherwise never be open for their children. And so, living in California, my parents had heard these stories about Minnesota. And so, in 1997, my parents made the decision to relocate us, you know, given what they had heard about the Midwest, but also given some very, you know, tragic and personal reasons directly related to who my parents are as individuals and as a collective. And so, my parents moved us to Minnesota. And I would have to say, Chang, that, you know, the first best decision my parents made in their lives as my parents was the decision to come to America. And then their next best decision was to relocate us from California to the great state of Minnesota. I can't imagine that my life would be what it is today if I, you know, had been nurtured in a place other than this great state.  And that's the American dream in play.  But I want to call out the fact that I am a refugee and the conditions that are necessary to ensure that a refugee experienced child grows up and succeeds, calls for more resources than, you know, we would ask for in a situation where we're talking about an immigrant child, right? Because there are such stark differences between immigrants and refugees. Absolutely. And thank you so much for sharing the story. It is profoundly touching. Please say hi to your parents for me. I know, absolutely. You know, recently, United States citizenship and immigration services, USCIS, just to change the mission statement. The USCIS as a federal agency has long standing no status as the like front line of United States as a nation of immigrants. I mean, recognize that. But during the Trump administration that was changed, deleted a nation of immigrants from their mission statement. But recently, they didn't put that word by word back, but it changed the mission statement to a nation of welcome. So even there was some turbulence or, you know, uncertainty at the federal level, but we are proud and very lucky to be in the state of Minnesota. A great state has always been a state of welcome. And we have one of the strongest American community here. We have four legislators, right? We have six now. I think that everybody should be proud of it, and we have very strong Somalian community, and we have very strong Tibetan community, and we have also many strong other ethnic groups. So the among American and the Somali American, they were, you know, benefited from this national spirit, the nation of immigrants, a nation of welcome. But there are different, you know, perspectives and different viewpoints. So a last year or, you know, during the pandemic, there was a candidate for US Senate in Delaware, and she tweeted, most third world migrants cannot assimilate into civil societies. Pro me wrong. One of my favorite author, Vietnamese American author, Viet Nam Nguyen, replied on Twitter, third world refugee here. I have a PhD in English, and I won a Pulitzer Prize in fiction. What have you done? We can also reply to this candidate and just to show her what you have done. You know, this is a former refugee immigrant to the United States four years old, came here with nothing, but ended with a master degree in public affairs and a bachelor degree in political science. And she managed one of the most important ethnic minority agencies in the state of Minnesota. What have you done? We can ask that candidate. But I know you probably have some thoughts on that. I don't want to put you in a difficult position as to rebut this kind of, you know, hate speech. But my question to you is what exactly is a simulation? And what exactly is diversity and inclusion from your perspective? Yeah, so, you know, so many thoughts came to mind while you were sharing about this candidate for public office. What a tragedy that she simply is so ignorant, because we have plenty of examples that would contradict her perspective. So diversity and inclusion for me means, you know, the intentional practices that go toward ensuring that people from different walks of life, you know, including sexual orientation, disability status, race, ethnicity, gender, right, that they feel valued and that they are made, they are empowered to believe that they have something to contribute to a larger endeavor. And, you know, so that's in a nutshell my definition of diversity and inclusion. I think that we as a state and as a nation, we're doing a better job of having these conversations, trying to arrive at a shared understanding of what diversity and inclusion means. We are obviously far away, far distance from getting it right. But we are better, we're doing better now, whether it's in the private sector or in government. We're doing better now than we were 10 years ago, even I was here during the Dayton administration. And I recall that that was when the Dayton administration, you know, began putting in a very concerted effort to mobilize, you know, the governor's cabinet members around this initiative.   Those were some of the colorful phrases that were used to describe the Hmong because they were an ethnic hill tribe, largely concentrated in the mountainous regions of Laos, you know, in the Sengkwong province. And when the Southeast Asian conflict ended, you know, the images that came out from the refugee camps of Thailand were definitely not images of people who were educated and were prepared to take on jobs in the United States, right? And so far worse comments have been made about the Hmong. And yet we know that this community that arrived in this country with nothing but pain and sorrow and grief and, you know, the clothes on their backs, this community has succeeded beyond our imaginations and has succeeded beyond even what my elders, you know, my parents and their parents, what they ever imagined for us. As, you know, descendants of the Hmong, right? And so I, you know, not only do we have six Hmong ancestry legislators in the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate, Minnesota, you know, probably sent to MIT the first, you know, candidate for, you know, an aerodynamics degree who is among ancestry. In fact, he came out of the east side of St. Paul, you know, and went to MIT and then Ann Arbor and came out of both institutions with degrees in aerodynamics engineering, right? And is by, you know, based on his academic background and his, you know, professional experiences is a rocket science scientist. You know, we don't breed, you know, like rocket scientists like we breed apples, right? But, you know, like this is, like I said, when we first started this interview, if the conditions are right, if opportunities are made available, if children know what opportunities exist for them, if, you know, that idea of it takes an entire village, you know, children can grow up to be, you know, to assimilate and accultrate beyond our wildest imaginations. And that's what that in and of itself is, you know, the hope that inspires not only the people living within the territorial boundaries of the United States, but that's actually the hope, the beacon of light that inspires people from all corners of the world. You know, and when it comes to the Hmong, I mean, St. Paul, Minnesota is the city on the hill. If you are of Hmong ancestry, doesn't matter if you're in China or in Laos or Burma or Vietnam, you know St. Paul, Minnesota, you know Minnesota, because this has become home to the most progressive, the most educated, the most, you know, economically well off community of Americans of Hmong ancestry. And, you know, that, you know, in the 1970s and mid-80s and even into the 1990s, you know, most people looking at the Hmong American community couldn't and wouldn't have forced it, this kind of development for a community that was considered, you know, highly, you know, that was thought of as highly incapable of assimilating and occult trading because we were too primitive looking at the time. Wonderful to hear it.  But, you know, there are very, you know, moving and touching cultural history and the story behind it. But also, yeah. Cheng, I think that is the beauty of our community, you know, and that's really what inspires me in my role as executive director of the council. You know, we're home to large, a large community of Asian Indians. Our Chinese community is, you know, not only large, but it is so integral to key institutions to, you know, in Minnesota, such as the Mayo Clinic, right, and the University of Minnesota. And all of our different ancestry communities combined together to make Minnesota's API community just incredibly vibrant.  And I am still surprised to hear them say that they're surprised that Minnesota has such a large and robust Asian American and Pacific Islander community. And we are made up of more than just the Hmong. Yeah, it's interesting. This is a question I keep asking myself, why Saito Minnesota? You know, you talk to my friends and family back in China. So very few of them heard of Minnesota. They believe all the Chinese Americans are in California or New York. And so why Minnesota? I keep asking myself, is something in Minnesota just to touch my inner spirit? I cannot articulate what exactly that is. What is it? Can you try to explain it? I am absolutely prepared to answer that question because it is my job to answer questions like that from other Minnesotans. So for each of our communities, the answer may differ slightly, right? So I'll just give you two examples. Between 2000 and 2010, the fastest growing community under our umbrella was the Asian Indian community. They came to Minnesota for jobs in the STEM field, so jobs at Metronik, Boston Scientific, Ecolab, 3M. So that's the jobs at these corporate institutions. So that's our Asian Indian community. When we looked at our newer emerging refugee community, so for example, our Korean community, which is an ethnic group from Burma, Minnesota is home to one of the largest communities of Korean refugees. And so for that community, coming to Minnesota was because of resettlement organizations like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, obviously. But once primary resettlement is over with, people then also engage in secondary and tertiary migration. And those journeys are propelled and compelled by what they have heard while they are living in other states. And that's that Minnesota has an incredibly strong nonprofit sector, philanthropic sector. Our public schools are second to none, particularly in terms of their ability and their capacity to take on the challenges that are unique to ESL learners, refugee and immigrant populations. And so those were the very practical reasons for why these populations who, for the most part, in their native countries are tropical locations. But then they would relocate themselves to a place that right now in the middle of winter, it feels like we're living in the tundra. Nonetheless, we are home to these fast-growing immigrant and refugee communities from Asia. And the reason, again, has to do with the fact. And I think one current parent put it best to us. She said, after having lived in the refugee camps for decades, having, you know, wondering whether the future will be any different for my children, enduring the cold in Minnesota is nothing compared to enduring hopelessness in the refugee camps. That is the best answer to the question, why Minnesota? And it's a tribute to the decisions that we as leaders in government and in various sectors, including the corporate sector, decisions that we have collectively made that have resulted in a Minnesota that is fertile grounds for people who come here with nothing but hopes and dreams. Thank you so much. Yeah, that's exactly the answer I was looking for. Now I have my own answer. I choose to stay in Minnesota because of people like you, because of people like Judge Tony Leong, and because of people like David Maida. And this is just a home. We are running out of time, but we are starting a new segment of recommendations and advice. So two quick questions. And so we will wrap up. And if you were giving some advice to yourself in your early twenties, what would you say? Be patient. Be patient. Very good advice. When I was a kid growing up, I, you know, was, I mean, I've always been a fan of history. And I thought that Alexander the Great became Alexander the Great at the age of 25. And so I thought I've got to be as great as Alexander the Great by the time I get to the Grand Old Age of 25. And, you know, so I spent my early 20s just like tunnel visioned and focused on achieving a certain profile, you know, that was fitting to my parents' perspective of what success looks like.  You know, when you come of age, whether you want to or not, the weight of the world and the challenges facing the world and one's communities, you can't escape from that. There will be a place and a time when you will be called on to take on the responsibility of helping to address those challenges. So, you know, there's a place and time for everything.  And, you know, if you are destined for, you know, specific roles and responsibilities, in time they will, you'll find yourself there. So I would just say be patient. Wonderful advice. Thank you so much. It's a great honor and a privilege to have this conversation with you, with Sink Tank Hawaii. And thank you for spending time with us. And thank you for sharing your story with our audience. Yes, I see her Executive Director of Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans. This is a nation of immigrants. Thank you, I'll see you. Thank you, Cheng, for having me. Have a wonderful day and happy President's Day. Happy President's Day.


Everybody forced here up in 2022 impeccable football hobby Three box full case random divisions. This is three box full case number four random divisions results on your screen Can be found anytime at late sports cards comm and there's a link in chat Let's get started everybody Let's get those spots sold for tonight everybody Sam's live in about a little over an hour now Flawless baseball sold out for tonight But plenty of immaculate basketball and impeccable football spots as well as a dual case of spectra and impeccable So we're looking for some release day heat Sam and Sean got you guys covered for tonight But what would I buy if I were going to that's tough I like impeccable a lot probably probably impeccable a random team style long long shots ahead, but Probably might that's probably my like price range for myself personally If you can do divisions, I think that's the way to go though If you can afford random divisions, that's probably the way to do it Me personally I'd probably do a random teams impeccable Cheaper less chance to hit obviously because it's cheaper and more spots, but yeah, all right NFC West Hollywood Brown is 75 And afc north nick chubb to 50 22 of 50 afc north rookie Otto de marvin leal 55 of 75 NFC north rookie Otto Malcolm Rodriguez 34 of 75 afce Celestrius, Inc Joe name of 10 of 49 Nice on-card Joe big Otto there AFC's legend hit right there Um, yeah, do it man.  He was looking good before his injury Exciting player Heck giants are good now. How about that is a Hodgins, man They picked him up off of waivers like november now. He's like their best receiver Hard not to root for the giants though A lot of those guys that team struggled for a long time Now they're now they're in the divisional rounds. I would get these from distributors Or card shop Zeke to 50 NFC east AFC north miles Garrett is 75 And NFC north that I'm feeling the 25 AFC west rookie auto great dulcet 31 to 35. There's been at least one dulcet I feel like every case I know I feel like you've said his name I think I pulled like all the dulcet autos in the product. It's kind of wild AFC east There's a name right there west welker Canville create can't candle canvas creations for a 49 Carnival that's pretty cool right there Yeah, nice one. AFC east One of my all-time favorite football players Great player. Yeah It was a great hand as early years of the Broncos too before the concussion started the Hit them harder I mean, um, Dolphins Thanks Dolphins to that guy Redemption immense patch auto Cooper cup That's what's up. There you go NFC west great veteran receiver hits back to back there Heck, yeah NFC west Cooper cup We all keep talking about like oh top receiver league and we all forget this guy's injured But was literally had the best receiver season ever Last year and was Super Bowl MVP Monster immense patch auto Cooper cup That'd be cool once you get it NFC west AFC west the Marcus Allen illustrious seeing six of 25 Did they just have it was a chief in this it's kind of weird, right? I didn't I wasn't a lot. I mean I didn't watch Marcus Allen play when I you know Years I was alive, but I just envisioned him as a raider A lot of chiefs of him in here same division for this break however And elegance rookie patch and helmet auto desmond ridder 28 of 75 NFC south Yo nice ridder matt black falcons on with there Yeah, no, not a drink not a drink Watch to run from the cops You ever know what you're gonna get in chat these days Chad said that he watched him run from the cops and friend here who him was It's kind of weird gone. Oh Marcus Allen Russell Wilson is 75 AMC west NFC south pile pits 23 of 25 Yep, that's true one metal bar card per case TJ Hawkinson elegance patch auto 27 to 50 NFC north. This is a last year's card 2021 NFC north very nice two-color patch auto on the hawk AFC north rookie auto david ojabo 10 of 99 NFC west legendary receiver hit here isaac bruce 20 of 49 hull of fame auto There we go. Always love the foil on these Nameplates the hull of fame years whatever it may be I'm sure they did please. I'm sure there's first off the line out there We don't get first offline for every product though. We do we do for certain ones AFC east on the rpa a breeze hall 27.99. We've got a breeze hall magnet today too Those section hall we've been pulling a lot of nice rpa there a afc east Would have been offensive rookie of the air if he stayed healthy He was like he was carrying the jets at one point. They were going through all the quarterback issues and he was just carrying them him and him and wilson He was really good Here we go. Malik willis rpa 225 and afc south excuse me afc south That's what's up and redemption on the back That's who's actually gonna win the offensive rookie of the year Kenneth walker the third elegance rookie helmet and nameplate auto that'll be to 25 I believe It could be less with the nameplate. I always forget What's what what the what the elegance helmet and whatever may be autos congrats NFC west And bar card Dude, we pulled the same two teams all day Quad cowboys bob lily randy white demarcus wear mica parson's Great defenders there five out of 25 tryouts to find silver cowboys logo NFC east We pulled two colds two cowboys for the bar cards today We pulled like four Kenneth walker the third redemptions today He's so far the only rookie that is redemption. I think Once that guys will do a recap. Thanks again, everybody for filling out the brakes today. You're watching on tiktok link is in the bio We got a bunch more brakes tonight Different styles of everything got daytime tomorrow more of the crazy panini three piece release day they put out You know, we got it all guys Personals later on tonight as well All the new goodies are in stock The breeze hall rpa Isaac brusotto love the design A hawkins and patch auto NFC north ojabo afc north marcus alan afc west west welker afc east dulcich afc west a christian watson NFC north The rookie landscapes are cool Broadway joe for the afc east Malcolm rodriguez NFC north and afc north demarvin leal Silver bar was cowboys quad bob lily randy white demarcus wear and mica parson's Go NFC east. You got a panini three piece today flawless baseball impeccable football and iMAG basketball Kenneth walker helmet and nameplate auto redemption NFC west Malik willis afc south rpa 2 of 25 NFC south ricky dual uh a patch and helmet auto to 75 is ridder NFC west cooper cupamence patch auto redemption And one of five wandell robinson ball and helmet relic rookie auto NFC east and i'll do it. Thanks again everybody


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. Thank you very much. Oh, please. I assume that you've all been in here long enough to get warm. Just walking across the street of my voice quavers, it isn't emotion. I'm cold. But good morning and welcome. It's always a pleasure to meet with the people who are responsible for making our government work. The ability of this or any other administration to succeed is no small measure. It depends on the energy, the dedication and the spirit of our federal employees. Government service is a partnership. In other words, a relationship between political leaders who do most of the talking and career employees who do most of the work. When we speak of government, we may think of an impersonal bureaucracy with lots of regulations and paperwork. But just as this is a government of the people, it's also a government run by people.  Your work is government. And without you it would come quickly to a halt. Even if there were no awards like those for today, most of our federal employees would still do their best working to give our citizens honest government. People don't choose government service for prestige and glamour or recognition. They're not trying to get rich, they're just trying to make a difference. And that's important. In this centennial year anniversary of the civil service, we should remember that government is only as good as the people who make it work one day at a time. Government must limit what it does, but it still must perform its responsibilities with care and professionalism. You can't have good programs without good people. You're the good people. And the Presidential Rank Awards provide the opportunity to recognize your great services to our nation. And it gives us a chance to show our appreciation for your contributions, your imagination, and your hard work. These awards also provide an incentive for all federal employees to help us improve the effectiveness of government. There's always room for improvement. You haven't earned your awards by luck. It's because of exceptional performance. The nearly 7,000 members of the senior executive service are among the finest group of executives anywhere. To be singled out and selected for the prestigious Presidential Rank Award is an honor. You have good reason to be proud, and America is fortunate to have you on our team. You've searched for ways to reduce the growth of the budget, and you succeeded. You've looked for more efficient ways to run programs, and you've found them. You've tried to better serve our citizens, and you're doing it. From the Johnson Space Center to the Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage, Alaska, and from the Department of State to the VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida, you are on the front lines, day in and day out, setting high standards for us all. Ladies and gentlemen, you're what is best about government. The commitment and determination of individual citizens in service to our nation. Through your efforts, we can make today's federal government a model for the generation that will follow us, and I'm counting on you and so are the American people. So I, God bless you, and thank you all very much for all that you are doing. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and it's my pleasure to introduce to you the best in the federal government. First, Mr. Lawrence F. Ayers, Deputy Director, Management and Technology of the Defense Mapping Agency. William D. Bittenberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy, Budget and Administration, Department of the Interior. George J. Bradley, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Internal Affairs, Department of Energy. As Mr. Brown arrived, he is Deputy Director of the Bureau of Political and Military Affairs for State. I hope it isn't something too serious that's kept him away. Next, John E. Carson, Director, Office of Finance and Management, Department of Agriculture. Thomas P. Christie, Deputy Director, General Purpose Programs, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Philip B. Culbertson, Associate Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Alfred R. DeAngelis, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury. Richard D. Luling, Deputy Administrator, Region 2 Environmental Protection Agency. William J. Dirks, Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Louis D. Inoff, Deputy Commissioner, Programs and Policy, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Robert N. Ford, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice. Kenneth S. Geller, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice. Milton N. Goldberg, Executive Director, National Commission on Excellence in Education. G. Phillips Hanna, Chief Labor Branch, Office of Management and Budget. David C. Hardison, Director, Concepts Analysis Agency, Department of the Army. Anthony L. Italag, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget, Department of Health and Human Services. Harriet G. Jenkins, Assistant Administrator of Equal Employment Opportunity Programs, NASA. Beryl W. Hayes, Technical Director, Naval Weapon Center, Department of the Navy. S. Neal Hozenbowl, General Counsel, NASA. Seymour J. Lorber, Director, Product Assurance and Test, Material Development and Readiness Command, Department of the Army. Glenn S. Leni, Manager, Space Shuttle Program, Office, NASA. Thomas E. Malone, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Robert L. McPhail, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy. Norven Meyer, Assistant Deputy Administrator, International Programs, Department of Agriculture. Carrie P. Modlin, Assistant Director for Budget Review, Office of Management and Budget. Robert O. Oswald, Jr., Technical Director, Electronics Research and Development Command, Department of the Army. Joseph P. Popel, Deputy Controller, Department of the Air Force. Jay Malcolm Randall, Director, VA Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida Veterans Administration. R. T. Rollins, Jr., to accept for him Mr. J. Morris, Agency for International Development. Keith M. Schreiner, Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, Department of Interior. H. Joe Shelby, Senior Deputy Controller for National Operations, Department of the Treasury, accepting for Mr. Connor. Eugene Selvin, Assistant to the Deputy Director of Science and Technology for Experimental Research, Defense Nuclear Agency. Lee B. Spencer, Jr., Director, Division of Corporate Finance, Security and Exchange Commission. Diane K. Stee, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation. James P. Turner, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice. James W. Vaughn, Deputy Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, Department of Energy. Charles E. Weithoner, Associate Administrator for Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation. Mr. President, these are your awardees for the Distinguished Rank Award recognition for the government. Merry Christmas.


Who's a hip-hop head in the chat? No, this is the other Joker. This is the guy that's also like top and like head-to-head There's just no way we're letting that pass go down hooker come on and the fact I can't pinch my line There's kills me really My god, click me on Gronk, and it's a hit-stick Like what are we doing? Why are we not? Why are we not anywhere near that shit? Oh my god, he did it. Oh my god.   Why would you throw?  Jesus Christ boys I'm having a blast tonight trips tight end dudes.   That's his dot dude. That's his dot It really is this is that respect.     Oh, they're so bad dog. They are so bad.  It's scary dude. They're so bad trips tight end. They're so bad They're so awful. They're so awful.     They don't care.       Take a sack, but now I'm good. We're just gonna let him throw the ball away I feel like there was more time there. Maybe I could play making them up right there, but I'm telling you, bro This makes me miserable.     They're awful man dog You that was the best pass rusher human being could get right there Really was couldn't get couldn't get better pass rusher in that.   They don't care about life, bro They really don't Here we go. No huddle. Come on.  You were throwing that no matter what?  Y'all got it like what like what are we doing here? Like y'all get like dog like he's too good. He's honestly too good, bro.   Why wouldn't it be why wouldn't it be Why wouldn't it be why wouldn't it be why not why not why wouldn't it be why wouldn't it be over the right to him like Why wouldn't it be an over the right to him chat? Why wouldn't it go right to him?  Why not me? Why not me, right? Thank you.  Thank dog.   Just terrible Quick snap any trips tight end places. Oh my god. I'm losing my mind tonight.   I did and I told you I do the bad pass. Did I not say that? It was also a fourth down when I do the bad pass. So I kind of had to throw the bad pass Don't there's just no way. These are real passes.    It's gonna be long.   I just like how is his team not exhausted, man? Like how is this team not absolutely exhausted? Like what is he throwing like what are the options to build a ball right there? What are the options?   You've got all safeties in the linebacker Like his boys got to be tired.   How was tree archer how did he sneak he was not power back?  That's how it works, dude I really just ran the ball with tree archer for my game though. That was so like brain good I just thought Henry was default running back right there really


I think we'll start this out with a demo.  Under my mouth! Wow!  We might be wrong. We're funny, but not always a joke.  We have been made, for some damn reason, our behaviors being maintained by recording videos in the cold. I would actually prefer that that would get extinguished, which is kind of what we're here to talk about today. Hey! Jeez! It's cold. Not too much. Um... Extinction! I struggle with making this video long, alright? Because I think there's a lot of verbal behavior about this topic that could be boiled down to a couple of really simple things, and I think it's covered pretty well in most chapters and most texts out there, but we're obviously going to go over it here. So the first thing's first, extinction.  It's... Wow! I'm getting salty today. Sorry. Um... Let's see. It's the withholding of reinforcement, right? It's that simple, folks. A behavior is happening. It's normally maintained by a reinforcer. Get rid of the reinforcer! Make it gone! Go away! Right? And then the organism, the behavior, is on extinction, right? It's really that simple. Now you're going to hear all sorts of stuff. Procedural extinction. Just ignore it and they'll go away. Functional extinction. That's what we're going to focus on, folks. Functional extinction. We're going to focus on functional extinction because, to be completely honest with you, I never thought that procedural extinction was a thing. I always thought that you had to know what the reinforcer was for the behavior in order to put it on extinction. Which you do, right? But, of course, that's kind of a new thing with the functional behavior analysis or FBA type stuff kind of thing, right? Older than me, probably. So if we know it's maintaining a behavior and we remove the reinforcer for that behavior, behavior is going to start to decrease. Okay? It's not fast. It's not instant. But behavior will decrease, which is the functional form of extinction, right? Why do we call it functional versus procedural? Because procedural, you really start to think about, well, how do you do extinction? Well, you do extinction based on what you know about the behavior. And that would be what you know is reinforcing the response, okay? So you have to know that first before you can possibly be successful with extinction. So let's get into a couple of things that extinction isn't. Extinction is not just a general, any general decrease of it. Okay? Behavior decreases for all sorts of reasons. Your organism could be tired. Your organism could be on punishment. All sorts of things. But that's not extinction. Extinction is the removal of reinforcement for a particular behavior that results in the reduction of that behavior, okay? So that is extinction. It is not just behavior decrease, okay? So don't confuse those. Another thing that it's not, it is not response blocking, okay?  That's response blocking, okay? Pretty obvious, right? I can't perform the response, therefore I can't possibly achieve the reinforcer, which means you can't possibly withhold the reinforcer, which means it's not extinction. Let's see. So that becomes an issue when you start to think about sensory extinction, and when you start to think about automatically reinforced behaviors, which we'll come back to in a little bit. So, or maybe another video, I don't know. Let's see. It's not that. It's not that. What else is it not? Forgetting. All right? So it's not forgetting, and forgetting is a really interesting thing because we're gonna tie in some extinction with time and all that stuff over time in another video here, but forgetting is basically not performing a response over, not giving an opportunity, perform a response over a given period of time. Again, it's different than withholding the reinforcement when the response is delivered. The other one is kind of cool, the other time. I thought that was snow. It's ice. All right. Here's another one. Let's... I need the chunks. All right. That was bleeding. All right. So the other thing that is not, is non-contingent reinforcement. Assume these chunks of cold things, ice-ish snow, are reinforcers, right? Here's non-contingent reinforcement. We're just gonna sprinkle them in as long as just kind of on a time schedule or some type of schedule. We're just gonna sprinkle them in. Those things were reinforcers. We're sprinkling them out there. We're delivering them. We're just not delivering them contingent upon a behavior. Don't let my mom see this video.  Anyway, that behavior surely didn't get extinguished. Sorry, mom. So sprinkling reinforcers in non-contingents, non-contingently, just so not extinction, it's not funny. All right? It's just not even the same thing because you're not withholding reinforcer contingent upon a behavior. So if you're delivering reinforcers, can you get my point? Don't get those confused. That just makes you look like a fool, all right? Anyway, let's move on to two other things you should know about. This is not extinction. This is just forgetting. Extinction of positive reinforcement or positively reinforced behavior. This is the one that everybody thinks about when they think about extinction. Wow, little Billy's engaging in behavior. Ah, screw it. Ryan's engaging in particular, walking behavior. So we are not going to reinforce him. How are we not going to reinforce him? We are going to put the camera away. We're not going to film him or something to that effect, right? We're going to remove the reinforcer for the behavior, okay? So which is all well and good when you're thinking about positively reinforced behavior because the stimulus is delivered to maintain a response, we can just keep that stimulus at bay. We just don't have to deliver that stimulus. The key here is making sure you have control over the reinforcer. Don't forget that. A number one important thing, if you have done your FBA and you find out what's reinforcing the behavior and you go, yep, I can actually manage that particular stimulus, then you can probably pull off extinction. If you can't manage it, then you probably can't pull off extinction. Let's see. Negatively reinforced behavior. Now, this is a complete bugger, right? Because how do you extinguish a behavior that is maintained by a lack of delivery of something or escape of something or something like that? That's a challenge. You have to make sure, again, that you have control over the situation and that you can prevent the escape from happening if the behavior is escape maintained. So extinction of negative reinforced behavior is extremely challenging and I think you're going to find that that's one of the more difficult things that you encounter when you're out there in the field, but it is something that can be done. I suppose, should we get into the automatic, yeah, behavior that's automatically reinforced is another one. This is kind of tricky because this tends to cause problems for people in understanding what, how to pull off an extinction procedure here, all right? So I'm going to go into a little side discussion here and it's about cigarette smoking. So people go, well, why don't you just extinguish cigarette smoking? You can't. All right? Well, I suppose they probably can, but it's very, very difficult. Why? Because the nicotine is automatically delivered, automatic. I can't stop that nicotine. I can't engage in the smoking behavior and prevent the nicotine from being delivered into my system. Okay? So it's automatically reinforced. So we have to do something to prevent that automatically, to prevent that reinforcer from being delivered. So I'm going to stop with the smoking example because I don't want to get into drugs and all the other, excuse me, all the chemicals that you may have to do in order to prevent the nicotine from being absorbed into your system. Just not something I'm going to talk about right now. So what you could do with other behaviors that's automatically reinforced, maybe, maybe this is reinforcing, right? But maybe it's not the feeling on my chest. Maybe it's the feeling in my fingers that tends to be reinforcing. Automatically reinforcing. I could put a really thick glove on and then I could just, I could scrape, all right? Which is a type of sensory extinction. But so I'm engaging in the scraping behavior or scratching behavior, but the sensory is not the sense that the stimulus is not like getting delivered. It's being withheld from the tips of my fingers by the glove. Totally different than response blocking. Response blocking would be if I had some sort of device that prevented me from being able to scratch. I can't get it.  So there you go. Response blocking. I can't, I can't make it, all right? That's not extinction. That's totally different. Right? Why is that different? Because response blocking is the prevention of the response from occurring or completing, right? If you prevent the response from completing, there's no reinforcer to deliver. Therefore you can't possibly withhold the reinforcer. Therefore it can't possibly be extinction. All right. I think that's enough on the beginnings of extinction. We're going to come back and talk about more extinction after I warm myself up a little bit because it's really cold. Fine. Oh, did you like that behavior and video? Behavior and video analysis. Video analysis. Did you like that video and behavior analysis? If you did, then like, subscribe, share, please.


Another type of improper integral occurs when there is a discontinuity in the interval. So, suppose f of x is discontinuous at x equals c, where c is someplace in our interval. So first, we'll define the integral from a to c as the limit of the integral as our upper bound approaches c from below, and similarly, the integral from c to b as the limit as our lower bound approaches c from above, and provided that the two limits exist, we'll define our integral from a to b as the sum of the two integrals. So let's say we want to find this integral. We note that f of x equals 1 over square root of x is discontinuous at x equals 0, so, and so we have a type 1 improper integral. Now, since our lower limit is the point of discontinuity, we'll limit around that, and so we'll take our limit as the lower bound goes to 0 from above. So we'll find our antiderivative, we'll evaluate it, then we'll take the limit, and since the limit exists, the integral converges to this value. So let's take another integral. So when I ran into this problem the first time I was taking calculus too, I did it the following way. We find the antiderivative, we evaluate, got to remember how to add fractions, and I was very quickly able to get the wrong answer. The problem is the function has a discontinuity at x equals 1, and we can't integrate over it. So let's do this integral the right way. Since there's a discontinuity at x equals 1, we need to split up our integral around this point. And let's evaluate each of these integrals separately. So we'll take that first integral from 0 to 1, and because we have that discontinuity at 1, we'll limit away from that discontinuity. We'll find the antiderivative, we'll evaluate it, and then we'll take the limit, which diverges, which means that our integral diverges as well.


Mm-mm. That is some cold-blooded douche-ness. Ooh! That's a hot mug, guys! Hey guys, this is my review for episode 3 of Supernatural Season 7. We're already in that weird spot where two episodes in, we have resolved a fairly decent cliffhanger within 10 minutes, and then we go on to a Monster of the Week episode. I've just been getting this little bit of a theory that the reason why they burned down Bobby's house is that the location itself wasn't going to last anymore. They had to sell it off because Bobby's whole junkyard, the whole scrap metal place that's there, has been long gone. So a little part of me wonders that maybe they lost that area. They had a different story idea, but they had to rewrite it due to losing the location. That can happen. Like, no joke. That can actually happen in film. All of a sudden, the location can all of a sudden just disappear from use. There are so many locations and whatnot being used by so many different films right now that a lot of people are fighting over the same areas. But in this story, it falls back on Sam going after this old monster that he sort of hunted while at school who turned out to actually be the mother of a girl that he met at school. This is pretty much the most lazy, contrived sort of relationship, but it actually was kind of interesting showing that humanity side that we like about Sam, the one who's able to find that resolve, that human attachment to a monster, much like how he did with the vampires back in season two.  I liked how it started, I liked that pace, and then it completely just dies. It's trying to show Sam is kind of struggling with how he's affected in the world and his whole being a freak thing, which is something that we've already dealt with. And after he leaves Dean, the whole hallucination thing kind of just disappears. There was a pretty funny joke though about horror movies in 3D. They even say Bloody Valentine, so I'm guessing this coincided with Jensen Ackles release of My Bloody Valentine, which actually isn't a bad horror remake to be honest. I like how the story goes, the fact that they got Jewel, Jewel State from Firefly.   Just to prove to himself his asinine theory that Sam's other shoe is gonna drop. This all has to do with Dean overthinking Sam's mental state, much like how he was in Season 6, but yeah, he's worse. It took two episodes, technically three, and he's already at the same level as how he was at the end of Season 6, or the entirety of Season 6.   Well, if you do, I'll come back for you.  Walks past him like this, with a knife in his hand, like that's what bad guys do. When they walk around the poor, misfortunate character who is mourning the loss of that dead one, the bad guy's like, I don't even think anything comes of this, at least from the kid. I know the kid is MIA if I'm correct, he never comes back on the entirety of the show. I do think that the SAM's realization of what happened does happen, but don't spoil it for me, because I actually can't remember, so I'm interested to see if that happens. But if we come to the end of the season and I haven't remembered it myself, remind me. I thought this episode started off well, and then it went a completely different direction, and while some of that wasn't the worst, it also just completely shows one of our main characters in the worst light possible. Like one of the most despicable lights, absolutely imaginable. But in the end, I am going to give this episode a negative rating. I'm gonna give it a 3 out of 7, because I don't like how it completely railroaded the narrative that we had going. I know this is gonna happen quite a lot in season 7, but I was quite miffed that it even started with the story, and then it just decided to give up on that for the remaining 30 minutes. Anyways guys, those are my thoughts about this episode, let me see what you guys had to say. Next episode is fantastic. I think this season isn't as bad as people thought it is. I always liked it, but not love it. But honestly, way better than season 13, 14, 15. Well... I feel bad now, but what I've just said. Sorry binge watcher. We disagreed on this one a little bit, my friend. The Girl Next Door is a pretty great episode besides Dean killing Amy, which was terrible character regression.  And this, in my opinion, was calling for its best performance as Sam, really wishing instead of the Winchester they'd have spent off of young Sam and Dean using the good actors. That actually wouldn't have been a good, bad idea. I'll admit I like Sam's freak stuff business, but I kind of feel like this is a re-trade of 5, but I'm gonna say like this all the time. I promise I'll be more relaxed in the later videos, but for now it's these three episodes that really bug me when I watch season 7. I'll really give it props to the transparency of the season. First episode, I'm bored to death. Second episode, I can't take it seriously. Third episode, I know that I'm going to hate my life throughout the season. This needlessly mean-spirited and unnecessary filler showcased how Sam and Dean do not behave like the characters we know and love. See, Dean doesn't simply execute Sam's friend in front of her kid. It is unnecessarily cruel and so out of character for Dean. The fact that he knows it's wrong and yet he still does it simply shows that Sarah Gamble cared more about her cheesy monsters like Edgar than the most bland henchmen ever rather than our main characters. First of all, they wasted Jewel's state.  Yeah, I know. I was a bit upset that they wasted Jewel in this episode considering they just didn't do much with her and like could have been any other actor to have done this. I don't know. It was a very strange choice. Jensen goes up to the bat directing girl next door. You can tell he's very experimental with the camera work. I love how this episode follows the events of the previous episode to maintain the attention of the Loviathans. Although it's cheesy, why the Loviathans remain in human form as a standard doctor and nurse chasing the Winchesters, but we do learn later that why the Loviathans act tactical with desertion towards humanity. I also love how the Loviathans are operating everywhere, including a credit card company that recognizes one of Sam's fake aliases. They do not take it lightly in wanting to kill the Winchesters as soon as they can and makes them more of a big bad than treating them like the hunted instead of the other way around. I want to point out regarding their special effects, people find laughable to me to get the job done personally. Anyone who is a gamer who justifies outdated bad graphic games that play very well understand this. The Loviathans are more enjoyable with what they represent symbolically. It's one of the reasons I love the season and put it higher than most fans. I can kind of see where you're coming from about the graphic thing, but admittedly they did just look quite undecerned. It didn't work. There was a geometry level that when they would open their mouths, it looked like it was wider than it actually should have been. What was coming out didn't make sense to what it was coming from. That was the big draw-away for me. As people understandably feel dissatisfied with the design choices of the monster being a kitsune, I was always a fan of episodes where we got to explore Sam and Dean's childhood and even if the kids soon don't look like it. I'll actually say this is definitely a better go back in time episode to their childhood than the one that season 15 gave us. Once more we are dealing with Sam and Dean keeping secrets with Dean killing Sam's first lover. While it makes complete sense to me why Dean killed her, it's also a hypocritical considering the lengths the Winchester's have and would do for each other. How they handled the subplot in comparison with other secrets they dealt with from each other in comparison to other seasons I honestly feel is really well done. Also people keep expecting Amy's kid to be the one who kills Dean in the series finale is quite funny but it is sad that the storyline for the kid is never revisited. And if anything the kitsune doesn't look like a full blown monster, that's just what we can expect from Supernatural from every Supernatural creature. They add physical characteristics of the creature that maintain a humanistic, a humanistic relatable look. Now I can understand that definitely that's for a budget and what not like you don't show the monster right off the bat, one because you don't have the budget to, and two it's a little bit more interesting if you kind of hide what it is. However I don't like how he kills this character. I find it so out of left field. I find it so hypocritical, so completely against shit and established and literally no actual reason as to why. Sam even gives him a very clear reason, a very good reason as to what she's doing to hide herself. And Dean's like no, I want to be right. I will always say that this episode is basically part two of the trope that Dad begins in back in season five. Remember when Dad and Laughlin introduced a special character in season five but never came back and fans were hoping would in season 15 they'd finally bring him back and they didn't. Well there's another character that fans also wanted to return. If you go to your video where you were reading comments of the series finale which I believe is an hour and nine minutes and the nine minute mark there's a comment you read where someone mentions a character from season seven who said that the only person he was going to kill was Dean when you witnessed Dean killing his mother. That is this episode. But do you think that Dean did was bad? Wait until you see who he kills ten episodes later.  Oh no. The girl next door. I totally forgot that Jensen directed this episode and he did a good job here. I'll admit I actually totally forgot he directed it as well. I really like seeing the flashbacks of a younger Sam and Aimee. Aimee Jewel-State did a good job playing the adult version of Aimee. I really liked her and would have loved to have seen her appear in the show. But nope. Once again another female character with good potential gets killed off. Dean totally was acting out of character here. I get that due to what happened between him and Castiel has hurt him.  I was angry about what happened. Sucks that Jacob never appeared in the show again. I was basically forgotten because it wasn't been an interesting scene again. Now to be honest I can understand why they don't bring it back. Can you imagine how on earth do you spin that to make your main character look at all as a good character? There's none.  There's no way we can bring this character back. There's no way at all. Also we wasted Jewel-State. What can I say about Girl Next Door? I like the premise of the episode as a whole. However I do have quite a few criticisms for starters. How about Dean not punching his brother in the face after having a head injury three weeks prior and having Sam's wall come down. That's actually another good point.  Here's a tip for the next time Dean. Pick a lower extremity for this season. The second critique I have concerns with is the whole situation between Sam Deem and with Amy. I get where both of the brothers are coming from but Dean has more of a point with trusting Sam right now considering his hallucinations of Lucifer and able to tell what is what. I do appreciate the peril later in the Slice Girls and the first half of season 8 when Benny is compared to this episode. My ranking of this episode is a 4 out of 5 4.5 out of 5 out of 7. I guess I can understand kind of but the fact that Sam does say he knows what is real and what it isn't. It's hard for someone to believe that but when he points it out that it's something that happened to him a long time ago. When he was saying, I don't know, it's a hard road to go. I see where you're coming from here Lauren though. That's probably one of the best offenses I've seen of douche bag Dean. Alright guys those are your thoughts. Next episode. I cannot look up the title of it right now but I know if it's correct it's the one that has spike in it. Let me know what you guys are thoughts about that episode and I will read those comments off in the next video. Anyways that's all from me guys. I hope you enjoyed the video. If you did leave a like and if you're interested in more subscribe. Otherwise, see you guys next time.